September 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 16 September 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 16, 2019

Sept. 16, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 16 September 2019 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/dITkBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 September 2019
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 16, 2019

Sept. 16, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 16 September 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-09-16+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Name Collisions -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrou…, page 55 Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence: -- GNSO Council letter to the Board asking about dependencies with the NCAP report with respect to the new gTLD subsequent procedures. -- More Unknowns than knowns at this stage from the NCAP work. So we need to draw some lines in the sand for our work re: dependencies. -- The lack of high-level agreements so far reflect divisions in the community and in the WG that will make us default to 2012 implementation in most of the topics. -- Some vendors have opted not to bid for the RFP for Study 1, but RFP is still open. -- In the comments, there is no consensus in deferring or not deferring to NCAP or SSAC. -- WG needs to plan for both circumstances: 1) NCAP is completed; 2) NCAP is not completed. -- Question: how many languages/scripts are involved? Answer: name collisions are about strings in ASCII characters. Name collisions only happen "in the wire", meaning that only in ASCII, even though that could be the IDNA representation of an IDN string. -- Question: Has any work been done on the RYSG ask for a look at the effectiveness of the previous mitigation measures? (sorry on mobile so slower reaction time)? Answer: Final report issued by the JAS advisors. Based on their data they do believe the previous mitigation measures have worked. -- Zero mishaps perhaps because we don’t know if controlled interruption actually worked effectively to alert us. -- From a evidence-driven PDP methodology, the only available data says 0. If NCAP work is not completed prior to the next application round, should the default be that the same name collision mitigation frameworks in place today be applied to those TLDs approved for the next round? -- Re: RySG comment, “No. ICANN should, at a minimum, release the studies its done on the names collision frameworks so that the community can judge if the same frameworks should be applied. If ICANN cannot do that, ICANN should conduct a prompt, formal study that quantifies and measures the efficacy of the previous controlled interruption framework should be conducted before modifying or replacing the system, without delaying the next round. Without these baseline measurements, assessing the risks of an alternative CI framework is not possible.” Question: Is there any evidence to the contrary since the JAS report? Answer: NCAP is looking to see if there was anything else. -- There is no evidence that controlled interruption worked as intended. -- Only by asking all Internet users if it worked or not could there be evidence of it having worked 100%. -- Hard to find evidence that may or may not be out there. -- An additional concern is that it wasn’t a vetted community driven design   -- But for all anybody knows, it worked. Despite some FUD on the other direction.   -- It is another unknown as it is a risk assessment ratio risk. -- In response to Rubens…. Rubens part of the scope of Study 1 of NCAP to review the papers and results to come to an assessment - we should not be trying to do that now, as a pdp WG - NCAP will make an independent assessment as per its scope. -- In order to prove it worked, ICANN would have to make some representative strings not go through controlled interruption, and see what happened in that control group compared to the full slate.  -- NCAP study 1 is just a collection of published material, with no conclusion to be made.  -- Suggestion to the final report: 2012 implementation (due to lack of consensus) + substantial refund + possibility of disabling CI on a per-string basis at ICANN Org request. -- Good for the WG to acknowledge the findings of SAC90 and potentially agree with them with respect to collaboration. b. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 2 High-Level Agreements: Re: ICANN must publish, for each type of objection, all supplemental rules as well as all criteria to be used by panelists for the filing of, response to, and evaluation of each objection. Such guidance for decision making by panelists must be more detailed than what was available prior to the 2012 round. (High-Level Agreement C) -- Could the WG include a recommendation this should be done prior to accepting any applications? For those who were part of the community applications, there were supplemental rules created after applications were submitted and after objections. If there are going to be supplemental rules they need to be published prior to applications being submitted. -- Seems like the first three bullets could be very costly, depending on how implemented. -- Don’t think the WG is asking for new rules, just for transparency in supplemental rules and in selecting panelists. -- So there does need to be a balance between transparency and flexibility. There will be some unknowns prior to the applications being submitted. -- Basically anything that is meant to apply to objection procedures must be made available upfront. -- Should we carve out community applications, versus community objections? -- Those that filed/responded to LPI and other objections would liekly agree with increased transparency. -- Community objections were also used by community applications to try resolving their contention sets, not only by standard applications against declared as community applications. -- Do we need to make a There appears to be a concern about the latter being developed on the fly. -- The point is not about CPE here, but rather about how supplemental documents for CPE were published years after ICANN accepted community applications. Unless we are clear in subsequent procedures about supplemental materials not being permitted for objections, then we don’t have any way of preventing them from doing so. -- Important to know costs ahead of time. -- Basically anything that is intended to apply to objection procedures must be made available upfront. -- Can we separate CPE into a separate category of objections? Community Objections are a different discussion. -- Perhaps providing a list of the changed elements would assist the group in understanding the issues you are presenting.  -- CPE is part of string contention resolution.

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 16 September 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 13, 2019

Sept. 13, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 16 September 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: a. Name Collisions -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrou…, page 55 b. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 2 c. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, time permitting, page 15 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Thursday, 12 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 12, 2019

Sept. 12, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 12 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/coTkBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 September 2019
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 12, 2019

Sept. 12, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 12 September 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-09-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Role of Application Comment -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrou…, page 51, Outstanding Items High-Level Agreements: -- Most were presented as implementation guidance. -- Also proposal for applicants to have a short time period to respond to public comments. Application Comment System Usability and Attachments: -- ICANN Org: Comment form does offer a number of the functions that the WG asked to have cover. Attachments are not searchable and sortable. Also could ask cost for review and evaluation Discussion: -- ICANN Org’s comments seem to be backward looking on the existing system. -- ICANN Org will try to use as much of the existing systems as possible. Will assess whether or not the tool is still fit for purpose and if not we will rebuild. -- Clarify that ICANN Org’s concern is not a technical concern for attachments, but that if we allow attachments that means that someone could attach a 300 page document to a comment and it would take the evaluation panel longer to review, with associated costs. -- Compromise is that the substance has to be in the comment itself and the attachment could only be used for reference or confirmation of what is in the comment. -- Still have an issue that anyone can set up an email and send in a comment but it doesn’t mean that they are a real person -- not validating that they are who they say they are. -- ICANN Org: Identify verification is very challenging to do particularly given the volume of applications and application comments. Right now we just make sure it is not a robot. -- Question: Why does the identify of the commenter matter at all? If the comment itself is valuable? Answer: There are two comments -- general comment period and comments that can impact scoring. The person making comments in a community priority evaluation should matter. Important to note that many of the same comments are posted to make it seem like there is widespread concern about an application, but that isn’t necessarily widespread. -- Key point here is that the verification process currently in place does not tackle the larger issue of gaming during public comment, although I realize that it helps reduce automated commenting. How Application Comments are taken into account and impact on scoring: -- ICANN Org -- what does the WG mean when ICANN should be more explicit in the AGB on how different types will or will not impact scoring -- helpful to be more clear about what we mean by “more explicit”. What should the new rules and guidelines be? -- WG is saying that it will still be left to the evaluators to consider those comments but the community should develop guidelines so that we don’t leave them so much discretion. -- Ensure that is a comment comes in that may impact the scoring then applicants should be able to address that directly. Discussion: -- Clarification on ICANN Org comments -- the evaluation panel has to look at those comments that were directed to them. It’s not a matter of whether or not they can choose, especially if that causes them to change a score, then they will have to seek clarification from the applicant. -- But the above isn’t documented in the AGB. -- Part of this is documenting what ICANN Org has already been doing in practice. -- Needs to be more transparency in how comments are considered. -- The WG is saying if the comment could have an impact on the scoring, before it is scored, then ICANN Org seeks clarification. -- For CPE in 2012 the evaluator had the opportunity to reach out at their discretion. -- Note that CPE is unique. One of the criteria for a community application was level of support and another was level of opposition. So there might need to be other issues to consider for Community Applications. Change in the length of time for application comment in relation to Community Priority Evaluation (CPE): -- Support for a longer comment period. -- Support for equal length comment period. -- “letters of opposition” should be considered a form of public comment and should adhere to the same submission deadlines. Concern about comments coming in years later for community applications. Should come in within a defined time period. Discussion: -- Timing of the last round should not be repeated. -- There needs to be an ending point. Need predictability. -- Need to have a beginning, middle, and end. -- 2012 AGB referenced public comment and community objection. No reference to “letters of Opposition”. They should be considered part of public comment. -- Most important to have predictability -- at least a beginning and end. Whether that beginning and end for CPE comment period is run at the exact same time as the general public comment period -- as long as it is predictable. -- If you look at 2012, was most of the substance came in during the public comment period. What came in later was people amplifying previous comments. Left the door open to gaming. -- Why should community applicants be subjected to longer comment periods just because ICANN org chose to put CPE at the end of the evaluation process. would standard applicants be open to longer comment periods if community priority is done at the beginning of subsequent procedures? Responding to comments that might impact scoring through Clarifying Questions; and Applicants given time to respond to the public comments prior to the consideration of those comments: -- NCSG: New Idea - The NCSG believes that if applicants are allowed to respond to comment, commenters should be allowed another round of comments (question 2.3.e.2) -- NCSG: New Idea - Last but not least, the broader community should be allowed to respond, critique and comment on the applicant’s response. It is very important to have this public response period, following applicant’s and something past experience shows it is critical for the future applicant guidebook to include. Discussion: -- Re: NCSG comment -- sounds like too much back and forth. -- Re: NCSG comment -- this is a traditional way of doing things. -- Two questions 1) does the comment affect scoring and the applicant doesn’t respond -- what is the consequence; 2) if the applicant does respond should the commenter be allowed to respond, and what are the consequences. -- Applicants have the option to respond or not to comments -- if the comment is positive, there is less reason TO respond, if the comment is negative, then evaluators may rely on that omission TO RESPOND as a presumption of some sort or not. -- Finish the loop -- make sure they did address the comment. -- Could support giving the commenter an opportunity to respond in a defined time and manner. -- Think about certain of number of days for comment, reply, comment. Only use for a limited purpose. b. Name Collisions -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrou…, page 55 -- No high-level agreements. -- Very technical issue being addressed in other areas of the community. -- Not enough from a policy perspective. -- We do know that there is an NCAP Phase 1 study that is starting -- RFP, but don’t know if a vendor has been selected. Don’t know if Phase 1 will lead to Phase 2. Don’t know what Phase 2 would be. -- The PDP WG Co-Chairs asked the Council to clarify with the Board what it is thinking in terms of dependencies. GNSO Council drafted a note to send to the Board, Co-Chairs commented asking for more specificity, forwarded draft to the WG, GNSO Council will send to the Board. 3. AOB: Update on SLAs -- Where are we on providing more details with the SLAs? Some information provided by GDD but not the same level of detail as was provided to the contracted parties. -- Staff spoke with GDD to convey the problems we are trying to solve and when might they deliver. It is a non-negligible amount of work to get that information. Could the WG further refine the problem it is trying to solve. Perhaps GDD could tailor that information. -- We have seen ICANN use that data in certain ways. -- If we can’t get the context of what is behind the data then we can’t make any assumptions. -- Jim Prendergast will follow up with more comments via email.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 12 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Sept. 11, 2019

Sept. 11, 2019

Hi Anne, Thanks for your thorough review of the document. I’ve added some comments to the document to help clarify where everything is captured. Where the responses to questions e.1-e.8 connected back to the preliminary recommendations, these have been included in the summary document in the same section to make it easier to see everything on the related topic together. I noticed that there was one comment from RySG in response to e.7 that wasn’t sufficiently captured and have added that. Where comments apply to either all of the recommendations or all of the recommendations and questions, the summary of the comment is included just once at the top of the outstanding issues section (I’ve added a note in the document to highlight these for reference). Since this is a summary document, this is simply done for brevity to avoid repeating the same text again and again. On the clarification below from ALAC, I see that Justine has added some text to the document to reflect the below. Please let us know if you see anything else that you think needs to be added or clarified. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2019 at 00:40 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 12 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC Hi All – it appears from the summary document section on Name Collisions that there are some cross references to public comment questions missing. The missing cross-references include 2.7.8 (e) (1) through (8.) It would be helpful if these cross-references could be added to the summary document. The topic of “dependency” which Rubens and I have been debating on the list is treated in responses to 2.7.8.(e()1). Below I paste the public comment on 2.7.8.(e) (1) “Dependency”. The last box was cut off but it is the ALAC comment re deferring to the SSAC and we have an updated clarification from ALAC as follows: Hi Jeff, In reply to your request for further clarification, the ALAC is saying: The Subsequent Procedures WG can conclude its work, and implementation may proceed, BUT EITHER ICANN may not launch the application window until the NCAP study(ies) are completed and any recommendations resulting from those study(ies) are addressed in implementation OR ICANN may launch the application window and start the evaluation process, but no TLD may be delegated until the NCAP Study(ies) is/are completed and any recommendations resulting from those study(ies) are retroactively incorporated. Kind regards, Justine Chew ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures Thank you, Anne [cid:image001.png@01D567EB.FD2BF6B0] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 7:51 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 12 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 12 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC (*NOTE NEW TIME*) for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: a. Role of Application Comment -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrou… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>, page 51, Outstanding Items b. Name Collisions -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrou… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>, page 55 c. Objections (time permitting) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>, page 2 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

FW: FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies
by Jeff Neuman Sept. 11, 2019

Sept. 11, 2019

All, We just wanted to forward this note to the SubPro PDP Full Working Group. Cheryl and I were asked by the GNSO Council Leadership to give our thoughts to them about the attached draft letter from the Council to the ICANN Board. We provided this feedback and as you can see we made it clear that the redlines are from Cheryl and I and not the Working Group. Please let us know if you have any questions. Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:44 PM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr(a)gmail.com) (langdonorr(a)gmail.com) <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Pam Little <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org; gnso-chairs(a)icann.org; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Subject: RE: FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies Dear Keith, Pam and Rafik, Please find enclosed Cheryl and my redlines to the draft letter. We do not believe the substance of the letter has been changed at all, but rather just added some more specificity. This letter contains only the comments of Cheryl and I and not the Subsequent Procedures Working Group. There are so many people making so many arguments and even if the Board says that there are "dependencies", I think they need to be specific as to which exact step is the completion of the NCAP work dependent on. What is the exact point where we cannot move forward. Some people say the Board cannot accept the final policy without this work being done. Some say the policy can be completed, but implementation work cannot be completed prior to the NCAP finishing. Some say that can complete but we cannot complete the AGB. Some say we can complete that but we cannot announce the new round. Some say we can announce but cannot accept applications. Some say we can do it all but not delegate. And finally some say we can delegate and use existing name collision model until NCAP states otherwise. We hope this makes sense and please forward to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Thanks again for reaching out to us. We are going to forward this correspondence chain to the Full Working Group as well. Best regards, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subsequent Procedures Co-Chairs Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 6:48 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>) (langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>) <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> Subject: FW: FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies Jeff/Cheryl, FYI, attached is the draft Council letter to the Board on NCAP and SubPro. This has been sent to the Council list for consideration and comment. Best, Keith From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 3:47 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] FOR REVIEW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on NCAP-SubPro Dependencies Hi all, Attached for your review is a draft letter from the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board concerning dependencies between the NCAP and Subsequent Procedures PDP. Please review and advise if you have any comments or questions. We can discuss on the list and this will be included on the agenda for our 19 September GNSO Council meeting. Thanks, Keith ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

2 1

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 12 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 10, 2019

Sept. 10, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 12 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC (*NOTE NEW TIME*) for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: a. Role of Application Comment -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrou…, page 51, Outstanding Items b. Name Collisions -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrou…, page 55 c. Objections (time permitting) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 2 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal on Prioritising Applications - prohibition on applying in a later round for a string from a prior round which has not yet been delegated
by Rubens Kuhl Sept. 9, 2019

Sept. 9, 2019

> > Jeff sent an email stating that all future applications for the .HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL strings were already banned by the Board resolution. (This was inaccurate and had to be addressed in the attached September 6 email quoting the Board resolution.) Then Rubens sent a note to the list stating that in his opinion, there is no longer a dependency between the Name Collision Analysis Project and the policy being developed by this WG. I wouldn't say "no longer" because I never believed in that. But the no-bid from JAS advisors from study 1 explained why much more eloquently than me, so I don't see how any reasonable analysis could still believe in such dependency. > This is inaccurate because Study 1 of the NCAP is proceeding and there is a half day meeting on that topic in Montreal on Friday November 1. These (very specific) comments from Leadership certainly required specific responses, especially since we will address name collision policy in the upcoming call. Many of the public comments simply state “Defer to the SSAC” so that’s important. The ALAC clarification on this point (from Justine Chew) says the following: The public comments in every ICANN topic, not only in this one, are always biased with more disagreement than agreement. This is natural but doesn't represent that everything should be the other way around. > > I can’t imagine why we would ask the WG to develop policy impacting Applicant Freedom of Expression without looking at the attached list of strings that would enjoy protected status prohibiting future applications by the proposed language. If these 2012 applications are outside the Charter as Rubens asserts, then they are definitely outside the scope of giving them preference by banning future applications for the same string. As Alex points out, “apply at your own risk.” > Name collisions in the CHM applications are outside the charter, but this is totally unrelated to subsequent procedures decision of what to allow to be applied for or not, which is on-topic for the WG. Rubens

1 0

Proposal on Prioritising Applications - prohibition on applying in a later round for a string from a prior round which has not yet been delegated
by Susan Payne Sept. 9, 2019

Sept. 9, 2019

All During a call a couple of weeks ago, when we were discussing application prioritisation, I volunteered to circulate for consideration a proposal to prohibit allowing applications in a later application window where the string has previously been applied for and not yet been delegated. Although it had originally been proposed that this might extend to confusingly similar strings, having reflected on the discussion during the call I accept that this would probably be unrealistic, since confusing similarity needs to be determined as part of the TLD evaluation process. I have therefore limited this proposal to exact match strings, as follows: * This proposal assumes that we will have at least one further application round/open window for submission of applications, and possibly that there may be a number of such future open windows during which applications may be submitted, followed by some closed period when applications are not received, before the next application window opens (I will use the phrase “application submission period”). * Where one or more applicants for a particular TLD string have applied for that string in a prior application submission period (including the 2012 application submission period); and * The TLD has not been withdrawn but has not yet proceeded to delegation for whatever reason, including but not limited to: * One or more of the applications has not yet completed evaluation; * One or more of the applications is still the subject of an objection process * The contention set has not yet been resolved; * There is an ongoing accountability process, [appeal] or other legal challenge underway with respect to a decision(s) relating to one or more application; * Time within which to commence an accountability process, [appeal] or other legal challenge on such a decision is still running; * The exact match to that TLD string shall be blocked from application during future application submission periods until such time as the prior round application(s) have finally been concluded, according the rules under which they applied: * If the TLD string is delegated to one of the earlier applicants, then that string will remain unavailable for later applicants; * If all of the earlier applications are finally rejected, then (provided that a decision has not been made by the Board to permanently refuse that string) the TLD string will once again become available for application: * from the next application submission period, provided that this allows a minimum of 3 months notice before the application submission period opens; or, * If the next application submission period opens in less than 3 months, then the subsequent application submission period. Rationale We know that, many years after the 2012 application submission period closed, there are still a handful of applications for TLD strings which remain unresolved, generally due to delays caused by recourse to ICANNs accountability mechanisms. Whilst we all hope that in subsequent procedures we will have fewer of the challenges that we saw in the 2012 round, it is reasonable to assume that some will still occur. In any event, if subsequent procedures take the form of a series of discrete application submission periods, with known, finite, periods between them, then it is conceivable that applications from one application submission period may still be being processed when then next application submission period opens. If the period between application submission periods is reasonably short (12 months has been discussed, for example) we could conceivably see the added complication of applications for the same string being queued up across multiple windows. Whilst a later applicant who applied unsuccessfully for a TLD, which was eventually allocated to an applicant from a prior application submission period, could expect to recover their application fee, there is a cost to putting together an application in excess of the ICANN fee, and this would not be recoverable. The later applicant could also have their application fee tied up for months or even years, pending the outcome of the earlier application(s). Some have argued that this is the choice of the later applicant, that they can check whether there are prior “live” applications and decide accordingly whether they still want to apply. I believe this does a disservice to potential applicants, particularly those who are not so familiar with all of the history of prior applications and who may not appreciate that in many cases they would have no realistic prospect of being allocated the TLD string that ICANN has allowed them to apply for. Blocking the TLD from application, until such time as the previous applications are resolved, seems a much fairer approach. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Valideus ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

5 12