October 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - ICANN69 Sessions Wednesday, 14 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 9, 2020

Oct. 9, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG Working Sessions at ICANN69 on Wednesday, 14 October 2020 at: Working Session 1 of 2 at 14:00 CEST/12:00 UTC for 90 minutes -- See: https://69.schedule.icann.org/meetings/oATf8ZTYxS9pC734Q Working Session 2 of 2 at 16:00 CEST/14:00 UTC for 60 minutes -- See: https://69.schedule.icann.org/meetings/g696FRw6tdbCetCDX Note that participation links will be published 24 hours prior to the session start. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/GgebC>): 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9vbkFUNEAb55oEPCFRsdrDlowh06zIUBiU… and review the following topics; we will cover as many as time permits over the two Working Sessions: * #17 Applicant Support * #34 Community Applications * #32 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism * #9 Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments * #20 Application Change Requests * #35 Auctions/Private Resolutions * #2 Predictability * #23 Closed Generics 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>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 October at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 8, 2020

Oct. 8, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 08 October at 15:00 UTC. 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/2020-10-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments (PICs), bullet A; Re: “The language of the Bylaws, however, could preclude ICANN from entering into future registry agreements (that materially differ in form from the 2012 round version currently in force) that include PICs that reach outside of ICANN’s technical mission as stated in the Bylaws. The language of the Bylaws specifically limits ICANN’s negotiating and contracting power to PICs that are “in service of its Mission.” The Board is concerned, therefore, that the current Bylaws language would create issues for ICANN to enter and enforce any content-related issue regarding PICs or Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs).” ACTION ITEM: WG Leadership will reach out to the Board liaisons and put some thoughts into an email. Topic 17: bullet B, Pro Bono Assistance Program; “B. Implementation Guidance 17.14 states that “ICANN org should seek funding partners to help financially support the Applicant Support Program, as appropriate.” The ICANN Board notes that this would change the role of ICANN, as ICANN is not a grant-seeking organization. Alternatively, ICANN org – through the Pro Bono Assistance Program – could act as a facilitator in the introduction of industry players or potential funding partners to the prospective entrants.” ACTION ITEM: Ask the Board liaisons for guidance/context. Look at the Pro Bono Assistance Program. e. Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations, bullet B; Re: “The Board asks the PDP WG to include recommendations and implementation guidance for objective evaluation criteria to determine “different intended uses” because we believe this will be invaluable to ensure consistent and transparent processes regarding this element in string similarity evaluations. (Pg. 103) ACTION ITEM: Consider whether to add Implementation Guidance and rationale relating to criteria for “different intended uses”. Topic 34: Community Applications, bullet B, Bylaws considerations “A. The Board believes these clarifications are required in order for the Board to assess whether it is in the best interests of ICANN and the ICANN community to proceed with CPEs in the next round.” --and-- “B. In this context the Board also encourages the PDP WG to consider the mission-limitation that derives from the Bylaws, which state that ICANN will not restrict “services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide (Section 1.1 (c)). The PDP WG may want to review the impact this provision might have on ICANN’s ability to enforce the content of community TLDs post delegation.” ACTION ITEM: The WG leadership should seek guidance from the Board liaisons. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Paul McGrady: Appointed by the IPC as the Policy Coordinator; this is a volunteer position. Updated his SOI. 2. ICANN69 Update – Begin Public Comment Review of Selected Topics -- Email from staff that the spreadsheet of responses is cleaned up the spreadsheet and set it to allow download. -- The spreadsheet is not the document the WG will use to review comments. -- Staff is creating a Public Comment Review Tool organized by topic and level of support. The tool will be used for the WG to review the comments. -- Tool will be ready to send to the WG no later than the end of the week. -- We have a draft Work Plan. Staff can send it to the WG, although it still is a draft. -- Not going in depth into every single subject, especially those that got very few comments or got support from the community. -- Will focus on those topics where there are comments that introduce new ideas. -- Timeline will require some sort of flexibility. ICANN org and Board comments are quite extensive and instructive. 3. Discussion of selected topics from the ICANN Board of Directors comments on the SubPro PDP WG draft Final Report – possible topics related to authority and/or potential Bylaws issues include the following (see attached document): a. Topic 2 Predictability, bullets C and E “C. With regard to the proposed Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT), the Board encourages the PDP WG to consider whether there are established processes within the GNSO (or within ICANN’s multistakeholder model) that might serve the intended role(s) of the SPIRT, rather than creating new ones.” -- Believe that the WG has considered established processes at length. -- Much of the work of the SPIRT that the work was not envisioned to be policy; didn’t identify processes that did what the SPIRT would do. -- Do agree that the statement about the GNSO Operating Procedures taking precedence should be moved from Implementation Guidance to Recommendation; this suggestion will be discussed further. -- GAC wanted the WG to clarify what the role of the GAC and other parts of ICANN would be in the SPIRT. -- Thought the Board was asking the WG to tell them that the WG took a good look at all of the alternatives. Not sure we built out what a non-SPIRT process would look like. “E. It may also be useful for the PDP WG to consider the role of precedent in the Predictability Framework, e.g., can SPIRT recommendations form a body of decisions to guide handling of issues and increase efficiencies? (Pg. 16)” -- Would think that once there is an outcome from the SPIRT that should establish some sort of precedent. -- This was a weird question. There is sort of an automatic precedential effect. The idea of formal precedent doesn’t seem necessary. There is history. -- Important point is that the SPIRT is not meant to look at one registry in particular, but at overall issues. -- Other important point is that the SPIRT does not make decisions. It can advise the GNSO Council. It can’t set precedent. -- Probably should respond to the Board that precedent isn’t set by the SPIRT but by the decision made by the GNSO Council or Board. -- I don't think it says the body of decision "comes" from SPIRT - I think body of decisions comes from GNSO Council, per the way SPIRT is structured. -- The word “predictability” indicates that the SPIRT is created to maintain predictability. -- The WG will record its response to commenters in the PCRT and/or in the rationale of the Final Report. b. Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments (PICs), bullet A Re: “The language of the Bylaws, however, could preclude ICANN from entering into future registry agreements (that materially differ in form from the 2012 round version currently in force) that include PICs that reach outside of ICANN’s technical mission as stated in the Bylaws. The language of the Bylaws specifically limits ICANN’s negotiating and contracting power to PICs that are “in service of its Mission.” The Board is concerned, therefore, that the current Bylaws language would create issues for ICANN to enter and enforce any content-related issue regarding PICs or Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs).” -- Seems odd that the Board would ask the WG about what is allowed in the Bylaws; seems that is a determination that is made by ICANN as a determination. -- Not sure this question is relevant for the WG to consider. -- Could say that whether or not it is in the scope of the ICANN Bylaws at this time, this is something we want the community to do. ICANN org figures out how to do it. -- Need more information from the Board concerning the context for their concern. -- The Bylaws changes came after the 2012 round. -- The concern is with new provisions relating to RVCs and PICs that might be adopted in the next round. -- Without PICs and RVCs in future rounds, many of our "solutions" unravel and there is NO WAY we are getting this in by the end of the year. -- At the end of the day if we asked for legal advice would only be interpreting it under the existing Bylaws. -- There is a lot of interpretation lying behind the Board statement. The whole issue of content regulation: “regulation” is defined in the Bylaws. Something in a contract is not a regulation. -- One short answer could be that while we hadn’t considered it in detail we think that ICANN can enforce PICs under the existing Bylaws. -- We have recommended PICs and RVCs for resolution of issues with the GAC after Early Warning as well as resolution of Objections after public comment on the proposed resolution. Our whole system is depending on PICs and RVCs. I don't think this amounts to content regulation, but maybe the resolution is to put the PICDRP OUTSIDE of ICANN and into an independent panel. -- It is probably not unreasonable to look at the Board’s comments as risk adverse and controlling risk. -- Not the WG’s role to manage/mitigate risks. ACTION ITEM: WG Leadership will reach out to the Board liaisons and put some thoughts into an email. “B. In its comment on the Initial Report, the Board asked the PDP WG to give more clarity on how to frame “public interest” in the context of a PIC and the PIC Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP). We note that this has not yet been developed. We would like to reiterate our view that clear guidance on this issue will be valuable, and we encourage the PDP WG to work to that end. Specifically, we ask that the PDP WG provide clear and consistent implementation guidance on “public interest” in this context, to ensure that objective enforceability lies within ICANN’s mission. (See also our comment on Topic 24 below.)” -- The WG did consider how to frame “public interest”, but we viewed it more as resolving conflicts. -- Need to give this further consideration. c. Topic 17: bullet B, Pro Bono Assistance Program “B. Implementation Guidance 17.14 states that “ICANN org should seek funding partners to help financially support the Applicant Support Program, as appropriate.” The ICANN Board notes that this would change the role of ICANN, as ICANN is not a grant-seeking organization. Alternatively, ICANN org – through the Pro Bono Assistance Program – could act as a facilitator in the introduction of industry players or potential funding partners to the prospective entrants.” -- Want to ask the Board that they did give grants out in the first round, should that not have been allowed. -- Applicant Support is a huge issue for the community. It will involve coordination between applicants and providers. -- Helpful to know more about what is behind this. -- Didn’t read this that they couldn’t be a grant providing organization. The concern is being a grant-seeking organization. -- The original intent for the 2012 round Applicant Support Program was for ICANN to act as a facilitator. -- Could explore the Pro Bono Assistance Program. -- ICANN would also need to ensure that they are not favoring one provider over another for pro bono services, so that may also be a concern. This has come up previously with the communications strategy whereby ICANN would not pursue on the basis that they could not favor or promote one gTLD over another. ACTION ITEM: Ask the Board liaisons for guidance/context. Look at the Pro Bono Assistance Program. d. Topic 23: Closed Generics -- ICANN Board is punting it back to the WG. -- Saying that the Board will ultimately make a decision of what is in its best interest. Their resolution was not meant to dictate any boundaries on any advice that the WG would want to provide them. e. Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations, bullet B; -- This is related to the discussion of reliance on PICs. -- We put it in PICs so that it needs to be enforced, versus RVCs. -- Re: “The Board asks the PDP WG to include recommendations and implementation guidance for objective evaluation criteria to determine “different intended uses” because we believe this will be invaluable to ensure consistent and transparent processes regarding this element in string similarity evaluations. (Pg. 103) -- If we give them some criteria it could go into the rationale section as examples. Criteria could go into the Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Consider whether to add Implementation Guidance and rationale relating to criteria for “different intended uses”. f. Topic 25: Internationalized Domain Names -- Want to clarify what we mean by IDN tables vetted by the community. -- This is part of a larger discussion and part of a comment period. -- We should be looking at that in the context of everything else that is going on in this topic. g. Topic 29: Name Collisions “The Board encourages the PDP WG to provide details on how future NCAP study results should be dealt with in future rounds. Would these need to initiate new policy processes and how would such processes affect ongoing rounds?” -- Think we sort of addressed this. Should not be implemented mid-stream. - Think we addressed this but will consider again when we look at specific comments. h. Topic 34: Community Applications, bullet B, Bylaws considerations “A. The Board believes these clarifications are required in order for the Board to assess whether it is in the best interests of ICANN and the ICANN community to proceed with CPEs in the next round.” -- Sounds like the Board wants to be relieved of the burden to allow Community Applications. -- Or they are questioning whether CPE is a good way to resolve contentions. Also symptomatic of the fact that our recommendations are high level and not detailed enough. “B. In this context the Board also encourages the PDP WG to consider the mission-limitation that derives from the Bylaws, which state that ICANN will not restrict “services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide (Section 1.1 (c)). The PDP WG may want to review the impact this provision might have on ICANN’s ability to enforce the content of community TLDs post delegation.” -- Related to the content regulation. Want to make sure they can enforce the contracts but not get into content regulation. ACTION ITEM: The WG leadership should seek guidance from the Board liaisons.

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 08 October 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 8, 2020

Oct. 8, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 08 October 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/MwjQC> (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 Terri

1 0

Update re: Draft Final Report Public Comment Data and Review Tool
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

Dear WG members, As an update on the Draft Final Report public comments, staff would like to alert you to the following two ways you will be able to access and analyze the comments. Spreadsheet of Responses: First, as you may know, the comments submitted in the public comment forum<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-draft-final-…> for the SubPro draft Final Report are published in the form of a spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VOCuHrCIWc3D9aJV2-woOob8atmg6o20AzE…>. This spreadsheet reflects the comments without any analysis – essentially the raw data. Staff has cleaned up the spreadsheet and made it easier to read. We have also enabled the settings to allow viewers and commenters can see the option to download, print, and copy. Please let us know if you have any questions concerning access to the document. Public Comment Review Tool: Second, to assist WG members in reviewing the public comments, which the WG will commence next week at the working sessions at ICANN69, staff are organizing the comments in order by topic and level of support in a Public Comment Review Tool. This tool – which is the form commonly used by PDP WGs to review and analyze comments – will make it more efficient for the WG to conduct its review. Staff is prioritizing the input of the comments into the tool according to the topics identified by the WG leadership for the WG to review at ICANN69 as follows: #17 Applicant Support #34 Community Applications #32 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism #9 Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments #20 Application Change Requests #35 Auctions/Private Resolutions #2 Predictability #23 Closed Generics Staff anticipates being able to share links to the Public Comment Review Tool for the above topics likely before the end of this week. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 08 October at 15:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 08 October 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of selected topics from the ICANN Board of Directors comments on the SubPro PDP WG draft Final Report – possible topics related to authority and/or potential Bylaws issues include the following (see attached document): * Topic 2 Predictability, bullets C and F; * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments (PICs), bullet A; * Topic 17: bullet B, Pro Bono Assistance Program; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations, bullet B; * Topic 25: Internationalized Domain Names; * Topic 29: Name Collisions; * Topic 34: Community Applications, bullet B, Bylaws considerations 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>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 1

Please share: ICANN69 Policy Outlook Report is now available
by Terri Agnew Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

Dear all, The ICANN69 Policy Outlook Report (formerly known as the Pre-ICANN69 Policy Report) is now available: http://go.icann.org/outlook69 [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/go.icann.org/outlook69__;!!PtGJab4!svNgH6…>. IMPORTANT NOTE: Participation links will be posted 24-hours prior to the session start times for security purposes. Meeting registration is now required to view the full meeting schedule. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

REMINDER TO REGISTER! / ICANN69: GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

Dear all, All ICANN69 GNSO sessions have been listed for your reference on the ICANN69 GNSO wiki page. For all access information and Zoom details however, please refer to the ICANN69 schedule on the meeting website. Registration is compulsory to access the meeting schedule. Access information will not be circulated via mailing lists. The ICANN meeting website, which ICANN Meetings’ Team has put together, allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. HOW TO DOWNLOAD ICANN69 SESSION INFORMATION TO YOUR CALENDARS: Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN69 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage [69.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/69.schedule.icann.org/__;!!PtGJab4!sbCM1…> and create a profile and login. Every session on the Full Agenda can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the [cid:image001.png@01D69C7B.8F6BDE90] (blue ‘ + ’ box) in the upper right corner of each meeting. This adds it to your individual schedule, My Agenda, which you can then add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - To import your schedule into your calendar: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to your schedule, click on [cid:image002.png@01D69C7B.8F6BDE90] (View My Agenda) * Click the down arrow next to Export * Select Export My Agenda (ics) * Open the exported meetings .ics and add to your chosen calendar (click on “Other Calendar” if the feature is not working properly) * For Microsoft Outlook, right-click on the exported meetings .ics file and choose Show in Folder Right-click on the file, and select Open with Microsoft Outlook. Save & Close. Note: Your Agenda can only be exported from the desktop app; the ICANN69 phone app does not offer this feature Step 3 - All remote participation sessions will use Zoom rooms. You can find the Zoom room links for public meetings on the ICANN69 Meeting Schedule [69.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/69.schedule.icann.org/agenda*/?limit=20&…>. PLEASE ENSURE YOU HAVE UPDATED YOUR ZOOM APP TO THE LATEST VERSION TO ACCESS ICANN69 SESSIONS. Please download the latest Zoom app [zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/zoom.us/download__;!!PtGJab4!sbCM1efylOx…> on your participation device (mobile or desktop computer). Need to learn or brush-up on using Zoom? Check out the Joining a Zoom Meeting Tutorial [support.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362…>. Step 4 - Download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN Meetings” in your app stores. There are three options to connect your audio: 1) Via VoIP, choose Computer Audio (from a smartphone choose Call using Internet Audio) 2) Getting a dial out from Zoom to your phone, choose Call Me (from a smartphone choose Call My Phone) 3) Phoning into the audio bridge (access numbers and Meeting ID are provided for that option), choose Telephone Audio (from a smartphone choose Dial in) 3 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN69 Meeting Schedule [69.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/69.schedule.icann.org/agenda*/?limit=20&…> GNSO ICANN69 Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/NwGNC> GNSO Session agendas<https://community.icann.org/x/CwGNC> For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

ICANN69 GNSO Policy Briefing Available for Download
by Julie Bisland Oct. 6, 2020

Oct. 6, 2020

Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Team, I am happy to report that the GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN69 is now available for download at https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/go.icann.org/gnsobriefing__;!!PtGJab4!qy…>. Happy reading! Best Regards, Julie -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Corrected: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 01 October at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 1, 2020

Oct. 1, 2020

Dear Working Group members, -- Please see below the corrected email. In the previous version the notes were incomplete. -- Please see below the notes from the meeting on 01 October at 03:00 UTC. 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/2020-10-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance 4-B Opposition: ACTION ITEM: Add to the Guidelines where it says for non-negligible size consider the proportion to the overall size of the community that the applicant is aiming to serve. ACTION ITEM: Check to see if the issue of whether there is a direct or remote connection between the group opposing and the string being applied for is captured in the existing Guidelines (see At-Large proposal). Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Public Comments on Draft Final Report: -- The public comment forum closed today. -- We’ve received comments from the GAC, the Board, and ICANN org. -- Staff will produce a Public Comment Review Tool in the next few weeks that is arranged by topic, so you don’t need to rely on the Google spreadsheet that is posted, which is hard to read. -- Staff also will post a more easily readable and downloadable version of the spreadsheet. -- Staff will prioritize input into the tool for those topics that we want to discuss at the two ICANN69 sessions (Closed Generics, Predictability, etc.). These are the same topics we covered in the Webinar a few weeks ago. -- We aren’t going to do the type of quantitative analysis – number and type of response – with the donut charts as they did in the RPMs PDP WG because we are focusing on doing a qualitative assessment. 3. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=… and also the redline submitted by Justine Chew reflecting the changes from the Proposal by At-Large dated 11 Jun 2020:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS13a70f3BGx0b1gOyjvvRCoAKvxtlfO/e… – start at 4-B Opposition in the WG document, page 19, and then proceed to Criterion 1/overall comments from Justine 4-B Opposition: -- We did make a recommendation on are a couple other recommendations, namely that evaluators can question, those that submitted letters of support and or opposition: “Letters of opposition to a community based application if any must be considered in balance with documented support for the application.” Discussion: Re: “Relevance” and “relevant” refer to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed. This means that opposition from communities not identified in the application but with an association to the applied for string would be considered relevant.” -- Comment from Jamie Baxter re: “Relevance” -- As discussed on the last call, guidance for “relevance” in 4-B must include a balance of opposition in relation to documented support, and not just an isolated determination of whether the opposing entity is part of the community explicitly or implicitly addressed. One misaligned community member/entity should not have the power to impact CPE scores of a largely aligned community, yet that was the EIU’s interpretation and practice in the 2012 round. To illustrate this point, if an applicant has hundreds of organizations from around the world supporting an application, and those endorsements represent the voices of tens of thousands of other local and regional organizations, then an expression of opposition from one single, small and even locally based organization from within the defined community among the thousands globally expressing support should not be able to put 1 of the 2 CPE points for this criteria in jeopardy.” -- It's also about the size of that opposition compared to the scope of that community. One small segment in a larger community really doesn’t have relevance in the larger picture. Make sure we capture that concept. -- That is included in the balance part of our recommendation. -- The definition of relevance is incredibly important because as you see there if just one group submits a letter of opposition and it's deemed to be relevant, then the score automatically goes you know down a point and in an evaluation, where one needed to score 14 out of 16. That is pretty substantial against an applicant. -- There just needs to be a better calculus here because otherwise, it doesn't give the applicant any way of understanding how they're going to rule on a lot of this stuff. “Non-negligible” is a bizarre definition with no real basis. -- Who we appointed as the evaluator becomes important. Okay, so that's that goes back to the At-Large request to have more communities participation and saying, who is appointed as the evaluator. -- Recommended the introduction of a challenge mechanism for those applicants who thought they had been misjudged. -- We haven’t addressed the role of applicant comment in totality. The identities of the commenters should be established. -- Don’t think we have established a fixed period of application comment for Community Based-Applicants that should be the same as all other applicants, and there shouldn’t be a separate call for letters of support or opposition. -- The GAC has said that the evaluators should be experts in communities, with a list of criteria. -- Do need to include whether opposition is negligible or is of non-negligible size in proportion to the overall size of the community that is being represented by the applicant – that the applicant is aiming to serve. -- At-Large proposal: The bit about whether there is a direct or remote connection between the group opposing and the string being applied for that may not be captured in the existing document. ACTION ITEM: Add to the Guidelines where it says for non-negligible size consider the proportion to the overall size of the community that the applicant is aiming to serve. ACTION ITEM: Check to see if the issue of whether there is a direct or remote connection between the group opposing and the string being applied for is captured in the existing Guidelines (see At-Large proposal). Overall Principles (At-Large Proposal): Delineation between economic and non-economic communities. Criterion #1: Community Establishment: “Any distinction between a Community based on a common economic interest (CEI model) and a Community advocating for Human Rights (CHR model) should not serve as a basis for preferring one over the other.” -- For scoring 1 point changed to “reasonably delineated community” rather than “clearly delineated” so there's a bit of flexibility there. -- We also attempted to introduce community expertise into the fold by suggesting that any reasonably delineated community that is recognized by, say for example, United Nations or maybe any international other international organizations or Subject Matter Expert with international or regional standing, they recognize the community as existing then it should score high that that community should by right feature quite highly. -- On Delineation: If it's an economic grouping you score high if it's a human rights grouping you also score high, so long as they are you know either clearly delineated or by a general governmental organization or some expert of reasonable standing, and if the grouping is less clearly delineated it could still score one. -- Question: Why do you say “non-economic community” instead of “human rights” community? Not sure what a human rights community encompasses. Answer: The concern that was raised when we were discussing this was a clear distinction between economic groupings and non-economic groupings, but in particular with the non-economic groupings they would encompass mostly human rights. Some human rights are not rights in some countries and could even be illegal, which could prevent some people from being members of a certain grouping or declaring support, but that group should be at a disadvantage if it can’t have a clear membership. -- Question: Could you instead have two groupings, one that is based on economic or common economic interest and one that is not, to avoid using the term “human rights”? -- If you look at the United Nations, there are various protected classes. The opportunity here is to allow an applicant to show how they're delineated based on existing standards or prior identifications whether their classes or whatever. And that is how they establish third delineation. -- Why not just say any distinction between a community based on common economic interest and a community, not based on a common economic interest should not serve as a basis for prefer one over the other. Scoring Threshold: -- The working group to consider recommending lowering the threshold for preventing CP from 14 to 12 points. -- We will need to have a separate conversation on the threshold. You might say that if you got a zero on any criterion you should be excluded. Need to think about how it flows through the sub-criteria. -- If the criteria and sub-criteria are not linked then the likelihood of that happening is actually very low. -- From the AGB: “The sequence of the criteria reflects the order in which they will be assessed by the panel. The utmost care has been taken to avoid any "double-counting" - any negative aspect found in assessing an application for one criterion should only be counted there and should not affect the assessment for other criteria.” -- If the applicants hadn’t been under such scrutiny in the 2012 round the scores probably would have been higher. -- Improving the scoring criteria and lowering the scoring threshold would provide the best improvement of the CPE. -- If the WG makes these changes then the intention would be to increase the number of applicants that pass CPE, so we need to confirm that intention. Next Meeting: -- Applicant Support -- Selected Board comments on the draft Final Report

1 0

FW: ICANN Org SubPro comments
by Karen Lentz Oct. 1, 2020

Oct. 1, 2020

Dear all, Forwarding for your information the input from ICANN org to the draft Final Report. We have also submitted this for addition into the comment tool being used for this comment forum. Best regards, Karen From: Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 5:10 PM To: "jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com" <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>, "langdonorr(a)gmail.com" <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> Cc: Goran Marby <goran.marby(a)icann.org>, Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Subject: ICANN Org SubPro comments Dear Cheryl and Jeff, Please find the attached letter and submission from ICANN org regarding the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Draft final report. I hope you and your families are well. Kind regards, Theresa

5 7

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 01 October at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 1, 2020

Oct. 1, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 01 October at 03:00 UTC. 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/2020-10-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance 4-B Opposition: ACTION ITEM: Add to the Guidelines where it says for non-negligible size consider the proportion to the overall size of the community that the applicant is aiming to serve. ACTION ITEM: Check to see if the issue of whether there is a direct or remote connection between the group opposing and the string being applied for is captured in the existing Guidelines (see At-Large proposal). Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Public Comments on Draft Final Report: -- The public comment forum closed today. -- We’ve received comments from the GAC, the Board, and ICANN org. -- Staff will produce a Public Comment Review Tool in the next few weeks that is arranged by topic, so you don’t need to rely on the Google spreadsheet that is posted, which is hard to read. -- Staff also will post a more easily readable and downloadable version of the spreadsheet. -- Staff will prioritize input into the tool for those topics that we want to discuss at the two ICANN69 sessions (Closed Generics, Predictability, etc.). These are the same topics we covered in the Webinar a few weeks ago. -- We aren’t going to do the type of quantitative analysis – number and type of response – with the donut charts as they did in the RPMs PDP WG because we are focusing on doing a qualitative assessment. 3. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=… and also the redline submitted by Justine Chew reflecting the changes from the Proposal by At-Large dated 11 Jun 2020:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS13a70f3BGx0b1gOyjvvRCoAKvxtlfO/e… – start at 4-B Opposition in the WG document, page 19, and then proceed to Criterion 1/overall comments from Justine 4-B Opposition: -- We did make a recommendation on are a couple other recommendations, namely that evaluators can question, those that submitted letters of support and or opposition: “Letters of opposition to a community based application if any must be considered in balance with documented support for the application.” Discussion: Re: “Relevance” and “relevant” refer to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed. This means that opposition from communities not identified in the application but with an association to the applied for string would be considered relevant.” -- Comment from Jamie Baxter re: “Relevance” -- As discussed on the last call, guidance for “relevance” in 4-B must include a balance of opposition in relation to documented support, and not just an isolated determination of whether the opposing entity is part of the community explicitly or implicitly addressed. One misaligned community member/entity should not have the power to impact CPE scores of a largely aligned community, yet that was the EIU’s interpretation and practice in the 2012 round. To illustrate this point, if an applicant has hundreds of organizations from around the world supporting an application, and those endorsements represent the voices of tens of thousands of other local and regional organizations, then an expression of opposition from one single, small and even locally based organization from within the defined community among the thousands globally expressing support should not be able to put 1 of the 2 CPE points for this criteria in jeopardy.” -- It's also about the size of that opposition compared to the scope of that community. One small segment in a larger community really doesn’t have relevance in the larger picture. Make sure we capture that concept. -- That is included in the balance part of our recommendation. -- The definition of relevance is incredibly important because as you see there if just one group submits a letter of opposition and it's deemed to be relevant, then the score automatically goes you know down a point and in an evaluation, where one needed to score 14 out of 16. That is pretty substantial against an applicant. -- There just needs to be a better calculus here because otherwise, it doesn't give the applicant any way of understanding how they're going to rule on a lot of this stuff. “Non-negligible” is a bizarre definition with no real basis. -- Who we appointed as the evaluator becomes important. Okay, so that's that goes back to the At-Large request to have more communities participation and saying, who is appointed as the evaluator. -- Recommended the introduction of a challenge mechanism for those applicants who thought they had been misjudged. -- We haven’t addressed the role of applicant comment in totality. The identities of the commenters should be established. -- Don’t think we have established a fixed period of application comment for Community Based-Applicants that should be the same as all other applicants, and there shouldn’t be a separate call for letters of support or opposition. -- The GAC has said that the evaluators should be experts in communities, with a list of criteria. -- Do need to include whether opposition is negligible or is of non-negligible size in proportion to the overall size of the community that is being represented by the applicant – that the applicant is aiming to serve. -- At-Large proposal: The bit about whether there is a direct or remote connection between the group opposing and the string being applied for that may not be captured in the existing document. ACTION ITEM: Add to the Guidelines where it says for non-negligible size consider the proportion to the overall size of the community that the applicant is aiming to serve. ACTION ITEM: Check to see if the issue of whether there is a direct or remote connection between the group opposing and the string being applied for is captured in the existing Guidelines (see At-Large proposal). Overall Principles (At-Large Proposal): Delineation between economic and non-economic communities. Criterion #1: Community Establishment: “Any distinction between a Community based on a common economic interest (CEI model) and a Community advocating for Human Rights (CHR model) should not serve as a basis for preferring one over the other.” -- For scoring 1 point changed to “reasonably delineated community” rather than “clearly delineated” so there's a bit of flexibility there. -- We also attempted to introduce community expertise into the fold by suggesting that any reasonably delineated community that is recognized by, say for example, United Nations or maybe any international other international organizations or Subject Matter Expert with international or regional standing, they recognize the community as existing then it should score high that that community should by right feature quite highly. -- On Delineation: If it's an economic grouping you score high if it's a human rights grouping you also score high, so long as they are you know either clearly delineated or by a general governmental organization or some expert of reasonable standing, and if the grouping is less clearly delineated it could still score one. -- Question: Why do you say “non-economic community” instead of “human rights” community? Not sure what a human rights community encompasses. Answer: The concern that was raised when we were discussing this was a clear distinction between economic groupings and non-economic groupings, but in particular with the non-economic groupings they would encompass mostly human rights. Some human rights are not rights in some countries and could even be illegal, which could prevent some people from being members of a certain grouping or declaring support, but that group should be at a disadvantage if it can’t have a clear membership. -- Question: Could you instead have two groupings, one that is based on economic or common economic interest and one that is not, to avoid using the term “human rights”? -- If you look at the United Nations, there are various protected classes. The opportunity here is to allow an applicant to show how they're delineated based on existing standards or prior identifications whether their classes or whatever. And that is how they establish third delineation. -- Why not just say any distinction between a community based on common economic interest and a community, not based on a common economic interest should not serve as a basis for prefer one over the other. Scoring Threshold: -- The working group to consider recommending lowering the threshold for preventing CP from 14 to 12 points. -- We will need to have a separate conversation on the threshold. You might say that if you got a zero on any criterion you should be excluded. Need to think about how it flows through the sub-criteria. -- If the criteria and sub-criteria are not linked then the likelihood of that happening is actually very low. -- From the AGB: “The sequence of the criteria reflects the order in which they will be assessed by the panel. The utmost care has been taken to avoid any "double-counting" - any negative aspect found in assessing an application for one criterion should only be counted there and should not affect the assessment for other criteria.” -- If the applicants hadn’t been under such scrutiny in the 2012 round the scores probably would have been higher. -- Improving the scoring criteria and lowering the scoring threshold would provide the best improvement of the CPE.

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 01 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 1, 2020

Oct. 1, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 01 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/MAjQC> (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