October 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 27 October 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 27, 2020

Oct. 27, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the working sessions on 27 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/2020-10-27+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Action Items: General Comments: RySG comment: ACTION ITEM re: Implementation Guidance 24.4: Add a recommendation that a question should be asked of what's within the scope of the intended use and what is specifically excluded if anything from the scope of the intended use. ACTION ITEM: Add RySG’s second and third comments to the Community Applications section (Topic 34). Nameshop Comment: ACTION ITEM: Add the Nameshop comment to the Applications Assessed in Rounds section (Topic 3). ICANN Org Comment: ACTION ITEM: Staff and Leadership to review the report to see where processes and procedures are mentioned in the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance and we'll see how big of a task it is to make the usage consistent. Predictability: NCSG and other comments re: Review: ACTION ITEM: Staff and Leadership to develop proposed language for the SPIRT that encompasses these points: 1) Need to have some kind of review of the Predictability Framework early on; 2) that review doesn’t stop the work of the SPIRT, and 3) that review is under the supervision of the GNSO Council, 4) it should be lean and focused (look at Customer Standing Committee reviews as example). NCSG comment and others re: GNSO Operating Procedures taking precedent over the SPIRT: ACTION ITEM: Move from Implementation Guidance to a Recommendation that the GNSO Operating Procedures take precedent over the SPIRT. France-GAC and GAC re: role in SPIRT/need for SPIRT: ACTION ITEM: Take this discussion to the list. ICANN Board and ICANN org comments: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will review and bring questions back to the WG on the list. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Jeff Neuman has been appointed by the GNSO Council as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC. -- Olga Cavalli and Javier Rua have been appointed to the Nominating Committee. -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr will continue as the Liaison from the At-Large Advisory Committee to the GNSO. -- Greg Shatan is now a member of the At-Large Advisory Committee. 2. Introduce the Working Method for Reviewing Public Comments/Work Plan:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGT… Work Plan: -- Multiple subjects for each meeting. -- Not reading through every comment. -- Everyone should have read the comments in advance of the meetings. -- Leadership will provide their input prior to a meeting in the appropriate column of the Public Comment Review Tool concerning the comments and questions worthy of a conversation. -- Focus on those comments that present something new or a question the WG needs to address. -- Goal is to put these subjects to rest and finalize the Final Report; not to do major rewrites. -- May move meetings to 2 hours. 3. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at:https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics: a. General Comments: -- Staff will note the comments about the public comment survey tool. -- If there are a significant number of commenters who raise an issue, even it has already been addressed by the WG, the WG should still consider it. Row 12: Question: Are there any additional recommendations that you believe the Working Group should consider making? Row 17: RySG: 1. “Given the importance of the “intended use” of the string in the String Similarity Evaluations, and perhaps other aspects of the evaluation of applications, there should be a specific question for this in the Applicant Guidebook (AG). In the 2012 AG Question 18a was, “Describe the mission/purpose of your proposed gTLD and this should be extended to describe the mission/purpose/intended use. If it’s not in the question itself, it must be in the notes accompanying it and the primary purpose of this is to unambiguously understand the intended use and to prevent the need to ask a Clarifying Question. This relates to Implementation Guidance 24.4 on page 104 of the Final Draft.” Leadership Comments: Seems like a good clarification and in line with WG Recommendations. Discussion: -- Could ask the reverse question: “Are there any uses which are outside of your intended use?” If we adopt the suggested question, consider also adopting the reverse question. -- The WG could say that there should be a question about intended use but without providing the text of the question. -- The recommendation could be that there should be a question on intended use and then point to a couple of sections where intended use is important. -- Add a recommendation that a question should be asked of what's within the scope of the intended use and what is specifically excluded if anything from the scope of the intended use. Leave it to the IRT to draft the question. ACTION ITEM re: Implementation Guidance 24.4: Add a recommendation that a question should be asked of what's within the scope of the intended use and what is specifically excluded if anything from the scope of the intended use. Row 17: RySG: “2. Conversion of Application from Community to Standard. If an applicant applies as a community, and during CPE it is determined by ICANN’s evaluator, that a community does not exist to move forward with the community application, then the applicant should have the ability to amend its application to a standard application and proceed on equal footing with standard applicants in the normal process.” Leadership comments: Probably a question we should consider in CPE section (New Question). Row 17: RySG: “3. To prevent a type of gaming, applicants or their affiliates should not be permitted to file both a community and a standard application for the same string.” Leadership Comment: This is a new question we have not yet considered. Does WG want to address? ACTION ITEM: Add RySG’s second and third comments to the Community Applications section (Topic 34). Row 23: Nameshop comment: Leadership Comment: This is new information that relates to Applications assessed in Rounds But also may be relevant to when a round is deemed "closed". Discussion: -- WG could consider not allowing applications for strings that are marked “will not proceed, unless there is some clarity or a check with both the applicant and ICANN. -- This is not something the WG has considered. Assumed that “will not proceed” meant that it is deemed to be a final decision. -- ICANN org notes that they can be in “will not proceed” status from a program perspective and still be in the cooperative engagement process. -- Application status definitions used are here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-…. -- Two points: 1) The WG could set the principle that so long as an application is still in or could possibly be like within the statute of limitations of appeals or accountability mechanisms that we should not allow a string to proceed. 2) where there is a difference of an opinion between what ICANN org believes is past that period and has been exhausted and the applicant disagrees/disputes. -- Think we have to rely on ICANN’s position and the result of the dispute resolution mechanism. -- If we make a statement or change the report relating to this comment we need to make sure we are using generalities, not specifics. ACTION ITEM: Add the Nameshop comment to the Applications Assessed in Rounds section (Topic 3). Row 27: ICANN Org: Leadership Comments: #2 - Consider More details around transparency when they are mentioned. #3 - Look at these specific recommendations / Implementation Guidance to ensure "hooks" are intentional or not. #4 - Move to Predictability #5 ICANN Org distinguishes between Processes and Procedures and believes that processes are for the AGB, whereas procedures are to be developed after the AGB. We need to either explicitly state that that was not our intent (where applicable) or change wording in line with ICANN Org interpretation. Discussion: -- We may want to add more details in specific sections that call for more transparency. -- Need to clarify in places whether we really meant Implementation Guidance as part of a recommendation (and so mandatory) or Implementation Guidance as just guidance. -- ICANN org has a very specific definition of “process” which is something that is higher level view than what is in the AGB. Also, their definition of “procedure” is operationally focused. -- We use the terms interchangeably. We can decide to apply ICANN’s definition or decide to reject it. -- ICANN org: It’s about expectations – what we think should happen when we get a Recommendation or Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Staff and Leadership to review the report to see where processes and procedures are mentioned in the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance and we'll see how big of a task it is to make the usage consistent. b. Predictability: Row 11: NCSG and other comments re: Review Leadership Comments: 1. Several Comments discuss having an annual review (NCSG, Article 19, GAC). Though annual reviews seem excessive and will put the SPIRT in constant state of review, this is a new question and we should discuss whether to have reviews and if so how often? 2. The idea that GNSO Procedures take precedence show up in several comments, so this is something we may want to clarify as it has always been the intent. Discussion: -- There are several comments that call for an annual or periodic review. -- We could just say that the GNSO can review it in accordance with the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF). -- Should do a sanity check a year or two into the implementation of the SPIRT, or at least some level of review before the third round starts, or until sufficient time has passed to have data to review. -- Maybe we need to say that the GNSO Council has the responsibility to make sure the program is working. -- Three points: 1) Need to have some kind of review early on; 2) that review doesn’t stop the work of the SPIRT, and 3) that review is under the supervision of the GNSO Council, 4) it should be lean and focused. ACTION ITEM: Staff and Leadership to develop proposed language for the SPIRT that encompasses these points: 1) Need to have some kind of review of the Predictability Framework early on; 2) that review doesn’t stop the work of the SPIRT, and 3) that review is under the supervision of the GNSO Council, 4) it should be lean and focused (look at Customer Standing Committee reviews as example). Row 11: NCSG and Row 19: IPC comments re: GNSO Operating Procedures taking precedent over the SPIRT: ACTION ITEM: Move from Implementation Guidance to a Recommendation that the GNSO Operating Procedures take precedent over the SPIRT. Row 13: BC re: representation in the SPIRT Leadership Comments: The SPIRT rules are the same as normal IRT rules. Do we want to mandate representation? Should we specify that the IRT set forth the qualifications for serving on the SPIRT. Discussion: -- Could let the IRT decide what are the qualifications for being a member of the SPIRT. -- Or, does the WG want to spell out qualifications, in which case we’ll need to brainstorm on the list. Row 15: France-GAC and Row 23: GAC re: role in SPIRT/need for SPIRT: Leadership Comments: Several Governments and the GAC comments reflect a desire to be able to refer matters directly to the SPIRT? Do we want to reconsider this? Do we want to suggest a GAC liaison to the SPIRT? Discussion: -- We talked about this before. Not something we need to revisit. -- Might be worth rethinking this as another avenue for the GAC other than Consensus Advice to the Board. -- What’s the harm in allowing the GAC to bring something to the SPIRT? The SPIRT is not obliged to take action. ACTION ITEM: Take this discussion to the list. Row 22: ICANN Board and Row 24: ICANN org comments: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will review and bring questions back to the WG on the list.

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Tuesday, 27 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 27, 2020

Oct. 27, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 27 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/OQjQC> (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

Note on Work Commencing on our Next Call: Tuesday, October 27th at 03:00 UTC
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 26, 2020

Oct. 26, 2020

All, We wanted to provide you with some more information on the working methods going forward starting on the call in about 7 or 8 hours. You will have seen the agenda has a link to the Working Group Wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports> page. That page breaks down the comments we received into sections: 1. Overarching Issues (Topics 1-8) 2. Foundational Issues (Topics 9-11) 3. Pre-Launch Activities (Topics 12-14) 4. Application Submission (Topics 15-18) 5. Application Processing (Topics 19-20) 6. Application Evaluation / Criteria (Topics 21-29) 7. Dispute Proceedings (Topics 30-33) 8. String Contention Resolution (Topics 34-35) 9. Contracting (Topics 36-38) 10. Pre-Delegation comment (Topic 39) 11. Post Delegation (Topics 40-41) We will not be necessarily going in order. Therefore it is important that you review the WorkPlan at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5Kn…. Bookmark it! For each call, you will have been expected to read all of the comments prior to the call. We WILL NOT be reading each comment like we did with the previous comment reviews. You will see a column has been inserted into the spreadsheets called "Leadership Recommendations". In that column, the leadership team will have made notes on either recommended actions or on recommended questions we address from the comments. NOT ALL OF THE COMMENTS WILL HAVE A NOTATION IN THE LEADERSHIP RECOMMENDATION COLUMN. This may be because (a) there is no new information being provided by the comment, (b) we have already gone over similar comments in previous comment periods and do not need to revisit, or (c) the comment is not related to the topic we are discussing. In some cases, those comments falling into (c) will be recommended to move to their appropriate areas. The Leadership recommendations are only guidance for the group. They are in no way binding. They are meant to help steer the discussion in an efficient manner. They are the areas that we the leadership team believed presented areas that may need some more conversation. However, if you believe there are additional comments we must pay attention to, please indicate that in the "NOTES" column to the left of the Leadership Column indicating (a) why you believe we need to address the comment and (b) your name. Please be prepared to discuss those items during the applicable call. {For the call later, we will not require this] Finally, if there are outstanding items from the call, be prepared to continue the discussion online (through e-mail) and potentially through small groups to finish the details. We have a lot of material to re-go over and not much time to do it. Also remember, that we have been through all of these topics before. So, unless the information is new to us, or we have directly solicited the information, we may not need to address the comment. This was after all a Draft Final Report. At the end of the day, we know our report will not be perfect. There may be some areas we may need to punt to the IRT set up on SubPro. We are in the home stretch everyone! Sincerely, Jeff (on behalf of Jeff, Cheryl, and the rest of the Leadership Team). [cid:image001.png@01D6ABAD.4BBB5B30] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com

1 0

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 27 October 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 26, 2020

Oct. 26, 2020

Dear WG Members, As a reminder, please find below the proposed agenda for the regular WG meeting on Tuesday, 27 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 6:56 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 27 October 03:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the regular WG meeting on Tuesday, 27 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-27+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…>): 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Introduce the Working Method for Reviewing Public Comments/Work Plan: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5Kn… 3. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9vbkFUNEAb55oEPCFRsdrDlowh06zIUBiU…> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics: * General Comments; and * Predictability 1. 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

2 1

CCT Review Team Recommendations Adopted Yesterday by the ICANN Board
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 23, 2020

Oct. 23, 2020

All, Yesterday the ICANN Board approved more of the CCT-RT Recommendations<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-pending-recs-board-action-2…> (11 of the remaining 17). More specifically, the approved recommendations can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-pending-recs-board-action-2…. I do not believe any of these recommendations or approved actions will have any material impact on our work or on us completing our work by the end of this year. Here is my (very unofficial summary). To get the full text, see the Scorecard<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-pending-recs-board-action-2….>. In general: 1. ICANN shall try to collect TLD registration number data per TLD and registrar at a country-by-country level. 2. ICANN shall investigate existing definitions of parking......in order to provide a definition of parking for community review, and a transparent methodology and process for data collection. 3. For Recommendations 8 and 11 calling for registrant and end user surveys, ICANN shall conduct periodic surveys of registrants (every 3 years) to ensure baseline data for future analysis s well as to reduce response burden, given the survey length and the pace of behavioral change associated with the domain name marketplace. 4. For Recommendation 13: * CCT-RT Recommendation: ICANN should collect data in conjunction with its related data collection activities on the impact of restrictions on who can buy domains within certain new gTLDs (registration restrictions) to help regularly determine and report: 1. Whether consumers and registrants are aware that certain new gTLDs have registration restrictions; 2. Compare consumer trust levels between new gTLDs with varying degrees of registration restrictions; 3. Determine whether the lower abuse rates associated with gTLDs that impose stricter registration policies identified in the Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs Study continue to be present within new gTLDs that impose registration restrictions as compared with new gTLDs that do not 4. Assess the costs and benefits of registration restrictions to contracted parties and the public (to include impacts on competition and consumer choice) and; 5. Determine whether and how such registration restrictions are enforced or challenged. * What Board Approved: i. The Board notes that data collection concerning consumer awareness of registration restrictions (part 1) and consumer trust levels in TLDs with restrictions versus those without (part 2) can be incorporated into future surveys of consumer-end users and registrants (see recommendations 8 and 11). ii. Determining a correlation between lower abuse rates and stricter registration policies (part 3) entails extending parts of the "Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs" study. iii. Regarding part 4 on assessing "costs and benefits of registration restrictions to contracted parties and the public", with clarification received from CCT-RT Implementation Shepherds, the Board calls for questions around costs and benefits to be integrated into the voluntary data gathering collection efforts, along with parts 1 and 2. The Board also expects that these data sets will be provided to the future review team to conduct a cost/benefit analysis based on the data. iv. On part 5, determining "whether and how such registration restrictions are enforced or challenged", the Board directs ICANN org to conduct a voluntary pilot survey to gather the requested data, and to review results and participation rates to determine whether the survey should be continued at regular intervals. Data collection efforts must be preceded by consultation with contracted parties on the approach and methods for a voluntary survey (or other means of contacting contracted parties), to ensure the most meaningful and useful data can be collected. 1. The Board notes that ICANN org will continue to collect data and generate monthly reports on an ongoing basis. DAAR itself is not and cannot be a compliance/enforcement tool. Rather, it is a tool that monitors third party reputation lists to indicate possible concentration of DNS security threats. 2. With respect to WHIOS Accuracy to help the WHOIS Review Team, the Board notes that no further action is required at this time, and that if future RDS reviews request that data, ICANN org will provide the information in #18 to help inform their work. 3. With respect to Recommendation 20 on DNS Abuse Complaints: * CCT-RT Recommendation: Assess whether mechanisms to report and handle complaints have led to more focused efforts to combat abuse by determining: (1) the volume of reports of illegal conduct in connection with the use of the TLD that registries receive from governmental and quasi-governmental agencies; (2) the volume of inquires that registries receive from the public related to malicious conduct in the TLD; (3) whether more efforts are needed to publicize contact points to report complaints that involve abuse or illegal behavior within a TLD; and (4) what actions registries have taken to respond to complaints of illegal or malicious conduct in connection with the use of the TLD. Such efforts could include surveys, focus groups, or community discussions. If these methods proved ineffective, consideration could be given to amending future standard Registry Agreements to require registries to more prominently disclose their abuse points of contact and provide more granular information to ICANN. * What Board Approved: The Board directs ICANN org to conduct a voluntary pilot survey to obtain the requested data. Data collection efforts must be preceded by consultation with contracted parties on the approach and methods for a voluntary survey (or other means of contacting contracted parties), to ensure the most meaningful and useful data can be collected. The Board directs ICANN org to review results and participation rates, after completion of the survey, to determine whether the survey should be continued at regular intervals. 4. For Recommendation 23 on new TLDs operating in highly-regulated sectors, ICANN Agreed to the following: * The Board notes that ICANN org, through its Contractual Compliance team, currently reports on volume and nature of complaints received regarding gTLDs operating in highly-regulated sectors. * The Board directs ICANN org to conduct a voluntary pilot survey to capture the recommended data, as well as a review of a sample of domain websites within the highly regulated sector. With respect to collecting data from resellers, the Board notes that ICANN does not have the means to communicate with resellers. For the corresponding datapoint, this will need to be obtained through registrars, on a voluntary basis. Data collection efforts must be preceded by consultation with contracted parties on the approach and methods for a voluntary survey (or other means of contacting contracted parties), to ensure the most meaningful and useful data can be collected. Following completion of the survey, the Board directs ICANN org to review the results before determining whether to proceed with the survey on an ongoing basis. * Regarding the portion of the recommendation calling for an audit on registration practices, the Board notes existing Registry Agreement limitations to two audits per year and that ICANN Compliance data shows insignificant volumes of complaints, indicating that this is a low risk area. The Board believes it is important to ensure limited resources are used to focus on obligations that have the largest potential impact to the Safety, Security and Resiliency of the DNS. As a result, the Board directs ICANN org to continue to monitor complaint trends in this area, and to plan for an audit if any risk is identified. 5. For Recommendation 24, which asks for a quarterly report on complaints received for a registry's failure to comply with either the safeguard related to gTLDs with inherent governmental functions r the safeguard related to Cyberbullying. ICANN Agreed to: The Board directs ICANN org to conduct a voluntary pilot survey to gather the data requested under 24b, and to review results and participation rates to determine whether the survey should be continued at regular intervals. Data collection efforts must be preceded by consultation with contracted parties on the approach and methods for a voluntary survey (or other means of contacting contracted parties), to ensure the most meaningful and useful data can be collected. 6. For Recommendation 26: * CCT-RT Recommendation: A study to ascertain the impact of the New gTLD Program on the costs required to protect trademarks in the expanded DNS space should be repeated at regular intervals to see the evolution over time of those costs. The CCT Review Team recommends that the next study be completed within 18 months after issuance of the CCT Final Report, and that subsequent studies be repeated every 18 to 24 months. The CCT Review Team acknowledges that the Nielsen survey of INTA members in 2017 intended to provide such guidance yielded a lower response rate than anticipated. We recommend a more user friendly and perhaps shorter survey to help ensure a higher and more statistically significant response rate. * What Board Approved: The Board encourages collaboration with relevant partners, as appropriate, to gain a deeper insight into the effects of the New gTLD Program on trademark enforcement, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative research. [cid:image001.png@01D6A938.FE23F380] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 27 October 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 21, 2020

Oct. 21, 2020

Hi Jim, The calendar invites should go out today, or tomorrow at the latest. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 7:09 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 27 October 03:00 UTC Thanks Julie – do you know when we will get calendar items or even just times for the November and December meetings? We’re running into other events like the IGF which starts Nov 2. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 6:56 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 27 October 03:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find below the updated proposed agenda for the regular WG meeting on Tuesday, 27 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-27+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…>): 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Introduce the Working Method for Reviewing Public Comments/Work Plan: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5Kn… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLke…> 3. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9vbkFUN…>https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics: * General Comments; and * Predictability 1. 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

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 27 October 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 21, 2020

Oct. 21, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the updated proposed agenda for the regular WG meeting on Tuesday, 27 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-27+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…>): 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Introduce the Working Method for Reviewing Public Comments/Work Plan: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5Kn… 3. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9vbkFUNEAb55oEPCFRsdrDlowh06zIUBiU…> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics: * General Comments; and * Predictability 1. 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

2 1

FW: Questions on ICANN Board Comments to SubPro Draft Final Report
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 20, 2020

Oct. 20, 2020

All, Jim asked in the chat on the call last night about the note that we sent to Avri and Becky regarding the Board Comments to SubPro. I apologize that I had not sent this to the full list earlier. For some reason I thought I did send it, but it turns out that I had not. Apologies for that. Below you will find the note that we sent out. Please let me know if you have any questions about the note. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image001.png@01D6A693.B8EA1440] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Jeff Neuman Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:46 AM To: avri.doria(a)board.icann.org; Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; steve.chan(a)icann.org; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: Questions on ICANN Board Comments to SubPro Draft Final Report Dear Avri and Becky, Cheryl and I are reaching out to you both as the ICANN Board Liaisons to the SubPro PDP. First, we want to thank you for the comprehensive comments from the ICANN Board on the Draft Final Report. It is clear from the letter that the Board spent great deal of time and resources in discussing and preparing the response. Last week, the SubPro Working Group had an initial discussion on some of the comments raised by the Board. Through that discussion, it became clear that the Working Group would like some additional information from the Board on either underlying assumptions or context for the recommendations. Registry Voluntary Commitments / PICs (also applies to String Similarity) On Topic 9, Registry Voluntary Commitments / PICs, the Board states: "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). Has the PDP WG considered this specific language in ICANN Bylaws are part of its recommendations or implementation guidance on the continued use of PICs or the future use of RVCs." The Working Group has not considered the ICANN Bylaws specifically with respect to whether PICs or RVCs would run afoul of the ICANN Bylaws. In our discussions last week, we were a little puzzled by this question which we believe is more of a legal question as opposed to a policy-development one. Therefore, this question would not be one properly in front of the Working Group. However, from this comment, the Working Group is now keenly interested to discover from the Board: * Does the ICANN Board believe that any future PICs or RVCs would in fact be outside the scope what the Bylaws Permit? * The Working Group would like to understand why the Board may believe that the current Bylaws would create issues for ICANN to enter and enforce any content-related issue regarding RVCs in particular if the Registry voluntarily adopted the commitment on its own. Therefore, ICANN would not be regulating any form of content, but rather would just be ensuring that the Registry is doing the job it signed up to do. * In other words, does the Board believe that ICANN enforcing voluntary commitments made by registries if those commitments relate to the content on their TLDs, to be impermissible content regulation? * And if it does, but a consensus of the community desires ICANN to be in this role, could the Bylaws be changed to allow ICANN to perform this job. Applicant Support Can you clarify the comment made on topic 17, with respect to Applicant Support, where the Board states that it is not a grant-seeking organization....but that is could, through the Pro Bono Assistance Program, act as a facilitator in the introduction of industry players or potential funding partners to the prospective entrants. Does this mean ICANN would be comfortable in granting application discounts (or even application fee forgiveness), but it would not be comfortable in seeking funds from others to fund such services provided by other third parties? Community Applications On Community Applications (Topic 34), many groups have expressed support for prioritizing community based applications where there is string contention. However, the similar to Topic 9, the ICANN Board is asking whether evaluating community-based applications and enforcing those commitments could run afoul of ICANN's mission. * Is the ICANN Board taking a position that we should not be having any community-based applications? Or Is the Board stating that we can have Community-based applications, but it would have to rely solely on self enforcement even if these applications were given priority in contention sets? * If there is a consensus within the ICANN-community to continue allowing Community-Based applications and giving them priority, could we not amend or clarify the bylaws to make sure that ICANN were not running afoul of the mission? We may likely have additional questions on some of the other comments, but I wanted to pass these through as soon as we could. We would like to discuss these questions with you both on a future call as opposed to an exchange of e-mails if possible as there could likely be follow up questions. Thanks again for the Board's extensive comments and we look forward to discussing these issues with you. Sincerely, Cheryl and Jeff SubPro Chairs

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 19 October 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Oct. 19, 2020

Oct. 19, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 19 October 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/NwjQC> (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 Andrea

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 19 October 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 19, 2020

Oct. 19, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the working sessions on 19 October at 20:00 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/2020-10-19+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Meeting with the SSAC re: draft Final Report – highlighted issues: SSAC’s Work Party looking at two areas: 1) SSR issues in the draft Final Report; 2) Gap analysis – issues not in the draft Final Report. a. Root Zone Delegation Rates SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: -- This gets into one of the biggest issues. Lots of issues were well addressed in SSAC advice. -- There are some issues that are outstanding around measuring and monitoring: how do you make decisions on when things are not going well? When and how the metrics are dealt with. -- Related to that is the concept of the SPIRT. -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: OCTO recent paper on early warning system. Technical community couldn’t agree on a solution, objective tests or metrics, so ICANN should just ask. See Public Comment Forum announcement -- Recommendations for Early Warning for Root Zone Scaling at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/recommendations-early-warning-root-sc… -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: Does the SPIRT provide the overarching framework? It is more focused on specific issues, not an overarching process. Could there be an oversight group that could say when things need to slow down? --WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: How to incorporate SSR expertise and decision making into the SPIRT. WG didn’t discuss that as part of the SPIRT role, but it can call experts on issues. Meant to deal with process issues; and serve as a shepherd on possible policy issues. -- SSAC/Geoff Houston: OCTO document is just an opinion. There are contrary views. -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: SSAC concern is that there might be overarching systemic SSR issues and it’s not clear that the SPIRT is set up to review those types of issues, or is empowered to do something about it. -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: SSAC concern when it comes to contentious issues, such as root zone delegation, where you could have experts who don’t agree; if these got referred to the SPIRT it’s not clear how the SPIRT would make decisions and what criteria it would use. SPIRT should not make SSR conclusions/recommendations without the appropriate technical expertise. -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: The SPIRT is not a decision maker; but to help ICANN understand the potential impacts and make sure that when it comes to making a decision the right parties are involved. SPIRT could make sure that the experts are involved. -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: Who would have the authority to slow down delegations? WG: Ultimately the ICANN Board. The way we instructed the SPIRT is to make sure we can alert the stakeholders to the possible impacts. Board wanted that clarified in the comments. Transparency would be very important. -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: Could consider having an SSAC liaison. b. How names are constructed: IDNs / Variants / Restricted character combos SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: -- Interesting things around determining contention sets that from a technical aspect doesn’t make a lot of sense to look at intended use to decide if a string is confusingly similar. -- You can look at strings as they are and have some rules around that. -- Inconsistencies on how plurals were addressed in the prior round. -- Concerns about SWORD tool. -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: SWORD tool -- Recommendation was to eliminate it. -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: Not using intended use for putting things in contention sets and treatment of plurals and singulars; WG was considering doing a study on plurals and singulars – but the plurals were acquired so they went away by consolidation. -- SSAC/Ram Mohan: On intended use – this should not be considered a defining characteristic on whether a string should be placed in a contention set or not because intended use changes over time. Also, and expected use may not be how it is used in real life. Thought it was not a good idea to apply intended use as a defining characteristic, although it could be something to note. -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: You have the issue where the intended use changes over time and what are the rules for that? -- WG/Paul McGrady: Example of .apples – applied for by the Apple Growers Association and say they won’t sell computers, etc. Could have a side agreement with Apple computers. -- SSAC/Ram Mohan: What happens if someone registers bad.apples and uses it to talk about bad experiences with Apple computers? The fundamental thing we are saying it’s a bad idea to have intended use being a defining factor, but could be an identifying factor. Need to think about how to mitigate the risks, but it not always black and white. -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: Whether it is the definitive factor or a factor someone won’t be happy if someone registers bad.apples. c. DNS Abuse itself and a proxy for other meta issues -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: These are issues that were noted as part of the last expansion as being potential issues with the original delegations. But the majority of TLDs were okay. But where there are problems, are those lessons learned? Does there need to be a PDP? How does that interact with subsequent rounds? Is it a gating factor? There is an engineering concept of being able to do something in a new space. Are there best practices that would be rolled out for the new gLTDs? Want to see any issues mitigated up front. Where is that properly handled? -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: The abuse that occurs in TLDs now is not because something is new versus old. It happens because it is a registry or ccTLD that doesn’t take down sites. Shouldn’t put restrictions on newer TLDs without dealing with older/legacy TLDs. Needs to be handled on a global level, although GAC didn’t like that the SubPro didn’t make a recommendation on this. There are a lot of people in the ICANN community that think if we can’t get the legacy players to do something we should put it on the new gTLDs and then make the legacy TLDs adopt the rules in their renewed contracts. We think the appropriate place is for the GNSO Council to set the policy on DNS abuse. -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: What were the primary drivers of concentrated abuse? Pricing? - undoubtedly at 1 cent, poor filtering of bad actors registering names? likely. Would be really good to have a solid understanding to make good decisions. Lack of experience for new operators? Maybe, maybe not. Lots to know. Don’t think anyone wants to punish new operators, but we want to make sure things are successful. -- WG/Donna Austin: The data is important. ICANN has been talking about bad actors for some time, but are yet to provide evidence of what they are talking about. Also important to keep the conversation in perspective: are we talking about DNS abuse or abuse conducted on the Internet? d. Registry Testing / Pre-evaluation process for Back End Operators SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: -- Idea of having back-end operators prove that they can do it over and over again doesn’t make tons of sense; it becomes interesting when you think about the scaling. How do you test when you have a lot of concentration with back-end operators handling thousands of TLDs? What about the next .com? -- Might want to say that there is a base set of testing and then also testing for special circumstances. -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: We aren’t trying to say that ICANN is certifying back-end registries. The way you need to think about the pre-evaluation program is doing the evaluation earlier in time than you would have done it during the application process. It isn’t a certification or pre-approval. We do state that if you say you are using a pre-evaluated back-end operator but using new/additional services that the back-end operator wasn’t evaluated for then the back-end operator has to be re-evaluated for those services. -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: Suggesting that ICANN org could produce an “RSP 101” type of document. There is the applicant side and the backend side. Lessons learned. e. TLD Types -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: SAC103: One of the things was that it was easy to become a publicly traded company. There is a concern about bad actors being able to game this. -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: In general most publicly traded companies have strict requirements/obligations for avoidance of crime; we didn’t ignore it but we didn’t think ICANN could have different regulations for different jurisdictions. f. Name Collision / Interaction with Private TLD proposal -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: We continue the work on name collisions. We are moving forward to try to answer the Board questions. There is enough time to get that work done before new gTLDs are launched. -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: There are members of the WG have been debating whether the work of the NCAP should be a dependency for certain elements of the next round. The NCAP is not making any recommendations as to whether their work should be a dependency for the next round; that would be a decision by the Board. -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: It is not up to the SSAC or NCAP to make any recommendations concerning whether name collisions should be a dependency for new gTLDs. We are trying to develop a framework to mitigate risks so that people can make better informed decisions. -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: .corp, .home, and .mail are not in scope for this WG. It is a matter of opinion as to what should be the dependencies for the next round. If something is a dependency we need to decide at what point we need to make a decision? -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: Outside of our remit too, although the question needs answering. -- SSAC/Rod Rasmussen, Chair: SAC113 on Private Namespace – that is an ICANN/IETF interaction for creating a name/s that would be reserved from ever being published. It would have that space for private use. That is to try to address the issue that people keep picking up names and trying to do that; it would mitigate but not stop that practice. -- WG/Jeff Neuman, Co-Chair: We know this was talked about as an issue between ICANN/IETF, but it has wider ramifications. .onion and the satirical paper The Onion.

1 0