November 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 9, 2020

Dec. 9, 2020

And here are the original attachments for reference. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, November 30, 2020 at 10:12 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December Dear WG Members, This is a reminder that the deadline for the review of the revised draft Final Report for errors and omissions only, if any, is 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 01 December. Please see the details below. 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: Monday, November 23, 2020 at 3:04 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December Dear WG Members, As noted during the WG meeting on Thursday, 19 November, please see for review the attached revised draft Final Report in Word and PDF, along with the Log of Final Report Action Items and Edits. The redlines in the attached revised draft Final Report reflect the edits made by leadership and support staff in accordance with the actions agreed to by the WG during the WG meetings held between 17 September and 09 November 2020, as noted in the Log with page references. These actions also were captured during each meeting and circulated to the WG. The following topics were covered by the WG in its meetings and addressed in the revised draft Final Report: Community Applications, General Comments, Predictability, Applicant Support, Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism, Applicant Guidebook, Communications, Systems, Application Change Requests, Application Fees, Base Registry Agreement, GAC Early Warning / GAC Consensus Advice, Role of Application Comment, and Objections. Note: In reviewing the revised draft Final Report WG members are requested to limit their review to the referenced pages in the Log and the redlines in the revised draft Final Report, and to focus only on errors and/or omissions, if any. If any errors/omissions are noted please send them to the WG email distribution list, referencing the page number and text, respectively. Please submit comments to the list, if any, not later than 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 01 December. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

9 11

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] **Reminder** Meeting Invitation | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Tuesday, 01 December 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW Nov. 30, 2020

Nov. 30, 2020

> > Good evening: Please note my apologies. I am no longer prepared to take calls at 04.00 a.m. > > CW > > El 30 de noviembre de 2020 a las 15:46 Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon(a)icann.org> escribió: > Dear all, > > > > The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled on Tuesday, 01 December 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. > > > > Join the Zoom room directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/93033235768?pwd=bVo2aENWTk1NNExhRS82dFZsM0EvQT09 [icann.zoom.us] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/93033235768?pwd=bVo2aENW… > (no password required) > > > > Before joining the call: > Please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org only > Please be sure you have read the Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… > Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/8oXzC > > Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/y3tuvwpz [tinyurl.com] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/y3tuvwpz__;!!PtGJab4!u3QKMFf… > > > If joining Zoom via the Zoom App, the following will be required: > Meeting ID: 930 3323 5768 > Password: 426hbq&jfm > > > > If you are joining via audio only: > > One tap mobile > > +16699006833,,93033235768#,,,,,,0#,,171117# US (San Jose) > +12532158782,,93033235768#,,,,,,0#,,171117# US (Tacoma) > > > > Dial in directly with your chosen number and provide: > > Meeting ID: 930 3323 5768 > Password: 171117 > > > > If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom [gnso.icann.org] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d… > > > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > > > Julie > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >

1 0

REMINDER: Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 30, 2020

Nov. 30, 2020

Dear WG Members, This is a reminder that the deadline for the review of the revised draft Final Report for errors and omissions only, if any, is 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 01 December. Please see the details below. 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: Monday, November 23, 2020 at 3:04 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December Dear WG Members, As noted during the WG meeting on Thursday, 19 November, please see for review the attached revised draft Final Report in Word and PDF, along with the Log of Final Report Action Items and Edits. The redlines in the attached revised draft Final Report reflect the edits made by leadership and support staff in accordance with the actions agreed to by the WG during the WG meetings held between 17 September and 09 November 2020, as noted in the Log with page references. These actions also were captured during each meeting and circulated to the WG. The following topics were covered by the WG in its meetings and addressed in the revised draft Final Report: Community Applications, General Comments, Predictability, Applicant Support, Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism, Applicant Guidebook, Communications, Systems, Application Change Requests, Application Fees, Base Registry Agreement, GAC Early Warning / GAC Consensus Advice, Role of Application Comment, and Objections. Note: In reviewing the revised draft Final Report WG members are requested to limit their review to the referenced pages in the Log and the redlines in the revised draft Final Report, and to focus only on errors and/or omissions, if any. If any errors/omissions are noted please send them to the WG email distribution list, referencing the page number and text, respectively. Please submit comments to the list, if any, not later than 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 01 December. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 23 November 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 24, 2020

Nov. 24, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 23 November 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/2020-11-23+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 9 PICs / RVCs – Row 29<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AG…> ACTION ITEM: The WG needs to revisit the recommendations and consider how they would be enforced. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. 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 and comments: Discussion with Board Liaisons on Board Bylaws comments regarding: a. Topic 9 PICs / RVCs – Row 29<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AG…> Discussion: -- From the new ByLaws Section 1.1.: (iv) ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements, including public interest commitments, with any party in service of its Mission. -- Have used PICs to resolve disputes. -- Becky Burr, Board Liaison: Concerns about taking on more voluntary private commitments for which compliance is not objectively measurable. Need to remind ourselves that enforceability goes beyond whether something is content regulation or not. It goes back to looking at the voluntary commitments and understanding whether it is in furtherance of ICANN’s Mission: “Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS") and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains ("gTLDs").” And “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.” How is the WG thinking about the voluntary commitments with the Bylaws in mind, including contractual compliance. -- Avri Doria, Board Liaison: How have you thought about how to deal with this? At the end of the day the Board will look at the Bylaws and the recommendations and try to see where the public interest point is, but ultimately that will have to come from the WG. -- What happens if the answer is that the WG hasn’t concerned the Bylaws? Should we be asking ICANN Legal about the limits? -- In this case in drafting the Bylaws there was a lot of work, but even the plain meaning – when we talk about “regulates” the Bylaws defines that as imposing rules, as forcing something to be accepted. If we are talking about voluntary commitments then they are not regulations. They aren’t imposed, so not prohibited by the Bylaws. -- If there was a dispute between two parties – GAC gave advice against a string but said if you do x, y, and z we are okay with it and it can go forward. Does it matter what x, y, and z are? -- Avri Doria, Board Liaison: You tell us how that is to be read and enforced. If there those agreements can be objectively dealt with. There is what you can contract and what can you enforce in an objective way. The interpretation has to come from the PDP WG’s recommendation. -- Becky Burr, Board Liaison: The Board does not have a position on this issue and is looking for guidance from the GNSO via the PDP. The question of how you use these voluntary commitment to resolve contention or concerns, it probably would make a difference to how you go about addressing those. It seems like it is going to be hard to enforce in light of the language in the Bylaws. -- If we assume we could come up with a way for these to be objectively enforced, can these commitments be made? Let’s say there’s a legal rights objection against an applicant’s string. To resolve it there is an agreement with a third party to not infringe. If there are disputes these would be dealt with an arbitration association, but ICANN enforces the decision of the arbitration association. -- Avri Doria, Board Liaison: If the third party is doing something independently of ICANN, then we don’t know. If they are hired by ICANN, then no. -- Caution that the PDP WG can’t rewrite the Bylaws and interpretation has to be consistent with the history and language. This Bylaw is a compromise. Anything that is in the Registry Agreement should be in furtherance of ICANN’s mission. -- Are there examples of non-content related PICs that the WG could pull out as examples to set some criteria/parameters? -- Becky Burr, Board Liaison: Not sure that looking at existing PICs solves the problem. But it would be very useful to hear what kinds of things you think are fair game and what aren’t. -- These Bylaws have been changes several times so if this is a major barrier maybe it needs to be revisited. -- It’s clear that content is relevant to many TLDs. -- Avri Doria, Board Liaison: If there is a consensus recommendation that requires a change to the Bylaws then the Board will consider that. ACTION ITEM: The WG needs to revisit the recommendations and consider how they would be enforced. b. Topic 23 Closed Generics – Row 23<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8Q…> Discussion: -- Becky Burr, Board Liaison: The Board adopted a temporary prohibition on closed generics and asked the community to develop policy. The temporary prohibition should not be considered to be policy. If there is no new policy then the temporary prohibition does not automatically stand as a default. -- The WG has taken the determination that in absence of a new policy we revert to how it happened in the last round. Not clear how the Board will interpret the status quo if we don’t do anything this time. -- The WG can’t assume how the Board will act if the WG does not make a recommendation. -- Avri Doria, Board Liaison: There is no standing policy on this since there was no explicit policy. -- Becky Burr, Board Liaison: There wasn’t policy because the Board didn’t have the authority to set the policy. -- The WG could adopt, affirmatively, the temporary prohibition. Would like to know if the Board would like the WG to make a recommendation. -- It would be better if the WG can develop policy on this. If not we should assume that it will fall one way or another. -- Question: There is still existing GAC advice on this topic and until that is addressed it is something the Board will have to handle. -- Avri Doria, Board Liaison: Without a policy recommendation the Board is left in the same position of having an indeterminate recommendation on advice. We would have to go back to the GNSO. c. Private Resolution of Contention Sets – Topic 35 Auctions – Row 24<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw…> Questions from the Small Team: “re: “A. The Board notes Recommendation 35.2, which states “[...] the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) must reflect that applicants will be permitted to creatively resolve contention sets in a multitude of manners, including but not limited to business combinations or other forms of joint ventures and private resolutions (including private auctions).” The Board encourages the PDP WG to provide a rationale why the resolution of contention sets should not be conducted in a way such that any net proceeds would benefit the global Internet community rather than other competing applicants.” Question - Can the Board expand upon what they mean by “net proceeds benefitting the global community?” Are there methods of contention resolution that the board has discussed specifically that the WG should take into consideration? There are deep divisions within the WG and across the broader community, as evidenced by public comment, about contention resolution where applicants use contention resolution as a means to make money, be it through creative private resolutions involving monetary agreements or private auctions where losers receive funds. What if we are not able to reach consensus on the rationale you are asking for? Discussion: -- There is a divide in the WG. -- Becky Burr, Board Liaison: Would you still come up with a policy permitting or not permitting private resolutions? -- Avri Doria, Board Liaison: The community has been very specific about what they wanted to do with the money from the auction of last resort – to be spent in the public interest. Why shouldn’t this apply to this money? -- What if part of the rationale is that allowing the money to encourage competition. It will be really hard for the WG to come to agreement on a rationale. -- Becky Burr, Board Liaison: Not wrong to provide two rationales. -- Avri Doria, Board Liaison: But it needs to be able to answer the questions people will ask us. -- There is a major factor that the environment has changed significantly since 2012. -- We haven’t talked about the significant investment people have made and in an auction scenario the applicant could walk away with nothing. -- Seems that the Board is concerned about recommendations that are overly complex or unclear that could lead to litigation. Is that the case? -- Becky Burr, Board Liaison: The Board would like to get simple and clear recommendations that avoid unnecessary complexity. -- Avri Doria, Board Liaison: Not only is it easier to make a decision on a simple and clear recommendation, but also easier to implement. re: “B. The Board notes that if “private” resolutions will be allowed or encouraged in subsequent procedures, the PDP WG is requested to provide a rationale for why these private processes should only partially be brought into the program rather than be kept outside of the program or be brought into the program. The Board also encourages the PDP WG to provide guidance on the kinds of transparency requirements that it would like to see applied in practice around private resolutions of contention sets.” Question - Could the Liaisons provide clarity on what the Board means when they say: “… private processes should only partially be brought into the program rather than be kept outside of the program or be brought into the program”, particularly the references to into or outside of the program. And more generally, why the Board is seeking a rationale on this issue and A. Discussion: -- Avri Doria, Board Liaison: We don’t understand why if such a process is going to be allowed why it wouldn’t be completely private or completely ICANN-run. Having this halfway measure is confusing. What is the reason for making this a partial ICANN policy. Some of the thoughts about the private auction did include some ICANN oversight, so it ceases to be a totally private arrangement. re: "D. The Board acknowledges the “potential non-exhaustive list of ‘factors’ that ICANN may consider in determining whether an application was submitted with a bona fide (good faith) intention to operate the gTLD.” We note that this non-exhaustive list of “factors” may put ICANN org or the ICANN Board into the position of subjectively trying to determine the state of mind of applicants, and take decisions that are subject to possible challenges. The Board asks the PDP WG to consider providing a clear problem statement of what types of behaviour or abuse the requirement of bona fide applications is meant to address. PDP WG members could then use such a statement to provide objective criteria for assessing the bona fide nature of an application. (Pg. 164)” Question - The Board is asking the WG for a clear problem statement about abusive behavior that the non-exhaustive factors are meant to address. However, the work on the non-exhaustive factors was motivated by what some in the WG believed was the Board’s indication that it disfavors private auctions. Does the Board actually disfavor private auctions? If so, does the Board have a clear problem statement leading it to disfavor private auctions? If so, can you please share that with us? Discussion: -- Becky Burr, Board Liaison: The Board does not have a shared view on private auctions. There are a range of concerns among the Board and across the community. The Board needs to understand how the WG arrived at its recommendation. -- Avri Doria, Board Liaison: There is no nugget of what the Board wants in any of these questions. re: “E. The Board notes that a statement of “bona fide” intentions would be expected for all applications, not only those involved in auctions, particularly since when an application is submitted the applicant likely will not know if it will be in contention. (Pg. 164) F. In this context, the Board suggests that the PDP WG consider the hypothetical scenario of an applicant intending to operate up to five gTLDs. To avoid contention sets the applicant might apply for 20 strings, with the expectation to drop 15 applications based on contention and their own preference. Would those 15 applications not be considered “bona fide,” and what would be the consequence for such an applicant? Similarly, a large number of applications could be submitted by separate corporations; would ICANN org be required to establish each applicant’s investor(s) and other controlling parties in order to affirm bona fide intent? The Board believes it would be helpful for the PDP WG to address these questions and provide guidance on making objectively enforceable rules to establish what constitutes a bona fide intention to run a gTLD. (Pg. 164)” Question - The Board comments presupposes that applicants will violate the certification of bona fide intent by proposing a hypothetical scenario in which an applicant would apply for 20 TLDs with an intent to only operate 5. This seems to indicate a deep distrust of applicants. Some within the WG believe that the issue of private auctions is a minor issue or even a non-issue compared with other extant and widespread DNS abuses costing global business billions of dollars. If the Board has serious concerns that applicants will lie about their bona fide intentions to operate the registries for which they have applied, why would the Board allow such entities access to running a registry? What can the Board do to ensure a higher quality of applicant in the program?

4 5

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed edits to Recommendation 9.1 re: Category 1 Safeguards
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Nov. 24, 2020

Nov. 24, 2020

Dear all I would like to just briefly chime in to remind folks that the GAC consensus input includes a number of considerations about enforceability of PICs which go in a similar direction... Kindly Jorge Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Levine, Gertrude Gesendet: Montag, 16. November 2020 22:34 An: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed edits to Recommendation 9.1 re: Category 1 Safeguards Hi all, In last Thursday's SubPro meeting, we discussed Topic 9: Category 1 Safeguards - in particular, Recommendation 9.1, which reads, in part, as follows: "Mandatory Public Interest Commitments (PICs) currently captured in Specification 11 3(a)-(d) of the Registry Agreement must continue to be included in Registry Agreements for gTLDs in subsequent procedures. ..." The section in question was Specification 11 3(a): Specification 11 3(a)-(d): 3. Registry Operator agrees to perform the following specific public interest commitments, which commitments shall be enforceable by ICANN and through the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process . . . (a) Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name. As we discussed in the meeting, Specification 11 3(a) as currently written falls short of its intended purpose, protecting end users. It is therefore necessary to revise Specification 11 3(a) to hold new TLDs that are subject to Category 1 Safeguards accountable for their registrants' contractual compliance with those safeguards. Existing TLDs could be grandfathered as exempt from the Specification 11 3(a) revision. It seems there was some interest among the working group members to further explore this idea. I would propose changing Recommendation 9.1 in the final report to add the underlined text below: "Mandatory Public Interest Commitments (PICs) currently captured in Specification 11 3(a)-(d) of the Registry Agreement must continue to be included in Registry Agreements for gTLDs in subsequent procedures." In addition, Specification 11 3(a) should be revised to hold new TLDs that are subject to Category 1 Safeguards accountable for their registrants' contractual compliance with those safeguards. Existing TLDs could be grandfathered as exempt from the Specification 11 3(a) revision. I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts. Thanks, Gg Gertrude "Gg" Levine Digital Health Manager 847/391-4497 [cid:image006.png@01D6C259.8FD13A20]National Association of Boards of Pharmacy 1600 Feehanville Dr, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 www.nabp.pharmacy<http://www.nabp.pharmacy/> | glevine(a)nabp.pharmacy<mailto:glevine@nabp.pharmacy> [cid:image007.png@01D6C259.8FD13A20]<https://www.facebook.com/NABP1904/> [cid:image008.png@01D6C259.8FD13A20]<https://twitter.com/nabp> [cid:image009.png@01D6C259.8FD13A20]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/national-association-of-boards-of-pharmacy/> [cid:image010.png@01D6C259.8FD13A20]<https://www.youtube.com/c/NationalAssociationofBoardsofPharmacy>

2 1

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 23 November 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Nov. 23, 2020

Nov. 23, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 23 November 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/7IXzC> (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

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 01 December 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 23, 2020

Nov. 23, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the regular WG meeting on Tuesday, 01 December 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Note: For the schedule of the upcoming meeting topics, please see the Work Plan at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5Kn…. WG members are requested to review scheduled topics and comments prior to the meetings. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. 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 and comments: Topic 1: Continuing Subsequent Procedures<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpR…> Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpR…> Topic 5: Application Submission Limits<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpR…> Topic 16: Application Submission Period<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmC…> Topic 19: Application Queuing<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jS1m66MxbJRWhhQQTZBpyZnIuWm4ncpJFki…> 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

Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 23, 2020

Nov. 23, 2020

Dear WG Members, As noted during the WG meeting on Thursday, 19 November, please see for review the attached revised draft Final Report in Word and PDF, along with the Log of Final Report Action Items and Edits. The redlines in the attached revised draft Final Report reflect the edits made by leadership and support staff in accordance with the actions agreed to by the WG during the WG meetings held between 17 September and 09 November 2020, as noted in the Log with page references. These actions also were captured during each meeting and circulated to the WG. The following topics were covered by the WG in its meetings and addressed in the revised draft Final Report: Community Applications, General Comments, Predictability, Applicant Support, Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism, Applicant Guidebook, Communications, Systems, Application Change Requests, Application Fees, Base Registry Agreement, GAC Early Warning / GAC Consensus Advice, Role of Application Comment, and Objections. Note: In reviewing the revised draft Final Report WG members are requested to limit their review to the referenced pages in the Log and the redlines in the revised draft Final Report, and to focus only on errors and/or omissions, if any. If any errors/omissions are noted please send them to the WG email distribution list, referencing the page number and text, respectively. Please submit comments to the list, if any, not later than 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 01 December. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

With PDFs Re: Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 23, 2020

Nov. 23, 2020

Dear WG members, For some reason the PDF documents did not send. Here they are again. 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: Monday, November 23, 2020 at 3:04 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Review Revised Draft Final Report - DUE Tuesday, 01 December Dear WG Members, As noted during the WG meeting on Thursday, 19 November, please see for review the attached revised draft Final Report in Word and PDF, along with the Log of Final Report Action Items and Edits. The redlines in the attached revised draft Final Report reflect the edits made by leadership and support staff in accordance with the actions agreed to by the WG during the WG meetings held between 17 September and 09 November 2020, as noted in the Log with page references. These actions also were captured during each meeting and circulated to the WG. The following topics were covered by the WG in its meetings and addressed in the revised draft Final Report: Community Applications, General Comments, Predictability, Applicant Support, Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism, Applicant Guidebook, Communications, Systems, Application Change Requests, Application Fees, Base Registry Agreement, GAC Early Warning / GAC Consensus Advice, Role of Application Comment, and Objections. Note: In reviewing the revised draft Final Report WG members are requested to limit their review to the referenced pages in the Log and the redlines in the revised draft Final Report, and to focus only on errors and/or omissions, if any. If any errors/omissions are noted please send them to the WG email distribution list, referencing the page number and text, respectively. Please submit comments to the list, if any, not later than 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 01 December. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Three Guardrails for Voluntary PICs/RVCs
by Kathy Kleiman Nov. 23, 2020

Nov. 23, 2020

Hi All,You may have seen the piece on voluntary PICs that EFF circulated yesterday on its blog: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/icann-can-stand-against-censorship-an… Today I share a new document - THREE GUARDRAILS FOR VOLUNTARY PICS AND REGISTRY VOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS - elaborating on the three-part solution that EFF offered yesterday. To borrow a phrase from the great Paul McGrady, we would probably call this 3-part solution "Guardrails" for voluntary PICs and RVCs. We offer these Guardrails as a step forward to our mutual goal of voluntary PICs and RVCs which fall within the scope and mission of ICANN. I look forward to our discussion today and moving forward together on this important topic.Best, Kathy (Kleiman)

1 0