December 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Third Topical E-mail: Applicant Guidebook Question
by Jeff Neuman Dec. 1, 2020

Dec. 1, 2020

All, This is the Third topical E-mail on outstanding questions being "put to the list." The first was on Predictability, and the second on Applicant Support. This one covers the Applicant Guidebook (Topic 12). Remember: We are down to the wire on this, so unless you have a VERY strong objection to these, we will put these into the document. If you do have a big issue with the responses to these (all of which were previously discussed and in emails over the past 1.5 months), please let us know ASAP. Only comments that provide the rationale for the objection with proposed replacement text to address the specific outstanding questions will now be considered. Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. * Comment from Swiss Government/BC/Others. We disagree with the recommendation that the English version of the AGB shall be available up to two months before the other language versions (Recommendations 12.5 and 12.6). We suggest that the AGB should be published at the same time in all languages. * WG Recommendations: * Recommendation 12.5: The English version of the Applicant Guidebook must be issued at least four (4) months prior to the commencement of the applicant submission period * Recommendation 12.6: All other translated versions of the Applicant Guidebook, including in the 6 UN languages, must be available no later than two (2) months prior to the commencement of the application submission period. * Path Forward * Working Group leadership proposes to change the language of Section 12.6 to the following: * Recommendation 12.6: All other translated versions of the Applicant Guidebook, including in the 6 UN languages, must be available as close as possible in time to the English version of the Applicant Guidebook, but in no event later than two (2) months prior to the commencement of the application submission period. * At this point, without being able to get firm commitments from the translation team at ICANN (or their subcontractors), we believe that this is likely the best we can do at a high level. If the IRT has suggestions on how the time between the versions can be cut down, that would be ideal. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Thursday, December 3, 2020. Sincerely, Jeff & Cheryl Co-Chairs, SubPro PDP

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 03 December 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 1, 2020

Dec. 1, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the regular WG meeting on Thursday, 03 December 2020 at 15:00 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. Please also see the WG meeting with Rod Rasmussen, SSAC Chair, and other SSAC members at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-19+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Topic 26: Security and Stability<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8Q…> Topic 29: Name Collisions<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8Q…> Topic 11: Universal Acceptance<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AG…> Topic 40: TLD Rollout<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PglquKDd8amHiqI6Wfko0Plb80RPpbEjTMS…> 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

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

Dec. 1, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 01 December 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/2020-12-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpR…> Row 17 – NCSG ACTION ITEM: Reference with “subject to the Predictability Framework” and revise to add an "extraordinary circumstances" provision to 3.5, as with 3.6. Row 19 – ICANN org Re: 3. Have we concluded that applications can be forced to close (or forced with withdraw)? Thought the Board could close a round and force a withdraw, but not sure. ACTION ITEM: Revise the recommendation to say that if there is a reason for withdrawal then all remaining applications for that string would be closed unless there is a reason not to do so. Topic 16: Application Submission Period<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmC…> Row 10 – ICANN Org re: Provide min and max timeframe. ACTION ITEM: Revise according to the ICANN org comment on min and max timeframe, to perhaps 12-15 weeks. Topic 19: Application Queuing<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jS1m66MxbJRWhhQQTZBpyZnIuWm4ncpJFki…> Row 15 – ICANN Org re: Clarify affirmation of 2012 implementation. ACTION ITEM: Modify the affirmation with that it is the prioritization draw but that the logistical details of the draw can be decided by the IRT. Tie the Implementation Guidance to the affirmation. 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: Topic 1: Continuing Subsequent Procedures<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpR…> Overview – Leadership Comments: Extremely wide / diverse support. No real need to address any of the comments during the call from Leadership perspective. Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpR…> Row 6 – GBOC re: Accept .brand applications on a rolling basis; Row 13 -- Minds + Machines Group Limited Leadership Comments: Noted. This has been discussed on several occasions and not adopted by the Working Group. Row 14 – IPC re: Should be possible to pause rounds if necessary; Row 15 -- ALAC Leadership Comments: Working Group to discuss. Where is the 30-day pause limitation (IPC)? Noted. This has been discussed on several occasions and not adopted by the Working Group. Discussion: -- If anyone from the IPC could take note it would be helpful to send something on the list. Row 17 – NCSG Leadership Comments: New Round is not likely to start until 2022/23. Any recommendations based on Covid 19 today is not likely to be the case for that time period. Discussion: -- Question: What should go into the recommendation? Is this policy or implementation? Answer: That the predictability would that future rounds should take into account world events. -- IPC comment: Seems that there is mention of an emergency procedure, but it’s not explicit. -- Predictability model has a number of procedures relating to emergencies. -- 3.5 governs predictability along with the Predictability Framework. -- Maybe just add an "extraordinary circumstances" provision to 3.5, like 3.6? -- Just build a bridge saying “subject to the Predictability Framework”? ACTION ITEM: Reference with “subject to the Predictability Framework” and revise to add an "extraordinary circumstances" provision to 3.5, as with 3.6. Row 19 – ICANN org Leadership Comments: 1. ICANN asks whether we have defined what it means to end a round - We have tried on several occasions, but no good definition exists to declare a round completely done. 2. We need to confirm that the wording meanings are the same. 3. Have we concluded that applications can be forced to close (or forced with withdraw)? Thought the Board could close a round and force a withdraw, but not sure. 4. Change delegation in "If all applications for a particular string have been withdrawn, meaning the string has not been delegated" to "meaning that no Registry Operator has signed a Registry Agreement for the string." 5. We do not view this recommendation as inconsistent with 4.6(d)(iv) of the bylaws on CCT-RT's ability to make recommendations for future rounds. In fact, it recognizes that changes can be made through the Predictability Process and if they are material changes, they will apply to the next round after the round in which the changes are recommended. Discussion: Re: 3. Have we concluded that applications can be forced to close (or forced with withdraw)? Thought the Board could close a round and force a withdraw, but not sure. -- Should we have a recommendation that these applications should be closed and a refund issued, or if the applicant can’t be identified, then the funds would go to identified programs (see relevant sections.) -- Worried about instituting an administrative withdrawal. What about if there were ongoing legal disputes? -- It’s not an absolute rule. Could say all remaining applications for that string would be closed unless there is a reason not to. ACTION ITEM: Revise the recommendation to say that if there is a reason for withdrawal then all remaining applications for that string would be closed unless there is a reason not to do so. Row 20 – Nameshop Leadership Comments: Need to make sure that the terms are self-explanatory as to when things are final. Maybe don't rely on specific terms, but say what is intended. When there is no further option to appeal or challenge. Topic 5: Application Submission Limits<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpR…> Rows 10 and 13 – NCSG re: Support limiting applications submitted Leadership Comments: Noted and previously discussed. This came in with their last set of comments and was not accepted by the Working Group. Noted. If this recommendation is supported by all of the groups listed above, then the NCSG is free to submit a minority report with its position. Topic 16: Application Submission Period<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmC…> Row 10 – ICANN Org re: Provide min and max timeframe. Leadership Comments: Consider revisiting issue of providing a range as opposed to an exact week count. 12-15 weeks? ACTION ITEM: Revise according to ICANN org comment on min and max timeframe, to perhaps 12-15 weeks. Topic 19: Application Queuing<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jS1m66MxbJRWhhQQTZBpyZnIuWm4ncpJFki…> Row 14 -- Internet DotTrademark Organisation Limited re: Prioritize IDN variants. Leadership Comments: Refer to ePDP? Row 15 – ICANN Org re: Clarify affirmation of 2012 implementation. Leadership Comments: The Affirmation was on the prioritization Draw. If there are changes that still utilizes the Draw (eg., in person or not) or the law changes, then those should be discussed during the IRT and/or if after the Guidebook with the SPIRT. Might need to do an affirmation with modification, but logistics left to IRT. Boil down to what MUST be in there. There is Implementation Guidance in 19.4 -- maybe need to tie this IG to the affirmation. ACTION ITEM: Modify the affirmation with that it is the prioritization draw but that the logistical details of the draw can be decided by the IRT. Tie the Implementation Guidance to the affirmation.

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Tuesday, 01 December 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Nov. 30, 2020

Nov. 30, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 01 December 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/8oXzC> (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

Predictability Fina Questions Outstanding
by Jeff Neuman Nov. 30, 2020

Nov. 30, 2020

All, This weekend the leadership team reviewed some of the outstanding Action Items and we will be sending out several emails this week on those issues. Here is where we think we are on the Predictability topic. We are down to the wire on this, so unless you have a VERY strong objection to these, we will put these into the document. If you do have a big issue with the responses to these (all of which were previously discussed and in emails over the past 1.5 months, please let us know ASAP. Only comments that provide the rationale for the objection with proposed replacement text to address the specific outstanding questions will now be considered. Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 1. Can the GAC refer items directly to the SPIRT? It does not seem like there is Consensus within the Working Group for the GAC to be able to refer items directly to the SPIRT. That said, there does seem to be support within the group to include a recommendation/implementation guidance to encourage the ICANN Board / ICANN Org to engage in dialogue with the SPIRT to determine the steps required to consider GAC Consensus Advice. 1. Should the GAC have a Liaison to the SPIRT? There did seem to be some support within the Working Group to have AC Liaisons (ALAC / GAC / SSAC) to the SPIRT If those groups want to have one. 1. Regarding Turnaround Time for the SPIRT on Issues? The WG seemed to believe that setting timelines now in advance of issues we cannot yet predict is too difficult. That said, there did seem to be some support for the notion that every item referred to the SPIRT should contain an expected turnaround time in the referral request. This will also allow for certain items to be handled in an expedient fashion when required and others to have a longer time where speed may not be needed. 1. Ability for the ICANN Board to Respond to Emergency Situations. This comes up with respect to Predictability and with Systems (Topic 14). * With respect to the Predictability Framework: We propose adding a recommendation / implementation guidance that acknowledges that there may be some emergency actions which will require ICANN Org to take an action that may impact the new gTLD program. In such a case, the action should be narrowly tailored to address the emergency situation and recommend that the ICANN Board notify all impacted applicants (If any) and the SPIRT within 24 hours after the emergency situation. The notification shall include the nature of the emergency, the action (or expected action) taken in response to the emergency, as well as expected impacts on the new gTLD Program. That notification shall be considered a referral to the SPIRT of an issue if the SPIRT elects to address that issue. * With respect to Systems (Topic 14): We propose adding a recommendation stating: "With respect to its operation and administration of the systems, ICANN must retain the ability to act in emergency situations, including those where immediate action is necessary to remedy any service interruption, interference, service obstruction or other imminent threat to the systems; provided that ICANN provides notice to all impacted users of the affected system(s) as soon as reasonably practicable after such action has been taken along, and if such action involves any downtime to the system(s), it shall provide updates to impacted users as to when normal service can be restored." 1. Level of Detail in Change Logs: We propose adding to the recommendations / implementation guidance that the change log must contain a level of detail sufficient for the community to understand the scope and nature of the change without compromising security, the privacy of individuals, or confidentiality obligation owed to applicants or to other third parties. 1. Other ICANN Org Predictability Framework Questions - Can be handled by IRT. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 2, 2020. Thanks! Sincerely, Jeff and Cheryl Co-Chairs, SubPro PDP

2 2