March 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 16 March 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter March 16, 2020

March 16, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 16 March 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/YCOJBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Michelle

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 16 March 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 12, 2020

March 12, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 16 March 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics – see the documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7O… and attached as a PDF. * 2.9.1 Community Applications * Topics Previously Discussed: 2.7.3 Closed Generics (discussed on 09 March); Public Interest Commitments (aka Registry Commitments) (in 2.3.2. Global Public Interest) (discussed on 10 March); 2.8.1 Role of GAC Early Warnings/Advice (discussed on 12 March); 2.5.4 Applicant Support (discussed on 12 March) 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 March 1545 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 12, 2020

March 12, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from WG Session #3 of 3 on 12 March at 1545 UTC at the ICANN67 Virtual Meeting. 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/2020-03-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: 2.8.1 Role of GAC Early Warnings/Advice Recommendation xx (rationale 1): ACTION ITEM: Consider omitting the bracketed text and only referencing section 12.2.a of the Bylaws. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the language to focus more on the operational problem vis-a-vis the timing of GAC advice, the need for predictability, and the desire to enable applications to be judged on their merits and not just as part of a class of applications. Consider also rationale 1 and 3. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): ACTION ITEM: Reference the applicable sections of the Bylaws and rewrite in consideration with recommendations-rationale 1, 2, and 3. Recommendation xx (rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: Separate the recommendation into two sentences. ACTION ITEM: Consider deleting the text, “and specific action requested of the applicant.” ACTION ITEM: Re: “include both a written rationale/basis” with more collaborative language, such as “reason” or “explanation”. Recommendation xx (rationale 5): ACTION ITEM: Accept and include the text in brackets “and GAC Advice”. ACTION ITEM: Rewrite to clarify the opportunity for dialog and recognizing that some governments may not have the ability to engage in that dialog. Recommendation xx (rationale 6): ACTION ITEM: Consider whether the language can be rewritten to allow a balance with the GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Advice. 2.5.4 Applicant Support Affirmation xx with modification (rationales 1 and 2): ACTION ITEM: Consider rewriting as a recommendation. ACTION ITEM: For affirmation 1 and 2, make it clear what is the original affirmation and what is new language. Recommendation xx (rationale 4) and Implementation Guidance: ACTION ITEMS: Review and rewrite the Implementation Guidance per the comments. Consider deleting the term “middle applicant”. ACTION ITEM: Reference the definitional work being done by ICANN. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics – see the documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7O… and attached as a PDF. a. 2.8.1 Role of GAC Early Warnings/Advice Recommendation xx (rationale 1): GAC Advice must include clearly articulated rationale, including the national or international law [and merits-based public policy reasons] [or merits-based public policy reasons] [and/or merits-based public policy reasons] upon which it is based. Discussion: -- Question Re: the bracketed text -- do we have to choose one of these options? Or can we decide on something else? Answer: No we don’t have to include any one of these. -- Don’t think we should accept any of the options. -- This recommendation should only refer to the Bylaws. -- The bracketed text was suggested in the public comments. -- Bylaws: Section 12.3. PROCEDURES of the ICANN Bylaws, which states that “. . .each Advisory Committee shall ensure that the advice provided to the Board by such Advisory Committee is communicated in a clear and unambiguous written statement, including the rationale for such advice.” -- Including the bracketed text would limit the scope of GAC advice as opposed to what is provided in the Bylaws. -- From section 12.2.a defining GAC role: "(i) The Governmental Advisory Committee should consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues." -- Come back to this issue. -- FYI: Someone reminded me that in the .amazon IRP, it states: "The Panel recommends that the Board of ICANN promptly re-evaluate Amazon’s applications in light of the Panel’s declarations above. In its re-evaluation of the applications, the Board should make an objective and independent judgment regarding whether there are, in fact, well-founded, merits-based public policy reasons for denying Amazon’s applications. " I believe this is where the language from Rec 1 came from. By posting this I am not taking a position one way or the other. Just publishing the source for that rec. ACTION ITEM: Consider omitting the bracketed text and only referencing section 12.2.a of the Bylaws. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): To provide predictability to applicants as well as the Internet community, future GAC Advice for categories of gTLDs (if any), and Board action thereupon, must be issued prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. Any GAC Advice issued after the application period has begun must apply to individual strings only, based on the merits and details of the applications for that string, not on groups or classes of applications. Discussion: -- GAC understands the need to provide more predictability, there are situations that are not foreseeable. The unpredictability of such situations will be much lower, but we cannot exclude that possibility. There will be classes of applications that will require similar treatment and that can’t be known until after the applications are submitted. We have to balance predictability and that there are policies that require homogeneous treatment where GAC can provide a role. Request more flexibility in this text. It is putting GAC advice in a straight jacket. -- <COMMENT> It is really odd to codify somewhere in a procedure that an AC cannot advise on something in certain circumstances; it is not compatible (again) with the bylaws.<COMMENT> -- We are trying to balance the timing of the GAC advice and predictability for applicants. In 2012 there was advice that came after the fact. Unfortunately the GAC advice tends to put applicants into a straight jacket, after they have submitted an application assuming that their application meets the necessary requirements. -- These recommendations are attempts to solve problems, but in a sense we are talking around the problems. The issue is the problem we are trying to solve: GAC advice just on the basis of timing isn’t fit for purpose -- that is, fitting into the application process. If we are looking for a way for the GAC to participate meaningfully, that is where we need to go. -- The problem is not so much GAC advice, it is that we cannot foresee everything. There are things that appear after the fact; only after we’ve seen all of the applications that have been presented, and some of the advice may pertain to a class of applications. -- We should be more sophisticated in how we approach this, and see the policy problem as the problem -- balancing the need for predictability and the need to allow flexibility to address GAC advice relating to a class of applications. <COMMENT> agree that timeliness is important: maybe the recommendation can be phrased differently; GAC is urged to provide advice, if any, on .... before... <COMMENT> -- A timeline would be helpful for GAC advice but also for the Board response. -- I have no issue with advice as to categories of TLDs. The more that the GAC can contribute during the AGB phase, the better off we will be when the applications are being reviewed. But I don’t think the GAC can be limited to Advice prior to the applications being revealed. -- It would make sense for the GAC to consider each application individually. Even where things come up after the fact, look at the merits of each application. -- A couple of the reasons we were making this recommendation: 1) some applicants who had particular conditions already in their application got held up in a category; 2) there is a danger if global advice is given about a category, unless those strings are set out exhaustively there is a danger that something gets missed. In identifying the category the individual strings should be identified and evaluated on their own merit. -- The problem with the category advice is that it was treated as “one-size-fits-all” advice. This should be resolvable. -- The biggest problem we are trying to address is the issue of delay if an applicant is held too long. The timing of receiving the advice is the issue, but it will depend on the number of applications. -- Part of the problem with the GAC advice was the Board's inability to respond to the GAC advice in a timely manner and that should be addressed as well.  -- So where the application refers to "compliance" with existing GAC Advice, ICANN Org will verify with GAC that that is the case, if not then that is open to GAC Advice for a specified time period and Board reaction also within a specified time period. ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the language to focus more on the operational problem vis-a-vis the timing of GAC advice, the need for predictability, and the desire to enable applications to be judged on their merits and not just as part of a class of applications. Consider also rationale 1 and 3. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): Consistent with the updated ICANN Bylaws, omit in future editions of the Applicant Guidebook language included in the 2012 AGB section 3.1 that GAC Advice “will create a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved.” The Working Group believes that this language is not only unnecessary in light of the Bylaws, but has the unintended consequence of hampering the ability for applicants, ICANN org, and the GAC to mitigate concerns, which could allow an application to proceed. Discussion: -- GAC advice should not be constrained by the AGB nor should it be expanded beyond what is allowed in the Bylaws. -- Redraft the recommendations-rationale 1, 2, and 3. -- Applicants do need some kind of heads up on what the Bylaws actually say. Need to understand the GAC advice process. May need to include a reference. -- Can just connect this to what the Bylaws say. ACTION ITEM: Reference the applicable sections of the Bylaws and rewrite in consideration with recommendations-rationale 1, 2, and 3. Recommendation xx (rationale 4): To the extent that there is a decision to allow a longer period for the GAC to provide Early Warnings (above and beyond the public comment period), the application process should define a specific time period during which GAC Early Warnings can be issued and require that the government(s) issuing such Warning(s) include both a written rationale/basis and specific action requested of the applicant. Discussion: -- Think that the recommendation is saying two things but it is a bit mixed. The first phrase is about the extended time period for GAC early warnings and on the 4th line up to “require” should be a separate sentence because we don’t want to limit that to a specific time period, but something we want in general. That there is a rationale and specific action requested on the applicant. Separate into two sentences. -- Re: “application process should define” should say, “the Applicant Guidebook should define”. Not meant to imply that there was a separate process. -- This is trying to say that when a GAC member submits an Early Warning they should make themselves available to an applicant to work things out. -- Re: “and specific action requested of the applicant.” -- this could be problematic as the government might simply request that the applicant should withdraw the application. Suggest deleting that text. -- Why require “rationale” from the GAC? Maybe replace with “reason” or “explanation” or some other term. ACTION ITEM: Separate the recommendation into two sentences. ACTION ITEM: Consider deleting the text, “and specific action requested of the applicant.” ACTION ITEM: Re: “include both a written rationale/basis” with more collaborative language, such as “reason” or “explanation”. Recommendation xx (rationale 5): The applicant must have an opportunity to engage in direct dialogue in response to GAC Early Warnings [and GAC Advice] and amend the application during a specified time period. -- Good idea for GAC early warnings and GAC advice. -- The reason why GAC Advice is in brackets is because the original language didn’t include it. The feedback is supportive of including “and GAC Advice”. -- Concerned about the use of the word “dialog” as well as the implication that the applicant has some sort of right. That some governments may not have the ability to engage in that dialog. ACTION ITEM: Accept and include the text in brackets “and GAC Advice”. ACTION ITEM: Rewrite to clarify the opportunity for dialog and recognizing that some governments may not have the ability to engage in that dialog. Recommendation xx (rationale 6): Applicants must be allowed to change the application, including the addition or modification of Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs, formerly Voluntary PICs), in response to GAC Early Warnings and/or GAC Advice. Discussion: -- Suggestion changing “in response to GAC Early Warnings and/or GAC Advice” to “which address GAC Early Warnings and/or GAC Advice.” Combine with rationale 5. -- Wondering whether there are any qualifiers about same strings or contention sets and the applicability of GAC Advice. There were circumstances in 2012 where some strings in a contention set were problematic and others weren’t re: GAC Advice. -- To restate: it should not be codified in this recommendation. I was not suggestion that all governments should not have the opportunity, but under no circumstances should the process be held up waiting for 'all' governments to comment. -- Figure out if there is a different way to state the recommendation. ACTION ITEM: Consider whether the language can be rewritten to allow a balance with the GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Advice. b. 2.5.4 Applicant Support Affirmation xx with modification (rationale 2): Discussion: -- Starts as an affirmation but then the language used suggests a recommendation. -- Affirming the modification of the language from 2012. But we can state it as a recommendation if that is less confusing. -- Define the term “non-financial assistance”. For affirmation 1 and 2, make it clear what is the original affirmation and what is new language. ACTION ITEM: Consider rewriting as a recommendation. ACTION ITEM: For affirmation 1 and 2, make it clear what is the original affirmation and what is new language. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): The Working Group recommends expanding the scope of financial support provided to Applicant Support Program beneficiaries beyond the application fee to also cover costs such as application writing fees, attorney fees related to the application process, and ongoing ICANN registry-level fees. Discussion: -- How are we addressing that a registry is able to financially and stably operate their TLD? -- They also may have non-financial assistance such as a back-end operator may agree to run the TLD for them. Recognition that there could be a need for support for ongoing ICANN registry-level fees. Recommendation xx (rationale 4): The Working Group recommends that ICANN seek opportunities to improve outreach, education, application evaluation, and program evaluation elements of the Applicant Support Program, as proposed in the Implementation Guidance below. Also, see related Implementation Guidance. Discussion: -- Don’t need to say “recommends that ICANN seek opportunities to improve outreach” but just “ICANN improves outreach” -- render into active voice. -- Can we bracket the recommendation that registry fees be waived or financial support provided please? -- Replace “education” with “increase awareness”. -- It seems that the point of departure the group is taking is the Application Support program, rather than the report that lead to the implementation documents. There were some recommendations in the report that were not implemented in the last round, but the Board asked that they be considered in future. Do we think the IRT would be the group to look at that? Then we need to point back to the Joint-Applicant Support Report. -- What we are saying here is that the GNSO policy process using has just one implementation team, but we are saying we want two implementation teams, one of which is dedicated to the Applicant Support Program. Also consider regional efforts/documentation. -- Concern about creating a class of registries that will fail. -- GAC Underserved Regions will look at these recommendations and come back with comments. -- Drop “middle countries”. -- RySG comment: The RySG believes that ICANN's support should be limited to financial support for the application fee. Further involvement in the operational, technical and business aspects of a registry/registrar will only serve to unnecessarily involve ICANN in the operations of a registry/registrar and will serve as a de facto endorsement of certain registries/registrars and set a negative precedent for future entities that want to enter the registry/registrar business. ACTION ITEMS: Review and rewrite the Implementation Guidance per the comments. Consider deleting the term “middle applicant”. c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. In considering public comments, the Working Group discussed prioritization of successful Applicant Support applications. Specifically, the Working Group considered whether there should be any changes to the 2012 approach of establishing priority between applications if there are more qualified applicants than funds available. The Working Group did not come to a conclusion on these points, and therefore did not recommend a departure from the 2012 implementation. Discussion: -- In terms of At Large discussions, there were thoughts about approaching this from a regional perspective -- maybe having a quota based on regions. -- Add something that provides equity among regions. -- Seems that it would be simpler if the ASP was run as a separate operation to the new gTLD program in some way. there needs to be separate before any potential application comes into the ASP. Hard to determine if we don’t know how much funding is available and how many applicants will seek support. -- That’s why we have the recommendation that ICANN should establish a pool. -- Need to reference the definitional work being done by ICANN. Referenced in d. but maybe include in the rationale. ACTION ITEM: Reference in rationale 4 the definitional work being done by ICANN.

1 0

REMINDER re: Schedule and Proposed Agenda for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67
by Julie Hedlund March 12, 2020

March 12, 2020

Dear SubPro PDP WG members, As a reminder, per the ICANN67 Virtual Community Forum Schedule the sessions for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are as follows and are on the schedule at: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings[67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…>. Please note the proposed agenda for the sessions below, which also is posted on the wiki pages at the links below. In addition, please note below the related GAC sessions that may be of interest. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ICANN67 Schedule – New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Sessions See the ICANN67 GNSO Remote Participation Details Virtual Meetings<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN67+GNSO+Remote…> and How to Participate in ICANN67 Virtual Sessions<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann67-how-to-participate-virt…> The ICANN67 Virtual community Forum [67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…> scheduled session times are all reflected as Eastern Standard Time (MX) for Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico [UTC-5]. Important Reminder: On 8 March, Eastern Standard Time (EST) changes in the U.S. and Canada to Eastern Daylight saving Time (EDT), however, there is NO TIME CHANGE in Cancún, Mexico or to the posted Virtual Community Forum schedule on this date. For the EASTERN US this means that the meeting times will be ONE HOUR LATER than the times listed in the local Cancún time. Proposed Agenda – to be adjusted for each session as topics are addressed: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics – see the documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7O… and attached as a PDF. * 2.7.3 Closed Generics * Public Interest Commitments (aka Registry Commitments) (in 2.3.2. Global Public Interest) * 2.8.1 Role of GAC Early Warnings/Advice * 2.5.4 Applicant Support * 2.9.1 Community Applications 3. AOB Session Times and Wiki Pages: Monday, 09 March: 17:15-18:45 UTC (12:15-13:45 (Cancún)/13:15-14:45 EDT) – Session 1 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-09+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Tuesday, 10 March: 17:00-18:30 UTC (12:00-13:30 (Cancún)/ 13:00-14:30 EDT )– Session 2 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-10+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Thursday, 12 March: 15:45-17:45 UTC (10:45-12:45 (Cancún)/ 11:45-13:45 EDT) – Session 3 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-12+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Related GAC Sessions of Interest (follow the schedule links for descriptions and times): Monday, 09 March: GAC Capacity Building Workshop: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152537 GAC: Update on Current Issues (New gTLD Subsequent Procedures): https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152538 Tuesday, 10 March: GAC: Follow up Discussions on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152541 Wednesday, 11 March: GAC: New gTLD Subsequent Rounds Discussion: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152546 GAC: Wrap up on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussions: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152547

1 5

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 March 1700 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 10, 2020

March 10, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from WG Session #2 on 10 March at 1700 UTC at the ICANN67 Virtual Meeting. 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/2020-03-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ACTION ITEM: Re: “Specification 11 3(a)-(d) of the Registry Agreement” -- Include footnote with text of these mandatory PICs. ACTION ITEM: Add Closed Generics to the dependencies. Recommendation xx (rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: In rationale 6 reference changes to applications and processes associated with those changes, including public comment. ACTION ITEM: Add that any RVCs that are agreed to are considered an application change and reference that section of the report. Recommendation xx (rationale 6): ACTION ITEM: Instead of “reviewed by ICANN” change to whatever entity or panel is reviewing whether the RVC addresses the underlying concern that resulted in the RVC. Recommendation xx (rationale 8): ACTION ITEM: Add a comment/question as to whether “all TLDs” refers to all gTLDs or only to new gTLDs. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check to see if the Board referred 14/15/16 to the GNSO Council and thus to SubPro. ACTION ITEM: Need to include the status of the pending CCT-RT recommendations as to whether this should be a WG recommendation. Check to see if there is another way to reword this instead of as a recommendation. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics – see the documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7O… and attached as a PDF. Overarching Question: -- Question: Seek clarification on what is the status of the document we are discussing? Answer: These are draft final recommendations based on a lot of work that the WG has done. These are not final recommendations and everything is going out for public comment. a. Public Interest Commitments (aka Registry Commitments) (in 2.3.2. Global Public Interest) -- Change the title “Global Public Interest” to something clearer. This is a historical title. Keep a reference to the former title. Perhaps call it Registry Commitments. -- Need to keep the term "Public Interest" because the enforcement tool at present is the "Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure" Call it "Registry Public Interest Commitments?" -- Not covering enforcement here, that is in the section covering PICDRP. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): 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. No additional mandatory PICs are needed at this time. Noting that Mandatory PICs were not included in the 2007 recommendations, this recommendation codifies existing practice into policy. One adjustment to the 2012 implementation is included in the following recommendation (Recommendation xx (rationale 3)). Discussion: -- Single-registrant is a TLD with a waiver on code of conduct (Spec 9). Those can be either Spec 9-only or Spec 9+Spec 13. All Spec 13 RAs are also exempted from Spec 9. -- Need to flag a dependency that goes back to Closed Generics. Check to make sure that we are consistent with what we are waiving in the mandatory PICs. -- Suggest changing voluntary PICs to “Registry Voluntary Commitments”. ACTION ITEM: Re: “Specification 11 3(a)-(d) of the Registry Agreement” -- Include footnote with text of these mandatory PICs and note that the recommendation doesn’t apply to Specs 11 3(c) and (d). ACTION ITEM: Add Closed Generics to the dependencies. Recommendation xx (rationale 4): ICANN must continue to provide applicants with the opportunity to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) (previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds. Applicants must be able to submit RVCs at the time of application submission as well as at any other time prior to the execution of a Registry Agreement. RVCs will continue to be included in the applicant’s Registry Agreement. In addition, for subsequent rounds all provisions of the PICDRP and associated processes shall equally apply to RVCs. Discussion: -- Question: Are we still saying that anyone can put anything into a registry agreement? Answer: We do discuss the issue of changes to applications in the deliberations section. ACTION ITEM: In rationale 6 reference changes to applications and processes associated with those changes, including public comment. ACTION ITEM: Add that any RVCs that are agreed to are considered an application change and reference that section of the report. Recommendation xx (rationale 5): Applicants must also be allowed to commit to additional RVCs, or modify proposed RVCs, in response to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Advice. -- Question: What is the public comment after the commitment to additional RVCs? Answer: We are saying these are application changes and are governed by those recommendations. Reference the application change request section rather than duplicating language. Recommendation xx (rationale 6): At the time an RVC is made, the applicant must set forth whether such commitment is limited in time, duration and/or scope such that the commitment can adequately be reviewed by ICANN, a party providing a relevant public comment (if applicable), an existing objector (if applicable) and/or the GAC (if the RVC was in response to a GAC Early Warning or GAC Advice). Discussion: -- Comment from ICANN Org: “Note request from ICANN org to clarify what is meant by “reviewed by ICANN” (i.e., an evaluation, a completeness check, or something else)” -- Put in a note as to whether that review can be reviewed by the public. -- Don’t think it is appropriate for objections to be resolved through private voluntary commitments on which there is no public comment. -- Note that rationale 7 says, “Recommendation xx (rationale 7): Any proposed changes to RVCs, including additions or changes, must be subject to public comment.” ACTION ITEM: Instead of “reviewed by ICANN” change to whatever entity or panel is reviewing whether the RVC addresses the underlying concern that resulted in the RVC. Recommendation xx (rationale 8): The Working Group acknowledges ongoing work in the community on the topic of DNS abuse and recommends that the community continues to take steps to address CCT-RT recommendations 14, 15, and 16 through community-wide discussions that address DNS abuse in all TLDs as opposed to dealing with these recommendations with respect to only the introduction of subsequent new gTLDs. Discussion: -- Don't think it's necessary to say "address the CCT recommendations." The Board is doing that. It feels obvious.  -- Question: What does this exactly mean? Where would this policy work need to happen? Would there need to be another PDP? Answer: If the community works out this issue on DNS abuse then it would be included in new registry agreements and into existing agreements. The intent is not to say that this issue isn’t important, but that we need to take a holistic approach to DNS abuse. So, whatever the community does to resolve DNS abuse issues that it is included in existing and new registry agreements. -- SUGGESTION: Text in Rec xx (rationale 8) - …."that address DNS abuse in all TLDs" …. but the CCT-RT refers only to the newgTLDs, no? -> should the text be amended to …."that address DNS abuse in all new gTLDs" ….  -- Note sure we need to say this, “and recommends that the community continues to take steps to address CCT-RT recommendations 14, 15, and 16 through community-wide discussions” since this work will keep going. -- Is it all gTLDs or does it only apply to new gLTDs. -- Question: Are 14/15/16 in the current implementation? -- Question: Is this really a recommendation? Is there another way we want to communicate this other than as a recommendation. -- For 14 and 15, the Board resolution action was: Place this recommendation in “Pending” status. The Board directs ICANN org to facilitate community efforts to develop a definition of “abuse” to inform further action on this recommendation. To negotiate “anti-abuse measures”, a common understanding of what “abuse” means must first be reached. For 16: part of the recommendation was passed through the relevant groups. Here is the scorecard: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scor… -- Need to consider the status of the pending CCT-RT recommendations as to whether this should be a WG recommendation. -- Need to make sure we track to the Board resolution. -- Need to take DNS abuse and the Board resolution very seriously, particularly the GAC Montreal advice. -- We are saying that our PDP is not the right vehicle to solve that issue. -- Question: What happens if SubPro PDP WG doesn’t address this issue? How will it be resolved? Answer: We are agreeing that the Board said that the PDP should address this issue but we are saying that it is not for this PDP to solve it. -- What was forwarded to the WG -- CCT-RT recommendations were directed at a number of groups including this one, and just a portion. That is in the context of 14 and 15 being pending. Need to provide that context. ACTION ITEM: Add a comment/question as to whether “all TLDs” refers to all gTLDs or only to new gTLDs. ACTION ITEM: Staff will check to see if the Board referred 14/15/16 to the GNSO Council and thus to SubPro. ACTION ITEM: Need to include the status of the pending CCT-RT recommendations as to whether this should be a WG recommendation. Check to see if there is another way to reword this instead of as a recommendation. The Working Group is further considering additional recommendations and Implementation Guidance in line with CCT-RT recommendations: Potential Recommendation: Applicants must provide a rationale for any RVCs proposed. Potential Recommendation: In support of the principle of transparency, RVCs must be readily accessible and presented in a manner that is usable, as further described in the Implementation Guidance below. Potential Implementation Guidance: The Working Group notes the CCT-RT’s recommendation 25 has recommended developing an “organized, searchable online database” for RVCs. ICANN org should evaluate this recommendation in the implementation phase and determine the best method for ensuring that RVCs are widely accessible. Discussion: -- No objections to rationale applying to all RVCs (first bullet). -- No objections to RVCs being readily accessible (second bullet). -- Question: What is the intent of requiring the rationale? Answer: This came out of RVCs that responded to public comment or objections, so that public commenters could understand why this commitment is being made. c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. The Working Group is discussing whether to affirm the framework adopted for Category 1 strings in the 2012 round and/or provide guidance on rules for sensitive strings in future rounds. The Working Group considered that it could potentially develop a framework and/or set of criteria for determining what is sensitive or in a "highly-regulated" sector. For example, an applicant could be asked to self-identify that they are applying for a string that is sensitive or in a "highly-regulated" sector. An expert panel could then review that self-designation, as was the case with geographic names in the 2012 round. Discussion: -- Staff comment: Reminder of questions from ICANN org: If mandatory PICs are to be codified as policy recommendations, it would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could provide guidance on (i) What the categories of strings are; (ii) The process and criteria for applied-for strings to be put into those categories, including who makes the decision, implications on the evaluation and string contention processes; (iii) What the contractual obligations are for each of the categories. -- Question: Seek clarification on what is the status of the document we are discussing?

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposal re Closed Generics
by Brian Winterfeldt March 10, 2020

March 10, 2020

Dear Marc, Re-reading the particular Board resolution on the subject from June 21, 2015, the Board resolved “that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program” and “For the remaining applicants in this round of the New gTLD Program who propose to provide exclusive registry access for a generic string ("Exclusive Generic Applicants") … they must elect within a reasonably limited time to either: submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD, and sign the current form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement; maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD. As a result, their application will be deferred to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs; or withdraw their application for a refund consistent with the refund schedule in the Applicant Guidebook.” See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06…. I suppose, then, you are right that it would perhaps be more accurate to say that the current status quo is merely that closed generics have to date been prohibited, but could be permitted in future pending a change in rules through policy recommendations of this PDP (even though the resolution of course references serving a public interest goal). In any case, our position is still that closed generics should (continue to) be prohibited in future new gTLD rounds, unless the applicant can demonstrate that operating a generic gTLD in a closed manner would serve a public interest goal (outweighing anti-competition concerns). Best regards, Brian ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b…]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 1:59 PM To: Brian Winterfeldt <Brian(a)Winterfeldt.law<mailto:Brian@Winterfeldt.law>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposal re Closed Generics Brian, Respectfully I disagree that the status quo with respect to treatment of “closed generic” gTLDs, is that they should be prohibited unless the applicant can demonstrate a public interest reason for allowing operation as a closed generic gTLD. As I and some others have pointed out in numerous other emails on this thread, the public interest requirement was merely GAC advice and has become the “status quo” only as a result of it being inaccurately referred to that so many times that people accept it as fact. In my view, if anything, the status quo is one of the following: 1. Closed generics are permitted because they were not prohibited in the AGB and the Board only prohibited them in the first round and directed the GNSO to make policy to address their treatment in subsequent rounds; or 2. Closed generics are not permitted because the Board prohibited them in the first round Personally, I think it is #1 based on the Board making specifying that the prohibition just applied to the current round and directed the GNSO to make it policy if the ban were to apply to future rounds, but reasonable minds can differ on that. I don’t think it is reasonable to keep saying though that the status quo is that closed generics can only exist if it is demonstrable that their existence is in the public interest based on the record. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Brian Winterfeldt Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 3:16 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposal re Closed Generics *EXTERNAL TO GT* Dear all, We generally support the current status quo with respect to treatment of “closed generic” gTLDs, namely that they should be prohibited unless the applicant can demonstrate a public interest reason for allowing operation as a closed generic gTLD. While we appreciate that there may be some innovative uses of closed generic gTLDs in the public interest, given the potential for abuse of closed generic gTLDs (e.g. anti-competitive uses), we support prohibition as the default (again, subject to a public interest exception, for which the applicant would bear the burden of proof). Accordingly, we would support formalizing this approach in a future iteration of the AGB. To that end, we also agree that clear criteria for what might constitute a public interest exception should be enumerated in such text (to be developed in implementation), and that any determinations on this subject would be appealable through the existing ICANN accountability mechanisms. Hope this input is helpful. Sincerely, Brian and Griffin ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b…]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Q_Yj…> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 Washington, DC 20006<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/x-apple-data-detectors:/*12/1__;Lw!!DUT_T…> brian(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b…]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Q_Yj…> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 Washington, DC 20006<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/x-apple-data-detectors:/*12/1__;Lw!!DUT_T…> griffin(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pruis, Elaine via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 2:22 PM To: dorraink(a)amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposal re Closed Generics Thanks for the response. I don’t see why a TLD would have to be a generic word to support any of the innovative concepts put forward. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Date: Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 12:06 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Proposal re Closed Generics Somehow I accidentally only replied to Elaine, apologies! From: Dorrain, Kristine Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 9:02 AM To: 'Pruis, Elaine' <epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics A “closed generic” is single-registrant (see Spec 9 and Spec 11 of the RA). A restricted TLD has non-RO registrants, but those registrants may have to satisfy criteria to get in, like .BANK. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Pruis, Elaine via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 8:53 AM Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics What’s the difference between a “restricted TLD” and a “closed generic” if the operator writes the rules to only allow registrants that fit their desired profile? What am I missing? Elaine From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mike Rodenbaugh <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 6:02 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics I think closed generics should be allowed, just as they were in the 2012 round... until the Board's knee-jerk reaction to unsubstantiated GAC pressure. I disagree with Alan that means "no closed generics" is the current policy. The AGB clearly allowed them, as they were not prohibited or restricted in any way. I agree with Becky that any "public interest" criteria had better be crystal clear to give the Board guidance. But I don't think the Board should be deciding those things, at all. The entire program was designed for the Board NOT to make such decisions. Regardless of the criteria, some disappointed applicants certainly will challenge ICANN's decisions, as is their right under the Byalws. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.law<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/rodenbaugh.law__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Q_YjEVU8CSS…> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:34 AM Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr@board.icann.org>> wrote: I'm taking no position whatsoever on the notion of public interest closed generics and/or whether an adverse decision should be appealable. That said, if you do provide for a public interest exception to the no closed generics rule, please make the criteria crystal clear. Otherwise you should expect disappointed applicants to file IRPs on the basis of disparate treatment. On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:27 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander(a)schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Jeff, I agree. The board decision should be appealable – but if the board denies the “public interest” claim: I suggest that doesn’t have to lead to a denial of the entire application. The applicant could have an alternative “open gTLD” application portion as well – and upon board denial of the public interest claim the applicant could decide whether they want to withdraw; or fall back to the open registration version they submitted. Or appeal the board decision. Also I do not see the benefit of a strict “non-profit” restriction. All my 6 next round projects are non-profit, so I obviously value the choice of non-profit applicants a lot. But I could imagine “public interest” in an exclusive access model even when the registry is a for profit entity. In most of those cases that for profit entity would likely establish a trademark around the term. Like: “.twitter” – where TWITTER, Inc. would allow Twitter users to have their own twitter-handle matching domain (e.g. www.dotairport.twitter<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.dotairport.twitter__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Q_Y…> instead of the longish www.twitter.com/dotairport<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.twitter.com/dotairport__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ…> - why supporting the .com gTLD brand if you have your own global brand with dozens of millions of users?). In that case (in my mind) .twitter could not be a Spec 13 registration – because the heavy restrictions in Spec 13 would in my perspective not allow all Twitter handles to be registered as .twitter domains to be used by Twitter, Inc. clients (brand specialists: what’s your opinion on this? Do I see this too narrow?). Actually this would apply to all social media that are based on generic terms: • .twitter • .facebook • .snap • .telegram Just as examples. Is an exclusive access “.twitter” of “public interest”? Given that the brand is so impacting and all domains of an open gTLD .twitter would be likely subject to confusion: seems to make a lot of sense to provide TWITTER, Inc. with exclusive access. We run into a clear “judgement call” here. Is “.match” (matches to make fire, matching items, etc.) better off as reserved for match.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/match.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Q_YjEVU8CSS0x0AF…> (single platform) – or not? Do we require the ICANN board to make these calls? What is the rationale of their decision? Gut-feeling? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Mittwoch, 26. Februar 2020 12:40 To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Mike Rodenbaugh <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics Alan, Can you explain why being able to assert an accountability mechanism would destroy the notion of the public interest closed TLD. Remember, GAC Advice was fairly clear on this. It didn’t say that there should never be closed generic TLDs. It said “For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal." Your initial proposal (minus the no appeals part) to have any public interest TLD closed generic exception is rather narrow to begin with. Must be a non-profit entity, must have a vote by Board Supermajority, etc. Justine has recommended some additional elements on top of that with strong contractual compliance provisions….. I am not saying I support or don’t support the proposal, but I am not sure why taking away a right to use an accountability mechanism would destroy the entire proposal? Thanks. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 5:49 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics Fine with me. But in my opinion, that means the exception for public interest TLDs will not fly and we revert to the 2012 implementation of no closed generics. Alan At 25/02/2020 04:32 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: i do not believe the Board should be allowed to make any decisions that are not "appealable" per the IRP. If Claimant has proper standing and a dispute within the scope of the Bylaws definition of Dispute, then they have a valid IRP claim. This is a very slippery slope to start to carve out Board decisions that have no chance of appeal, and why on Earth would we want to do that anyway? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.law<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/rodenbaugh.law__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Q_YjEVU8CSS…> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 7:08 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: I had this in my original proposal but based on individual discussions I have had I know that some people missed it. To have the Board make a decision that is not in any way appealable will require a Bylaw change, but it is a change for which there is another precedent that will go before the Board before out report reaches them. The Auction Proceeds CCWG also will require a similar Bylaw amendment. Alan At 24/02/2020 09:46 PM, Phil Buckingham wrote: Hi Justine , Alan , Anne, Justine , thatÃ¢€™s a great suggestion. The contrntractual compliance & monitoring needs to be much more rigorous in the next round . I very much support AlanÃ¢€™s suggestion of going aheadead with new ( 2020) policy recommendations for a special use case , New TLD application category . LetÃ¢€™s call it a Public Ic Interest TLD . I am working on a proposal ( for FridayÃ¢€™ deadline) .) . It will incorporate the evaluation and implementation issues too. Ultimately my thoughts are we need to make policy that is so demanding , incorporating AlexanderÃ¢€™s suggestion of a Ã¢â‚¢â‚¬œ health warning Ã¢€œ that applications will not pt pass the evaluation. ICANN will need to employ & train Ã¢â‚¬œ evaluation experts. There will be no come backs , no second evaluation , no appeals . Once passed the evaluation The Board would need to approve ( or reject) the application by Special resolution. Your thoughts ? Phil Phil Buckingham Sent from my iPhone On 25 Feb 2020, at 01:30, Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> > wrote: Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual Compliance topic. Justine ----- On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Thank you Justine. This is very constructive. We would then need to think about enforcement mechanisms. Private dispute resolution process? Filing a complaint with ICANN? Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to monitor? Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility requirements? Would appreciate your further thoughts. Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's proposal should also include the following: Insertion as material in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, such terms and conditions: (1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest; (2) which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg. discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or against competitors in the applicable industry); (3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA; and (4) to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the RA. the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA. Justine ----- On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a large load of such cases going to the Board will not work. The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised. Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call. To make my position clear, other than this special case I am proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics. Alan At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics. > >One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to >closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that >a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example >of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example. > >I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the >decision on whether a particular application would move forward or >not would rest with the ICANN Board. > >The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at >least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD >would be in the public interest. > >The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN >Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would >require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision >from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an >amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there >is a current precedent. > >If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near >unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this >matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered >Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw >change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill. > >This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in >the view of the Board) in the Public Interest. > >Alan _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt…> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP…>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ…>). 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. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Ã‚Â§2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt…> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP…>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ…>). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt…> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP…>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ…>). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt…> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP…>) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ…>). 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. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Q_YjEVU8CSS0…> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt…> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ…>). 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgt…> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ…>). 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. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.

6 11

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER re: Schedule and Proposed Agenda for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67
by Vanda Scartezini March 9, 2020

March 9, 2020

My apologies I will not be able to attend all sessions.’ Productive work to all Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, March 9, 2020 at 09:37 To: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER re: Schedule and Proposed Agenda for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67 Dear SubPro PDP WG members, As a reminder, per the ICANN67 Virtual Community Forum Schedule the sessions for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are as follows and are on the schedule at: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings[67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…>. Please note the proposed agenda for the sessions below, which also is posted on the wiki pages at the links below. In addition, please note below the related GAC sessions that may be of interest. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ICANN67 Schedule – New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Sessions See the ICANN67 GNSO Remote Participation Details Virtual Meetings<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN67+GNSO+Remote…> and How to Participate in ICANN67 Virtual Sessions<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann67-how-to-participate-virt…> The ICANN67 Virtual community Forum [67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…> scheduled session times are all reflected as Eastern Standard Time (MX) for Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico [UTC-5]. Important Reminder: On 8 March, Eastern Standard Time (EST) changes in the U.S. and Canada to Eastern Daylight saving Time (EDT), however, there is NO TIME CHANGE in Cancún, Mexico or to the posted Virtual Community Forum schedule on this date. For the EASTERN US this means that the meeting times will be ONE HOUR LATER than the times listed in the local Cancún time. Proposed Agenda – to be adjusted for each session as topics are addressed: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics – see the documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7O… and attached as a PDF. a. 2.7.3 Closed Generics b. Public Interest Commitments (aka Registry Commitments) (in 2.3.2. Global Public Interest) c. 2.8.1 Role of GAC Early Warnings/Advice d. 2.5.4 Applicant Support e. 2.9.1 Community Applications 3. AOB Session Times and Wiki Pages: Monday, 09 March: 17:15-18:45 UTC (12:15-13:45 (Cancún)/13:15-14:45 EDT) – Session 1 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-09+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Tuesday, 10 March: 17:00-18:30 UTC (12:00-13:30 (Cancún)/ 13:00-14:30 EDT )– Session 2 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-10+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Thursday, 12 March: 15:45-17:45 UTC (10:45-12:45 (Cancún)/ 11:45-13:45 EDT) – Session 3 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-12+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Related GAC Sessions of Interest (follow the schedule links for descriptions and times): Monday, 09 March: GAC Capacity Building Workshop: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152537 GAC: Update on Current Issues (New gTLD Subsequent Procedures): https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152538 Tuesday, 10 March: GAC: Follow up Discussions on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152541 Wednesday, 11 March: GAC: New gTLD Subsequent Rounds Discussion: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152546 GAC: Wrap up on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussions: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152547

1 0

Updated Link/PDF re: Schedule and Proposed Agenda for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67
by Julie Hedlund March 6, 2020

March 6, 2020

Dear SubPro PDP WG members, Please see here and below the updated link to the Google document with the link set to view: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7O…. For those who may not have access to Google docs, please also see the attached PDF. 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: Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 7:24 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Schedule and Proposed Agenda for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67 Dear SubPro PDP WG members, Per the ICANN67 Virtual Community Forum Schedule the sessions for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are as follows and are on the schedule at: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings[67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…>. Please note the proposed agenda for the sessions below, which also is posted on the wiki pages at the links below. In addition, please note below the related GAC sessions that may be of interest. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ICANN67 Schedule – New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Sessions See the ICANN67 GNSO Remote Participation Details Virtual Meetings<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN67+GNSO+Remote…> and How to Participate in ICANN67 Virtual Sessions<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann67-how-to-participate-virt…> The ICANN67 Virtual community Forum [67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…> scheduled session times are all reflected as Eastern Standard Time (MX) for Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico [UTC-5]. Important Reminder: On 8 March, Eastern Standard Time (EST) changes in the U.S. and Canada to Eastern Daylight saving Time (EDT), however, there is NO TIME CHANGE in Cancún, Mexico or to the posted Virtual Community Forum schedule on this date. For the EASTERN US this means that the meeting times will be ONE HOUR LATER than the times listed in the local Cancún time. Proposed Agenda – to be adjusted for each session as topics are addressed: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics – see the documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7O… * 2.7.3 Closed Generics * Public Interest Commitments (aka Registry Commitments) (in 2.3.2. Global Public Interest) * 2.8.1 Role of GAC Early Warnings/Advice * 2.5.4 Applicant Support * 2.9.1 Community Applications 3. AOB Session Times and Wiki Pages: Monday, 09 March: 17:15-18:45 UTC (12:15-13:45 (Cancún)/13:15-14:45 EDT) – Session 1 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-09+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Tuesday, 10 March: 17:00-18:30 UTC (12:00-13:30 (Cancún)/ 13:00-14:30 EDT )– Session 2 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-10+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Thursday, 12 March: 15:45-17:45 UTC (10:45-12:45 (Cancún)/ 11:45-13:45 EDT) – Session 3 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-12+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Related GAC Sessions of Interest (follow the schedule links for descriptions and times): Monday, 09 March: GAC Capacity Building Workshop: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152537 GAC: Update on Current Issues (New gTLD Subsequent Procedures): https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152538 Tuesday, 10 March: GAC: Follow up Discussions on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152541 Wednesday, 11 March: GAC: New gTLD Subsequent Rounds Discussion: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152546 GAC: Wrap up on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussions: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152547

1 0

Schedule and Proposed Agenda for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Sessions at ICANN67
by Julie Hedlund March 6, 2020

March 6, 2020

Dear RPMs PDP WG members, Per the ICANN67 Virtual Community Forum Schedule the sessions for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are as follows and are on the schedule at: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings[67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…>. Please note the proposed agenda for the sessions below, which also is posted on the wiki pages at the links below. In addition, please note below the related GAC sessions that may be of interest. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ICANN67 Schedule – New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Sessions See the ICANN67 GNSO Remote Participation Details Virtual Meetings<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN67+GNSO+Remote…> and How to Participate in ICANN67 Virtual Sessions<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann67-how-to-participate-virt…> The ICANN67 Virtual community Forum [67.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__67.schedule.icann.org_…> scheduled session times are all reflected as Eastern Standard Time (MX) for Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico [UTC-5]. Important Reminder: On 8 March, Eastern Standard Time (EST) changes in the U.S. and Canada to Eastern Daylight saving Time (EDT), however, there is NO TIME CHANGE in Cancún, Mexico or to the posted Virtual Community Forum schedule on this date. For the EASTERN US this means that the meeting times will be ONE HOUR LATER than the times listed in the local Cancún time. Proposed Agenda – to be adjusted for each session as topics are addressed: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics – see the documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7O… * 2.7.3 Closed Generics * Public Interest Commitments (aka Registry Commitments) (in 2.3.2. Global Public Interest) * 2.8.1 Role of GAC Early Warnings/Advice * 2.5.4 Applicant Support * 2.9.1 Community Applications 3. AOB Session Times and Wiki Pages: Monday, 09 March: 17:15-18:45 UTC (12:15-13:45 (Cancún)/13:15-14:45 EDT) – Session 1 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-09+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Tuesday, 10 March: 17:00-18:30 UTC (12:00-13:30 (Cancún)/ 13:00-14:30 EDT )– Session 2 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-10+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Thursday, 12 March: 15:45-17:45 UTC (10:45-12:45 (Cancún)/ 11:45-13:45 EDT) – Session 3 of 3 -- https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-12+ICANN67+Cancun-+New+gT… Related GAC Sessions of Interest (follow the schedule links for descriptions and times): Monday, 09 March: GAC Capacity Building Workshop: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152537 GAC: Update on Current Issues (New gTLD Subsequent Procedures): https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152538 Tuesday, 10 March: GAC: Follow up Discussions on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152541 Wednesday, 11 March: GAC: New gTLD Subsequent Rounds Discussion: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152546 GAC: Wrap up on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussions: https://67.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1152547

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 05 March 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland March 5, 2020

March 5, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 05 March 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/GB_JBw> (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