April 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Deadline April 30 - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 2
by Emily Barabas June 2, 2020

June 2, 2020

Dear all, As discussed on today’s call, the leadership team is releasing the second set of revised draft recommendations for your review. 1. There are 5 topics in package 2 here, beginning on page 17: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… * 2.10.2 Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization * 2.5 Registrar Support for New gTLDs * 2.11.1 Registry System Testing * 2.12.1 TLD Rollout * 2.12.3 Contractual Compliance 1. Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. 1. Deadline for comments is Thursday April 30 at 23:59 UTC 1. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

3 3

Revisions to sections on GAC Advice - Current Status?
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne May 5, 2020

May 5, 2020

Jeff and Cheryl (and Paul McGrady), Jeff, you said that if there were any proposed changes to the GAC Advice language, we should get those in by May 1. However, the last time the WG looked at this, Paul had inserted a number of redline changes into the document. So which version are you expecting us to use when you ask for proposals to be made no later than May 1? And are these alternate proposals supposed to come in the form of redlines to the WG document in the same manner that Paul used? I had understood that Paul was doing some redrafting of his numerous edits. Or was there another small group that was supposed to be convened on this point? I don't see any way we can cancel the discussion on the language covering GAC Advice, even though you suggested at the top of the last call that we might. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D61D65.8ADA6800] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61D65.8ADA6800] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ 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. ?2510-2521.

6 9

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
by Jamie Baxter May 3, 2020

May 3, 2020

Hey Paul & Anne I think both your edits are improvements. Ideally I would like to see something that limits the independent research activity to “verifying statements or claims made in the application” and not just to “verify the community status of the applicant.” The later seems to introduce opportunity for advocacy. I would also like considered a requirement by the evaluators to produce an equal or resounding body of research when countering claims or statements made in an application. This avoids single sourced or fringe views from impeding the larger community interests, and it helps ensure balance and perspective are considered in the decisions. Thanks Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:01 PM To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, Jamie Baxter <Jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D61A6A.7D647740] Paul, I think you could use this language in the AGB, but I would change the last sentence to “When conducting such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.” I think “especially aware” is tough to measure and “evidence which a party should have included in its filings” is impossible to judge. I am mindful of the fact that these determinations will now be subject to appeal and that we are laying groundwork for an appeal with this language, e.g. appeal on the grounds that the panelist acted as an advocate in conducting independent research. Do you intend to set up grounds for appeal with your proposal? Should we be avoiding those grounds and stick to the substance of the community priority decision as demonstrated via objective evidence/research rather than setting up grounds based on a charge of improper conduct on the part of the evaluator? Thank you, Anne From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:10 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com) <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Anne. I think your language is a good start to a compromise. The concern is both knowing what the panelist is looking at and relying on as well as making sure that panelists don’t slip into an advocacy role s/he believes that a particular party is not being very well represented. Even the best of us are vulnerable to confirmation bias from time to time. How about: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists must be especially aware not assume an advocacy role, such as searching for evidence which a party should have already included in its filings.” Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Best, Paul To opt in to Taft's daily updates on COVID-19, please subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For news and advice on coronavirus-related implications, please review our Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> anytime. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:34 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>) <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Subject: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Paul, You wanted to start a small group on this topic, but we have not heard from you as to a counter-proposal. Jamie and Kathy are copied. Thank you, Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 7:52 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>) <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Subject: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Dear WG, In light of the short time frame, I am proposing language re the standard for Community Evaluation panelist relying on independent research (proposed limitation from 2012 by Kristine Dorrain and Paul McGrady) as follows: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant, provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose such independent research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered.” Just trying to get the ball rolling on this proposed compromise – noting that a lack of consensus results in a fallback to 2012 implementation. In addition, I think I have missed the proposed revisions to the Community Guidelines for scoring. Jeff, was this sent around again? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D61A6A.7D647740] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61A6A.7D647740] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ ________________________________ 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. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. §2510-2521.

3 4

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Thursday, 30 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 30 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/rS2JBw> (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

Slides from Matt Larson, ICANN OCTO
by Julie Hedlund April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

Dear Working Group members, During today’s WG meeting Matt Larson of ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer, mentioned a recent presentation he had given at the ECO Webinar on 30 April 2020 entitled, “Analysis of the Effects of COVID-19-Related Lockdowns on IMRS Traffic”. He has determined that he can share that presentation with this WG. It is attached for your reference. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 30 April at 2000 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/2020-04-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Rationale for Affirmation xx (Rationale 3): ACTION ITEM: Change language to reference the NCAP report to ICANN Org’s report. Implementation Guidance (Rationale 5): ACTION ITEM: Consider whether rather than an “Do Not Apply” list this might be a recommendation for development of criteria. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… 2.7.8 Name Collisions, page 91 Update from Jim Galvin, SSAC/NCAP Co-Chair: NCAP Status -- Matt Thomas offered apologies that he cannot join. -- Patrik Faltstrom also offered apologies. -- Matt Larson from ICANN OCTO is also attending. Three Studies: Study 1: -- Trying to gather up everything that we would have to work with on Name Collisions since the 2012 round. -- .corp, .home, and .mail on hold. -- Controlled interruption procedure and collect data. -- Project became an OCTO project. -- .corp, .home. and .mail are not in scope for SubPro PDP WG. -- Study 1 offers a perspective on Study 2 and Study 3. -- What will have to happen is that the final report will go out for public comment ending at the end of June/early July; the Board will have to make a decision on Studies 2 and 3. NCAP Discussion Group: -- The NCAP Discussion Group is an SSAC group that has to address 10 questions across 2 Board resolutions. -- That work will continue regardless of the Board’s decision on Studies 2 and 3. -- It is now looking specifically at the Board’s questions and what we know to answer the questions and what we think we need, which will feed into the DG’s statement of work for a future project. -- Will provide guidance for the Board to determine if a string can be delegated or is a collision string. -- Timeline is the timeline that the NCAP set out for itself. Procurement process at ICANN took longer than we expected -- the administrative side. -- Starting Study 2 now to take advantage of the time we have. -- The Board in March 2020 ask ICANN Org to complete Study 1 -- we’ve done that with a contractor; we’ll have the report to the Board by 30 June, but that will be tight. -- Contractor has delivered a draft final version of the report -- we have a deadline of 06 May to resolve feedback from the Discussion Group. -- Even though the Board asked ICANN Org to do Study 1 it was originally designed by the SSAC. -- Study 2 will proceed even if not funded by ICANN; SSAC, through NCAP, has a responsibility to answer the Board’s questions. It may not proceed as originally designed. Question: What is the relationship of the NCAP Discussion Group, the SSAC, and the NCAP Admin Committee? Answer: -- Originally the Board had focused on the SSAC, and the SSAC had done a proposal. -- There was some discussion of how to manage the project. -- The idea was that there should be a project sponsor/manager and OCTO became the home. -- All of the analysis and technical work will be done by the Discussion Group, which is open and transparent. -- Contractors are managed by OCTO. -- Created an Admin Committee that allows the SSAC to have oversight of what is going on. It is Rod Rasmussen, SSAC Chair, and Julie Hammer, SSAC Vice Chair , Merike Kaeo, Matt Larson, and the three NCAP Co-Chairs, Jim Galvin, Matthew Thomas, and Patrik Faltstrom. Recommendation xx (Rationale 2): ICANN must have ready prior to the opening of the Application Submission Period a mechanism to evaluate the risk of name collisions in the New gTLD evaluation process as well as during the transition to delegation phase. Affirmation xx (Rationale 3): The Working Group affirms continued use of the New gTLD Collision Occurrence Management framework unless and until the ICANN Board adopts a new mitigation framework. This includes not changing the controlled interruption duration and the required readiness for human-life threatening conditions for currently delegated gTLDs and future new gTLDs. Discussion: -- Implication is that the new round could occur before there is a new framework as long as the existing framework remains in place. -- Question: Is this the majority view? How are we accounting for the concerns about waiting for the NCAP/SSAC work. Answer: This is the majority view. Implementation Guidance (Rationale 5): To the extent possible, ICANN should seek to identify high-risk strings in advance of opening the Application Submission Period, which should constitute a “Do Not Apply” list. ICANN should also seek to identify aggravated strings in advance, which would be expected to require a specific name collision mitigation framework. However, all applied-for strings should be subject to a DNS Stability evaluation to determine whether they represent a high, aggravated, or low risk of name collision. Discussion: -- Hope that a version of this comes out of NCAP. -- Don’t think NCAP can create a list of strings, but could be a set of questions with particular criteria with data that the Board can use to evaluate. Having criteria would be better than creating a list. -- SSAC’s position -- SSAC does not want to be in a position to say whether not a string should be delegated. The SSAC believes that there are security and stability issues that have not been thoroughly studied or understood with respect to Name Collisions - need to know what they are before you proceed to delegate. -- If we finish the policy work it might help all sides finish the work. -- On the “Do Not Apply” list -- Jim Galvin noted that the NCAP could develop criteria, but not a list. Could still have this as Implementation Guidance, or change it to the criteria to create a “Do Not Apply” list. -- In 2012 there was no list, but in principle you had data you could look at and make assessments. If you use similar criteria -- today we have the extra issue of whether or not the data can be influenced. -- Whether there could be a list is dependent on the criteria. -- Worry about someone who knows the criteria and then sets up the data to their benefit and the detriment of others. -- Matt Larson will send his slides on recent queries to the root server relating to people working at home recently -- .home, .corp, and .local. -- The IETF has a special use list of names, that includes .local. There is no rule that says that ICANN can’t delegate .local. -- This report will recommend that no one will be able to apply for a name on the special use list. ACTION ITEM: Consider whether rather than an “Do Not Apply” list this might be a recommendation for criteria. c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. Discussion: -- Minority statements would be submitted after the formal consensus call. The request for minority statements would apply to everything in the report of course, not just this section.  -- Don’t have any language that from the SSAC standpoint Study 2 will proceed. -- Wondering why we would still be referring to an old draft of Study 1. -- Need to add that even if ICANN doesn’t fund Study 2 based on the questions posed to the SSAC Study 2 will proceed. --- Make the change that it’s not the NCAP report but ICANN Org’s report. -- There is analysis work to be done in order for the SSAC to produce answers to the Board. One part will continue in NCAP regardless of anything else that goes on. That analysis will occur based on two things: 1) what we already know about Name Collisions -- work in 2012 and Study 1; 2) there is an option that SSAC had originally proposed where there is now additional raw data that it wanted to look at again as part of the analysis work that the NCAP will do. Two parts for Study 2 -- respond to the Board’s question with what we have available; dependent on funding is the gathering of new raw data. ACTION ITEM: Change language to reference the NCAP report to ICANN Org’s report.

1 0

Final Report to be published without Minority Views?
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

Hi Jeff and Cheryl Does the Consensus Call come before the Final Report is published or after? Are you saying that no Minority Views can appear in the version that is published? (I may be confused as to Steve's comment in the chat about Minority Statements.) Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D61EFD.81943020] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61EFD.81943020] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ 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. ?2510-2521.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Re: Draft final Study 1 report
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne April 29, 2020

April 29, 2020

HI Jeff, I listened to last night's Sub Pro call (which I was unable to attend). In that call, you advised the Sub Pro Working Group verbally that the independent contractor for NCAP Study 1, Karen Scarfone, had made a Study 1 recommendation against proceeding to Study 2 and 3. You also stated that "not everyone" in the NCAP Discussion Group agrees with Karen's recommendation that Study 2 and 3 should not proceed. I can't quite figure out why you believe that Karen made such a recommendation. It would be good if you could clarify this before the April 30 call on Name Collisions. Please reply to all. Thank you, Anne From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 8:59 AM To: Matt Larson <matt.larson(a)icann.org> Cc: ncap-discuss(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Re: Draft final Study 1 report [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Matt. I forwarded to the SubPro Group your original e-mail which contained the study and your cover note. 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: Matt Larson <matt.larson(a)icann.org<mailto:matt.larson@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 11:29 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: ncap-discuss(a)icann.org<mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org> Subject: Re: [NCAP-Discuss] [Ext] Re: Draft final Study 1 report Hi, Jeff, everyone. On Apr 27, 2020, at 8:01 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: The SubPro Working Group is discussing the issue of Name Collisions on its Thursday call. Is this list public? And if so, can I post the latest document to the SubPro list so that they can see the current state of the studies? I would be happy to post other comments you all have to the report as well that you would want shared. This list has public archives, so anyone can see my message with the current draft attached. If you want to share on the SubPro list, could I please suggest that you point people to my message in the archives rather than send the document itself? That link is https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ncap-discuss/2020-April/000275.html. Sharing the document that way will hopefully help keep the context clear, specifically, that this report is not final. Matt ________________________________ 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://comlaude.com> ________________________________ 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. §2510-2521.

2 3

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 30 April at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 29, 2020

April 29, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 30 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… a. 2.7.8 Name Collisions, page 91 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>. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

REMINDER: Deadline April 30 - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 2
by Emily Barabas April 29, 2020

April 29, 2020

Dear all, As a reminder, tomorrow is the deadline to provide input on package 2 of the revised report sections. Please see details below. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 22:13 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Deadline April 30 - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 2 Dear all, As discussed on today’s call, the leadership team is releasing the second set of revised draft recommendations for your review. 1. There are 5 topics in package 2 here, beginning on page 17: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… * 2.10.2 Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization * 2.5 Registrar Support for New gTLDs * 2.11.1 Registry System Testing * 2.12.1 TLD Rollout * 2.12.3 Contractual Compliance 1. Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. 1. Deadline for comments is Thursday April 30 at 23:59 UTC 1. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0