April 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 28 April 0300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 28, 2020

April 28, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 28 April at 0300 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/2020-04-28+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: 2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names: Recommendation xx (rationale 2): Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 2): ACTION ITEM: Revise the text to make the changes in brackets and strikeout: “If a script is not yet integrated into the RZ-LGR, applicants should be able to apply for a string in that script, [and it should be processed] but it should not be delegated [and it should be processed up to but not including contracting]. Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: Remove the brackets and check if language is consistent with the recommendations in the IDN Variant TLD Recommendations Analysis Report for the requirement for the back-end registry service provider: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations…. 2.7.6 Security and Stability Recommendation xx (Rationale 1): ACTION ITEM: ICANN Org will provide delegation statistics. Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 1): ACTION ITEM: Replace “Verisign” with “Root Zone Manager”. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… a. 2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names, page 77 Recommendation xx (rationale 2): Compliance with Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR) must be required for the generation of IDN TLDs and variants labels, [including the determination of whether the label is blocked or allocatable]. Discussion: -- Comment From Staff: There is a recommendation in Registry System Testing about whether IDN tables need to be tested during PDT. The relevant recommendation in this section was removed for the time being, so as not to duplicate. The IG from Registry System Testing is: Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 3): The testing of Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) tables should be removed if the applicant is using tables that are pre-vetted by the community. To the extent an applicant is proposing tables that are not pre-vetted by the community, the tables should be reviewed during the evaluation process and the evaluator should utilize IDN tools available at the time of review. ACTION ITEM: Add the bracketed text and drop the brackets. Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 2): If a script is not yet integrated into the RZ-LGR, applicants should be able to apply for a string in that script, [and it should be processed] but it should not be delegated. Discussion: -- Should not go to contracting until the RZ-LGR for that script are integrated. -- Are we giving applicants sufficient warning that contracting may be held up subject to RZ-LGR? -- Could take it all the way up until contracting. -- Make sure this is consistent with the Registry System Testing section. ACTION ITEM: Revise the text to make the changes in brackets and strikeout: “If a script is not yet integrated into the RZ-LGR, applicants should be able to apply for a string in that script, [and it should be processed] but it should not be delegated [and it should be processed up to but not including contracting]. Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will be allowed provided they have the same registry operator [and back-end registry service provider,] implementing by force of written agreement a policy of cross-variant TLD bundling. Discussion: -- The same registry operator must be the same for variants of already existing or applied for TLDs. -- Registry SG suggested the bracketed language – requiring the same back-end operator. -- Do we need to be this prescriptive? -- In the recommendations on IDN Variant TLDs passed by the Board last year it does address this point – specifically the same back-end operator if applicable: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations… ACTION ITEM: Remove the brackets and check if language is consistent with the recommendations in the IDN Variant TLD Recommendations Analysis Report for the requirement for the back-end registry service provider: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations…. Recommendation xx (Rationale 5): A given second-level label under any allocated IDN variant TLD must only be allocated to the same entity/registrant, or else withheld for possible allocation only to that entity (e.g., s1 under {t1, t1v1, …}, e.g., s1.t1 and s1.t1v1). Recommendation xx (Rationale 5): For second-level IDN variant labels that arise from a registration based on a second-level IDN table, all allocatable IDN variant labels in the set must only be allocated to the same entity or withheld for possible allocation only to that entity (e.g., all allocatable second-level labels {s1, s1v1, …} under all allocated variant TLD labels {t1, t1v1, …}). Discussion: -- Question: Wonder how we link contractually two or three contracts are independent now. It might cause issues later, for example, there are three IDN variant TLDs and a registry decides to terminate one of those because of no registration – is a registry not allowed to take down one of the variants? Contracts should be able to be separated. Answer: Don’t think it is an insurmountable problem. In the case of IDN variant TLDs there isn’t a reason that you could have a new specification about how you handle multiple variant TLDs – you could have one contract but have provisions that would only relate to registry operators that operate multiple variant TLDs. Not sure we should be prescriptive for how they should do that. -- That's possibly something that the RO could specify in the RSEP request to stop variant X from being offered to new registrations. -- The variants do not all have to be active - however, if TLDs are delegated as variant labels based on the LGR, their status as variants would not change. -- Question: Might we need another Implementation Guidance regarding another RA Specification for IDNs? Answer: We don’t need to be so prescriptive here. -- In terms of the contract and retiring of variant TLDs – might need one contract for both or contracts tied together. If a registry wants to retire a variant TLD it won’t be possible for another registry to pick it up. -- Since ICANN can’t look at content the registrant can – they could be in two completely different web sites (traditional and simplified Chinese for example). Out of our control. -- Question: Do we need a recommendation relating to URS and UDRP? Answer: Don’t know if we know enough about that issue to make any recommendations. Might refer to the RPMs PDP WG Phase 2. -- UDRP is meant to address a large share of trademark issues, but there is always the possibility of only a court being able to settle a dispute. As long as UDRP keeps working for a near totality, it doesn't have to deal with all possible cases. b. 2.7.6 Security and Stability, page 80 Recommendation xx (Rationale 1): ICANN must honor and review the principle of conservatism when adding new gTLDs to the root zone. Recommendation xx (Rationale 1): ICANN must focus on the rate of change for the root zone over smaller periods of time (e.g., monthly) rather than the total number of delegated strings for a given calendar year. Discussion: -- There was no basis for 1000 delegations. -- the 1000 per year came from an ICANN operational assessment, which then served as the basis for security and stability considerations. -- ICANN Org has presented the data on number and rate of delegations. -- Looking at contracts only it looks like we had around 500 delegations per year. ACTION ITEM: ICANN Org will provide delegation statistics. Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 1): The Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) should consult with PTI, Verisign, the root operators via RSSAC, and the larger DNS technical community on the implementation of these recommendations. Discussion: -- In this one, we should replace Verisign with Root Zone Manager. It's currently Verisign, but we don't know whether this will change or not. Should be the role and not the organization. ACTION ITEM: Replace “Verisign” with “Root Zone Manager”.

1 0

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Tuesday, 28 April 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland April 28, 2020

April 28, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 28 April 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/qi2JBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 28 April at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Tuesday, 28 April 2020 at 03:00 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… * 2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names, page 77 * 2.7.6 Security and Stability, page 80 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

1 0

FW: Draft final Study 1 report
by Jeff Neuman April 27, 2020

April 27, 2020

All, Please see the note below from Matt Larson on a new draft final Study report. This has been presented to the NCAP discussion group for its thoughts and again is just a draft. But, it relates to our conversation later this week on Name Collisions. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com -----Original Message----- From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Matt Larson Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 11:04 AM To: ncap-discuss(a)icann.org Subject: [NCAP-Discuss] Draft final Study 1 report Dear colleagues, Attached is Karen's draft of the final version of Study 1. Changes since the last version are highlighted, but the significant updates are in Section 5 (Datasets) and the addition of an executive summary and a conclusion. OCTO has told Karen all along that she should feel free to reach whatever conclusion she felt warranted by the research she's done. We have not attempted to undermine her professional integrity by leading her in any particular direction. We'd be grateful for your review and comment. We'll be following the same process as we did with the draft version of the report: this group has a chance to comment first and then the report will go out for a formal Public Comment. In order to stay on schedule to deliver the final report to the Board by 30 June as we've promised, we need any feedback from this group by next Friday, 1 May. Thanks, 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>

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne April 25, 2020

April 25, 2020

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 Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com) <jamie(a)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:image005.png@01D617AF.2FCEB580] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image006.jpg@01D617AF.2FCEB580] 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.

3 4

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon April 23, 2020

April 23, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Andrea

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 23 April 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 23, 2020

April 23, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 23 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/2020-04-23+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote that there is another rights protection mechanism -- the TM-PDDRP -- that is being reviewed by the RPMs PDP WG. ACTION ITEM: Change the name “Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures” to “Registry Commitments Dispute Resolution Process”. ACTION ITEM: Clarify that the PICDRP applies to both mandatory PICs and RVCs. 2.7.1 Reserved Names: Affirmation xx (rationale 1): ACTION ITEM: Insert a link in a footnote to the AGB where the reserved names are listed. ACTION ITEM: Double check to see whether it is necessary to add text noting that the reserved names list has been modified. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): ACTION ITEM: Change to “The Working Group acknowledges…” and add reference to the MOU in the rationale. Recommendation xx (rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: Change to “second-level Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels”. Rationale for Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ACTION ITEM: Only note reservation of acronym “PTI”. 2.2.4 Different TLD Types: Recommendation xx: ACTION ITEM: Change in the first sentence from “type of applicant” to “type of application” and “or the registry focus” to “or the applicant type”. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… WG Review of Final Report Draft Recommendations: See: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw -- Includes comments on the first Package of Report topics. -- Second package will be released on 23 April: 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  -- Note that some recommendations on metrics have been removed. These will be put in a separate section on key metrics and service levels. -- Question: How will comments be addressed? Answer: We will incorporate the proposed new language and dedicate time at meetings to discuss them. If there is agreement then they will be incorporated, if not then they won’t. -- There weren’t many comments received on the first package. -- 04 May will be the next 120-minute meeting. -- 30 April we will talk about Name Collisions and we’ve invited the Chairs of the NCAP; Jim Galvin, Matt Thomas, and Matt Larson from OCTO. a. 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures ACTION ITEM: Add a footnote that there is another rights protection mechanism -- the TM-PDDRP -- that is being reviewed by the RPMs PDP WG. -- Dispute Policies is a good substitution for Dispute Resolution Procedures. But I do not see the difference between Post-Delegation and After Delegation. It means the same, and at least legally, it is usual to use the words “post” and “ante” for after and before. -- Need to reference the Registries voluntary commitments -- and maybe call it the Registry Commitments Dispute Resolution Process. -- We definitely need to distinguish between mandatory PICs and Registry Voluntary Commitments. -- Note that in the Registry Commitments section there is this Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5): The Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process (PICDRP) and associated processes should be updated to equally apply to RVCs. -- Helpful to differentiate between the two types of PICs -- voluntary versus mandatory -- especially for the public. -- We could still call it the PICDRP would apply to RVCs. We could leave it as PICDRP. -- Important to specify that PICDRP covers all registry commitments - both mandatory PICS and RVCs. ACTION ITEM: Change the name “Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures” to “Registry Commitments Dispute Resolution Process”. ACTION ITEM: Clarify that the PICDRP applies to both mandatory PICs and RVCs. b. 2.7.1 Reserved Names (p 40) Affirmation xx (rationale 1): The Working Group supports continuing to reserve as unavailable for delegation those strings at the top level that were considered Reserved Names and were unavailable for delegation in the 2012 round. ACTION ITEM: Insert a link in a footnote to the AGB where the reserved names are listed. ACTION ITEM: Double check to see whether it is necessary to add text noting that the reserved names list has been modified. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): The Working Group recommends reserving at the top level Special-Use Domain Names through the procedure described in IETF RFC 6761. -- Question: How did this recommendation get here? This seems to bypass all of ICANN’s checks and balances. ACTION ITEM: Change to “The Working Group acknowledges…” and add reference to the MOU in the rationale. Recommendation xx (rationale 4): The Working Group recommends updating Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement (Schedule of Reserved Names) to include the measures for second-level Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels to Avoid Confusion with Corresponding Country Codes adopted by the ICANN Board on 8 November 2016. ACTION ITEM: Change to “second-level Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels”. Rationale for Recommendation xx (rationale 2): The Working Group considered that Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) was incorporated in August 2016 as an affiliate of ICANN with the primary responsibility of operating the IANA functions. Terms associated with PTI are not included in the list of unavailable/reserved names from the 2012 round because PTI had not yet been established at the time the list was developed. The Working Group recommends that for subsequent procedures, strings “PTI”, “PUBLICTECHNICALIDENTIFIER”, and “PUBLIC TECHNICALIDENTIFIERS” should be reserved and unavailable for delegation at the top level. ACTION ITEM: Only note reservation of acronym “PTI”. c. 2.2.4 Different TLD Types (p 7) Recommendation xx: The Working Group recognizes that there may be circumstances where it makes sense to have differential treatment for an application based on either the type of string, the type of applicant, or the registry focus. Such differential treatment may apply in one or more of the following elements of the new gTLD Program: Applicant eligibility; Application evaluation process/requirements; Order of processing; String contention; Objections; Contractual provisions. ACTION ITEM: Change in the first sentence from “type of applicant” to “type of application” and “or the registry focus” to “or the applicant type”. ACTION ITEM: Add footnote where there are defined terms, such as “Community Based” and “Geographic Names”. Implementation Guidance xx: Other than the types listed in Recommendation xx, the WG believes that creating additional application types should only be done under exceptional circumstances and should be done via agreement by the ICANN community. Creating additional application types, string types, or applicant types should be done solely when differential treatment is warranted and is NOT intended to validate or invalidate any other differences in applications. ACTION ITEM: Change the first sentence to “Other than the types listed in Recommendation xx, the WG believes that creating additional application types should only be done under exceptional circumstances and should be done via agreement by the ICANN community.” Re: Predictability Framework -- Can this phrase be bracketed? -- There was agreement that there should be a framework, just not on what will go into that framework. -- It's possible the Predictability Framework could address an issue if GNSO Council agrees it would be more expeditious. GNSO Council can always decline to use the Predictability Framework using existing GNSO procedures for PDP, EPDP, Input and Guidance.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
by Emily Barabas April 23, 2020

April 23, 2020

Hi Anne, Thanks for adding your additional suggestions to the Google Doc. I have updated your insertion in the document so that it matches the text below and added a comment indicating that you are the author of the comment. Kind regards, Emily From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, 22 April 2020 at 20:30 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, "Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com)" <jamie(a)dotgay.com>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Thanks Emily. Yes – I had previously added some other comments to the CPE Guidelines. At your invitation, I went back in and added the statement below to the Guidelines. (Firm guidelines do not permit signing in to Google docs and had some trouble with the form so we may need to check it against the language in red below.) More importantly, I note that the CPE Guidelines specifically state that they are NOT intended to broaden or narrow the scope of the AGB provisions, so it’s possible we have to state the following in the AGB itself: “In applying these scoring guidelines and as further described in the AGB, evaluators may rely on independent research deemed necessary to accurately complete the scoring process, 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.” Also relevant is the section in the CPE Guidelines regarding Verification of Support Letters. I guess we can discuss verification generally whenever we discuss the CPE Section and the Guidelines. Thank you, Anne From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:12 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com) <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi Anne, In response to your question below to Jeff, the WG has a working document to collect feedback on the 2012 CPE Guidelines. It includes input received about the Guidelines over the mailing list inserted as comments. You can find the document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. I don’t believe that the Working Group has actually taken the step of agreeing on revisions to the 2012 Guidelines or scoring criteria, but that could potentially be a next step for the Working Group to take on. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, 21 April 2020 at 16:34 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>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>, "Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>)" <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D6194A.F085E770] 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@01D6194A.F085E770] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=Fm…> [cid:image003.jpg@01D6194A.F085E770] 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.

1 0

The Consensus Playbook
by Julie Bisland April 22, 2020

April 22, 2020

Dear all, Please see the completed Consensus Playbook and background information below. Best Regards, GNSO Team == Consensus Playbook Published Originated from GNSO’s Policy Development Process (PDP) 3.0 initiative and a subsequent Additional Budget Request (ABR), the Consensus Playbook has been completed for the ICANN community to reference and use. The Consensus Playbook can be downloaded here: http://go.icann.org/consensus [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_consensus&…> This playbook was developed by an external vendor (Consensus Building Institute - CBI.org [cbi.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cbi.org_&d=DwMGaQ&…>) via an Additional Budget Request [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.icann.org_3bkd5Oz&d…> (ABR) for FY20 submitted by the GNSO Council, based on PDP 3.0 improvements [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_pdp3dot0&d…>. The ICANN Board approved<https://community.icann.org/x/Wxq8BQ> the ABR contingent upon the playbook being developed with broad applicability across the community, and not just limited to GNSO PDPs. Hence, this Consensus Playbook aims to provide community volunteers with practical tools and best practices for building consensus, bridging differences, and breaking deadlocks within ICANN processes beyond just GNSO working groups. In developing the playbook, CBI interviewed fourteen (14) ICANN community leaders across ICANN’s SOs and ACs, who shared their extensive consensus building experience in leading and participating in working groups and community groups. The playbook stresses that consensus building should be considered as a journey and it does not just take place at the end of a group’s deliberations. To that end, we’d like to draw your attention to Appendix A, which serves as a reference guide to help inform you which of the fifteen (15) “plays” are applicable to the various phases of the community’s work. It is important to note that this playbook does not seek to change the definition of consensus or the methods of decision making as prescribed in each community group’s rules and procedure; it does not seek to introduce any new requirements either. It is designed for the ICANN community and is only permitted to be used by the ICANN community in support of ICANN related work. The playbook shall not be used for any non-ICANN related purposes. All ICANN community volunteers are strongly encouraged to review the playbook. We anticipate additional opportunities for the ICANN community to discuss the contents and practical utility of the playbook.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
by Emily Barabas April 22, 2020

April 22, 2020

Hi Anne, In response to your question below to Jeff, the WG has a working document to collect feedback on the 2012 CPE Guidelines. It includes input received about the Guidelines over the mailing list inserted as comments. You can find the document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit. I don’t believe that the Working Group has actually taken the step of agreeing on revisions to the 2012 Guidelines or scoring criteria, but that could potentially be a next step for the Working Group to take on. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, 21 April 2020 at 16:34 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, "Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com)" <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D61810.BFB4F860] 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 Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com) <jamie(a)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@01D61810.BFB4F860] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=Fm…> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61810.BFB4F860] 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.

2 1