June 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 June 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 18 June 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/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Review Category 1/Verified TLDs Draft Framework: ACTION ITEM: Use “program” to refer to the NGPC document, and use “framework” to refer to this document/proposal. ACTION ITEM: On Question #5: Agree that it’s a panel, waits on the determination until after public comment closes, can include experts, not sure if it has to wait until the GAC Early Warning is concluded. Discuss the last item on the list. Review "Can't Live With" comments on package 5, start on page 79: Affirmation xx (rationale 1): ACTION ITEM: Incorporate the concept/language from Ruben Kuhl, but don’t leave it open ended -- include that in only changes based on the processes. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review Category 1/Verified TLDs Draft Framework: See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlFCp9cCks7WySF1bqMbFJEg-IpCOoMNQsfIQs4… Also, see the Category 1 Safeguards at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-2-05… ACTION ITEM: Use “program” to refer to the NGPC document, and use “framework” to refer to this document/proposal. Discussion: -- The framework doesn’t try to bless GAC advice, but provides information for the applicant. -- Soften the language -- such as under the proposal #3 could be “may warrant”. -- Can’t mandate where applicants can or cannot come from or where they should incorporate. QUESTION: Who makes the ultimate determination of whether it is one of the 4 categories? The GAC? A Panel? ICANN BOARD? -- Seems like a Panel is the only reasonable option, but then we have to build a process for the Panel. -- I think with the Board because they are the ones that have to deal with GAC Advice. GAC may give advice this time that is specific to the four categories and you don't want conflict between a panel decision and GAC Advice - that is untenable for the Board.  -- Where do we get input from? GAC, public comment? Make sure public comment is there. -- Whatever we set up would rely on GAC advice as well as public comment. -- If an applicant is going to roll out a TLD that sounds regulated but will be using it for a non-regulated purpose, the application needs to say that. -- How will the Board resolve any difference between the Panel and the GAC. -- The Board could reverse the panel. -- Isn’t the Board a kind of a panel representing the multistakeholder society? -- Panel would not prevent the Board or GAC from weighing in. -- Can the Board override a panel in following the GAC Advice? -- We are talking about an evaluation process. Maybe “panel” is confusing. We aren’t talking about something that isn’t already there. -- Keep it simple and make it like the other panels, taking into account GAC Advice and public comment, but keep the panel processes very similar. -- The NGPC was effectively the panel last time. -- Should be a panel with clear ideas of what to check. -- What order do you do things? Does the GAC provide input to the panel? You can make sure that the evaluation panel doesn’t start until the public comment period ends. GAC members could file comments. Then the panel makes it decision and then the GAC can provide Advice on the panel’s determination, which will be helpful to the Board. -- Good to place evaluation post public comment. Public comment may help pick up applications which did not self-identify but should have -- Panel should have the power to appoint specialists or experts. Could say a panel of experts in global regulated industries. -- 1. Self-categorization, 2. Panel should have power to add specialists and experts, 3) Timing - to follow Early Warnings and Public comment -- Don’t know if we need to have it follow Early Warnings. -- Bullet no. 2: “This framework does NOT seek to create definitive criteria to identify which strings belong to which group (i.e., this is not an evaluation element of the program)” needs to be deleted or amended. Delete the parenthetical. ACTION ITEM: On Question #5: Agree that it’s a panel, waits on the determination until after public comment closes, can include experts, not sure if it has to wait until the GAC Early Warning is concluded. Discuss the last item on the list. 3. Review "Can't Live With" comments on package 5, start on page 79: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… and also see the attached Word document of comments on the Work Track 5 Final Report 2.7.1 Reserved Names Recommendation xx (rationale 3): The Working Group recommends reserving as unavailable for delegation at the top level the acronym associated with Public Technical Identifiers, “PTI”. [Proposed alternate text for Recommendation xx (rationale 3): The Working Group recommends reserving as unavailable for delegation at the top level the strings “PUBLICTECHNICALIDENTIFIER”, “PUBLICTECHNICALIDENTIFIERS” and “PTI”, all of which are associated with Public Technical Identifiers.] JC5.1 - Justine Chew proposed alternate text for Recommendation xx (rationale 3). Rationale: "It is noted that discussion in the WG led to a recommendation for just the acronym “PTI” be reserved as unavailable for delegation at the top level. However, given that the PTI is a core service that the Internet relies on, the At-Large thinks that “PUBLICTECHNIDENTIFIER” and “PUBLICTECHNICALIDENTIFIERS” should also be recommended to be reserved and unavailable for delegation at the top level, which is consistent with preliminary recommendation 2.7.1.c.1 of the SubPro Initial Report. Recommending that they be reserved would disallow them from being applied which is more optimal than subjecting the ICANN community to a need to file objections against any applications for PUBLICTECHNCALIDENTIFIER” and/or “PUBLICTECHNICALIDENTIFIERS”, and to altogether avoid any risk of misuse of these strings." Discussion: -- We are reverting to the same standard that has been used for reserved names -- that is, just reserving the acronym rather than the full name. -- Are we creating an issue where an issue doesn’t exist? The entities that all have only their acronyms protected have never raised an issue (SSAC, GNSO, ccNSO, IANA…). -- We didn’t get any comments that said that the full names of these organizations need to be protected. -- Should we treat this as a new idea and get public comment on it? We are putting it in because there was a comment that PTI needed to be reserved. -- The WG did not agree to include the revised language. Affirmation xx (rationale 1): The Working Group supports continuing to reserve as unavailable for registration those strings that are currently considered Reserved Names at the second level as of the publication date of this report and as required by future Consensus Policy. [Proposed alternate text for Affirmation xx (rationale 1): “The Working Group supports subsequent procedures gTLDs continuing to follow the same schedule of reserved names at registration level(s) that 2012 gTLDs have to follow, which might change from time to time.”] RK5.1 - Rubens Kuhl proposes alternate text for Affirmation xx (rationale 1) above. Rationale: "Text would freeze 2nd level reserved names as they are today, not accounting for possible changes, as described in one rationale for this section that correctly foresees the list to be updated." ACTION ITEM: Incorporate the concept/language from Ruben Kuhl, but don’t leave it open ended -- include that in only changes based on the processes.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 18 June at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the updated proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 18 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review Category 1/Verified TLDs Draft Framework: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlFCp9cCks7WySF1bqMbFJEg-IpCOoMNQsfIQs4… 3. Review "Can't Live With" comments on package 5, start on page 75: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… and also see the attached Word document of comments on the Work Track 5 Final Report 4. 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

Recordings GNSO Pre-ICANN68 Webinar 12:00 UTC 17 June 2020
by Nathalie Peregrine June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the Zoom room recordings of the GNSO Pre-ICANN68 webinar 17 June 2020 12:00 UTC: Zoom recording: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/6ZMsd735pzw3SIWUsgSDBfZ7W468K_is1yIc-KJZmk-y… Zoom audio: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/751_cLiqrzo3HoaRsASDAvJ9W9S4KKys1SgfqPoEzhm9… Zoom chat: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/sdownload/vZd_ce6u_283GNySuASDBf4sW461LP2shndP-vQ… Thank you, Nathalie

1 0

FW: [Ext] Re: Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
by Emily Barabas June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

Dear all, Please see attached submission from Christopher Wilkinson with input on package 5. Kind regards, Emily El 16 de junio de 2020 a las 11:25 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> escribió: Dear all, As a reminder, today is the deadline to submit comments on package 5 revisions (details below). Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 02:03 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Dear all, The leadership team is releasing the fifth set of revised draft recommendations for your review. 1. There are 9 topics in package 5 here, beginning on page 74: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. Note that the Geographic Names report from Work Track 5 is provided separately, below. · 2.2.7 Metrics and Monitoring (This topic is intended to serve as an aggregation point for the metrics based recommendations from the various topics. Deliberations occurred in the context of the directly related topic.) · 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed 26 Mar<https://community.icann.org/x/ZiOJBw>) · 2.4 Application Change Requests (last discussed 14 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/nC2JBw>) · 2.7.1 Reserved Names (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.8.1 Objections: GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice (last discussed 7 May<https://community.icann.org/x/u4PsBw>) · 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>. · 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement (last discussed 9 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/mS2JBw>) · 2.7.1.2 Geographic Names (last discussed by the full WG at ICANN66 in Montreal on 2 Nov 2019<https://community.icann.org/x/Ao7kBg>). The WT5 report is available here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490848/Work%20Track%205%…>, unchanged from when it was delivered to the full WG on 22 October 2019. 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. Because of the size of this particular package, the deadline for comments is Tuesday 16 June at 23:59 UTC 1. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

6 10

New Zoom room link GNSO Pre-ICANN68 Webinar 12:00 UTC 17 June 2020
by Nathalie Peregrine June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

Dear all, Please note there is a new Zoom room link for the GNSO Pre-ICANN68 webinar on at 12:00 UTC today, 17 June 2020. Zoom link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/99346771120?pwd=dFlFYW82NGF0eXRaVmZJYUFZeTdBUT09 Thank you! Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Reminder: Deadline today, 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
by Emily Barabas June 17, 2020

June 17, 2020

Dear all, As a reminder, today is the deadline to submit comments on package 5 revisions (details below). Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 02:03 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5 Dear all, The leadership team is releasing the fifth set of revised draft recommendations for your review. 1. There are 9 topics in package 5 here, beginning on page 74: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. Note that the Geographic Names report from Work Track 5 is provided separately, below. · 2.2.7 Metrics and Monitoring (This topic is intended to serve as an aggregation point for the metrics based recommendations from the various topics. Deliberations occurred in the context of the directly related topic.) · 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed 26 Mar<https://community.icann.org/x/ZiOJBw>) · 2.4 Application Change Requests (last discussed 14 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/nC2JBw>) · 2.7.1 Reserved Names (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.8.1 Objections: GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice (last discussed 7 May<https://community.icann.org/x/u4PsBw>) · 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw>). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f…>. · 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 23 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/py2JBw>) · 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement (last discussed 9 Apr<https://community.icann.org/x/mS2JBw>) · 2.7.1.2 Geographic Names (last discussed by the full WG at ICANN66 in Montreal on 2 Nov 2019<https://community.icann.org/x/Ao7kBg>). The WT5 report is available here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/60490848/Work%20Track%205%…>, unchanged from when it was delivered to the full WG on 22 October 2019. 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. Because of the size of this particular package, the deadline for comments is Tuesday 16 June at 23:59 UTC 1. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

3 2

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: IDN Variant - Activation or Application?
by Steve Chan June 16, 2020

June 16, 2020

Dear Anne, all, It may be helpful to review the entire set of documentation for IDN variant TLD management here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-variant-tld-implementation-2018-0… Document three (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations…) on this page provides the recommendations and analysis. To your question, I think sections 3.3 and 3.3.1 are most applicable. Section 3.3 references several RFCs and SAC060 to note that a conservative approach should be taken in allocating IDN variant TLDs; just because an IDN variant can be allocated does not mean that it should be allocated. Section 3.3.1 mentions that the study recommends that the application process and fee apply to variant labels, similar to any gTLD label, which is consistent and furthers the principle of conservative allocation of variants. To summarize and in response to your questions, based on my reading, the paper says IDN variants would be available for application (not simply activation) and only to the same entity. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 2:14 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: IDN Variant - Activation or Application? Jeff, Does this ICANN document say the idn variant is available via Application? Or Activation? By the holder of the original idn TLD? Anne https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-rationale-lgr-2… 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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 June 0300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 16, 2020

June 16, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 16 June 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/2020-06-16+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Package 3: 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Implementation Guidance xx: As the ICANN organization and community incorporate human rights into ICANN’s processes in line with the recommendations of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2, they may want to [should] consider the application of this work to elements of the New gTLD Program. ACTION ITEM: The WG agrees to change “they may want to” to “they should”, per the standard language for implementation guidance. Package 4: 2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: Accept the suggested edits in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4). ACTION ITEM: Investigate definition of variant and add as footnote. Added citation directing to IDN Variant TLD Implementation: Motivation, Premises and Framework, which discusses the definition and provides examples. Rationale for Recommendation xx (rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: Delete “owned and” before “operated” and add “if delegated” after “service provider”. 2.7.7 Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services Registry Services Recommendation xx (rationale 11): ACTION ITEM: The WG agrees to add “base” before “Registry Agreement”. 2.7.8 Name Collisions a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: Move the additional language to the rationale section. ACTION ITEM: Replace the previous text with the next text suggested: Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 4): The ICANN community should develop name collision risk criteria and a test to provide information to an applicant for any given string after the application window closes so that the applicant can determine if they should move forward with evaluation. Implementation Guidance (Rationale 5) ACTION ITEM: Add text in brackets and delete text in strike out: ICANN should also seek to identify aggravated risk strings [in advance of the next application window opening and whether it would], 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. ACTION ITEM: Move the text on the DNS Stability Evaluation into a separate Implementation Guidance. Rationale for Affirmation xx (Rationale 3): ACTION ITEM: The WG agreed to include the additional text, but not the text that begins “the working group has been advised Co-Chairs of the NCAP...” Also, the WG agreed to delete the associated footnote. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review “Can’t Live With” comments on package 3 – additional comment from Anne Aikman-Scalese on page 38. See the Production document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…. 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Implementation Guidance xx: As the ICANN organization and community incorporate human rights into ICANN’s processes in line with the recommendations of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2, they may want to [should] consider the application of this work to elements of the New gTLD Program. ACTION ITEM: The WG agrees to change “they may want to” to “they should”, per the standard language for implementation guidance. 3. Review “Can’t Live With” comments on package 4, start on page 57: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… 2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): Discussion: -- Decided on the last call not to accept the alternate language. -- There is work that will be initiated by the GNSO Council on this, as we point out in the rationale. -- Need to be identified as “IDN” variants specifically, and “IDN gTLDs”; replace “allowed provided they” with “only if they”. -- With respect to translations – it’s possible for a variant to be a translation, but not all translations are variants. -- We are specifically calling out the variant, as opposed to the translation. Can we give the IRT more information? Look at Recommendation xx (Rationale 2): “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.” -- People are confused by what is a variant and what is a translation. Can we put in examples? -- Need to keep it as simple and as accurate as possible. ACTION ITEM: Accept the suggested edits in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4). ACTION ITEM: Investigate definition of variant and add as footnote. Added citation directing to IDN Variant TLD Implementation: Motivation, Premises and Framework, which discusses the definition and provides examples. Rationale for Recommendation xx (rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: Delete “owned and” before “operated” and add “if delegated” after “service provider”. 2.7.7 Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services Registry Services Recommendation xx (rationale 11): -- Suggestion from Rubens to add “base” before “Registry Agreement”. ACTION ITEM: The WG agrees to add “base” before “Registry Agreement”. 2.7.8 Name Collisions a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 4): Discussion: -- Additional suggested language seems more appropriate for the rationale section. -- No need to mention Jeff Neuman, we can say that there are some participants that are some working group members that are participants in the NCAP. We don't even need to say that weekly conference calls or anything but just to say that there's an NCAP group, which I think we mentioned in the rationale. -- There also is suggested alternative text for the Implementation Guidance (Rationale 4). This was suggested by Jim Prendergast to align with what Jim Galvin told us on the 30 April call. ACTION ITEM: Move the additional language to the rationale section. ACTION ITEM: Replace the previous text with the next text suggested: Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 4): The ICANN community should develop name collision risk criteria and a test to provide information to an applicant for any given string after the application window closes so that the applicant can determine if they should move forward with evaluation. Implementation Guidance (Rationale 5) Discussion: -- The additional language with the reference to dependencies is more appropriate to be included in the rationale section. -- Include text that the identification of risk strings should happen in advance of the next application window opening, but don’t include that it should be published in the Applicant Guidebook. -- Limiting to say that it must be published in the AGB. -- But we want to give as much information in advance. -- This is going out for public comment. We don’t want to be too prescriptive at this point. -- Put the text on the DNS Stability Evaluation as a separate Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Add text in brackets and delete text in strike out: ICANN should also seek to identify aggravated risk strings [in advance of the next application window opening and whether it would], 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. ACTION ITEM: Move the text on the DNS Stability Evaluation into a separate Implementation Guidance. Rationale for Affirmation xx (Rationale 3): ACTION ITEM: The WG agreed to include the additional text, but not the text that begins “the working group has been advised Co-Chairs of the NCAP...” Also, the WG agreed to delete the associated footnote.

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group / Tuesday, 16 June 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland June 16, 2020

June 16, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 16 June 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/2wAdC> (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

Informational RFC to create Private Namespace TLDs
by Jeff Neuman June 15, 2020

June 15, 2020

All, I thought I would forward this new Informational RFC put out by two employees working in ICANN's OCTO group. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arends-private-use-tld/?include_text… This proposed informational draft is not as technical as most of them. In fact, I would argue that although this has been filed to be dealt with at the IETF level, it really should be dealt with within ICANN's Multi-stakeholder processes as opposed to the IETF. It relates to a topic we have discussed before - Special Use Domains. In this draft, the authors argue that there should be strings that are reserved at the top level to allow entities to create private internets. There are a bunch of reasons to do this and some of them are articulated in the draft. I am not commenting on the merits of the RFC and not making an argument for or against. However, this is the type of thing I would think that the ICANN Community should have the ability to influence as opposed to circumventing the ICANN multi-stakeholder processes by going to the IETF to get these reserved as "special use" domains. Remember, we are recommending that Special Use domains that go through the IETF should be accounted for by being reserved from delegation by ICANN. Previously special use domains that were reserved had a particular technical purpose, but this one doesn't seem to fall into that category. Although we have completed our section on Special Use domains, I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention in case they had some thoughts. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> [cid:image001.jpg@01D642FB.4F946C80] ________________________________ 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>

2 1