September 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review
by Steve Chan 06 Nov '20

06 Nov '20

Dear WG Members, As discussed and agreed on the 6 August WG call, we have compiled a consolidated list of materials for you all to review in advance of seeking to finalize the draft Final Report for public comment, as early as 13 August 2020. For review and feedback no later than Thursday, 13 August (and for discussion on the WG call that same day) Draft Final Report Change Analysis (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding):https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6P… Draft Final Report (minus Predictability Framework and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction)) attached and available here, on an ongoing basis as the document is updated: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report Per Emily’s email, comments on the Predictability Framework and the one new additional paragraph in the Closed Generics are due 11 August at 23:59 UTC. Review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPl…. Feedback form is attached. NEW! - The new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), comments due 12 August at 23:59 UTC – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…. Again, feedback form is attached. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. 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 Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar

17 50

FW: [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Draft Final Report
by Steve Chan 30 Sep '20

30 Sep '20

Dear WG Members, Attached, please the letter from Maarten Botterman regarding the SubPro draft Final Report. Best, Steve From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 3:06 PM To: Cheryl Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, "jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com" <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Cc: Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman(a)board.icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence(a)icann.org>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team(a)icann.org>, Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Subject: [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Draft Final Report Dear Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman, Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman regarding the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Draft final report. Thank you and best regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Operations Senior Manager 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094

1 0

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 01 October at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund 30 Sep '20

30 Sep '20

Dear WG Members, As a reminder, please find below the updated proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 01 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=… and also the redline submitted by Justine Chew reflecting the changes from the Proposal by At-Large dated 11 Jun 2020: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS13a70f3BGx0b1gOyjvvRCoAKvxtlfO/edit – start at 4-B Opposition in the WG document, page 19, and then proceed to Criterion 1/overall comments from Justine 3. Applicant Support * In the context of auctions; see: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-fin…, Topic 17: Applicant Support, page 67; Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets, page 167; and * Review as a comprehensive program; see Topic 17: Applicant Support, page 67 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>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

FW: Ratified: ALAC Statement on GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report
by Emily Barabas 30 Sep '20

30 Sep '20

Please see below. From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 30 September 2020 at 01:38 To: "langdonorr(a)gmail.com" <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, "jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com" <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: Ratified: ALAC Statement on GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report Dear Co-Chairs of the Subsequent Procedures PDP, Please find attached a Word Doc and PDF of the ALAC statement on GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report<https://community.icann.org/x/qQC1C>. Due to character limit issues in the Google Form, ALAC responses are being submitted via email and the ALAC responses are in red. The ALAC ratified the statement<https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=134012194ubnqKYKVjG9fjTtQC3> on 28 September 2020, with unanimous endorsement of all 15 ALAC Members. Many thanks go to Justine and the CPWG SubPro Small Team for their countless hours of volunteer work on the ALAC statement. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

GAC Comment - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report
by Benedetta Rossi 29 Sep '20

29 Sep '20

Dear Cheryl and Jeff, On behalf of the GAC Chair, attached please find docx and pdf copies of the comments of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) regarding the “GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report” (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-draft-final-…) Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support Manager benedetta.rossi(a)icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

5 6

ICANN69: GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland 29 Sep '20

29 Sep '20

Dear all, All ICANN69 GNSO sessions have been listed for your reference on the ICANN69 GNSO wiki page. For all access information and Zoom details however, please refer to the ICANN69 schedule on the meeting website. Registration is compulsory to access the meeting schedule. Access information will not be circulated via mailing lists. The ICANN meeting website, which ICANN Meetings’ Team has put together, allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. HOW TO DOWNLOAD ICANN69 SESSION INFORMATION TO YOUR CALENDARS: Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN69 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage<https://69.schedule.icann.org/> and create a profile and login. Every session on the Full Agenda can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the [cid:image001.png@01D6965B.28C9C330] (blue ‘ + ’ box) in the upper right corner of each meeting. This adds it to your individual schedule, My Agenda, which you can then add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - To import your schedule into your calendar: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to your schedule, click on [cid:image002.png@01D6965B.28C9C330] (View My Agenda) * Click the down arrow next to Export * Select Export My Agenda (ics) * Open the exported meetings .ics and add to your chosen calendar * For Microsoft Outlook, right-click on the exported meetings .ics file and choose Show in Folder Right-click on the file, and select Open with Microsoft Outlook. Save & Close. Note: Your Agenda can only be exported from the desktop app; the ICANN69 phone app does not offer this feature Step 3 - All remote participation sessions will use Zoom rooms. You can find the Zoom room links for public meetings on the ICANN69 Meeting Schedule<https://69.schedule.icann.org/agenda#/?limit=20&sortByFields[0]=startsAt&so…>. PLEASE ENSURE YOU HAVE UPDATED YOUR ZOOM APP TO THE LATEST VERSION TO ACCESS ICANN69 SESSIONS. Please download the latest Zoom app<https://zoom.us/download> on your participation device (mobile or desktop computer). Need to learn or brush-up on using Zoom? Check out the Joining a Zoom Meeting Tutorial<https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362193-Joining-a-Meeting>. Step 4 - Download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN Meetings” in your app stores. There are three options to connect your audio: 1) Via VoIP, choose Computer Audio (from a smartphone choose Call using Internet Audio) 2) Getting a dial out from Zoom to your phone, choose Call Me (from a smartphone choose Call My Phone) 3) Phoning into the audio bridge (access numbers and Meeting ID are provided for that option), choose Telephone Audio (from a smartphone choose Dial in) 3 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN69 Meeting Schedule <https://69.schedule.icann.org/agenda#/?limit=20&sortByFields[0]=startsAt&so…> GNSO ICANN69 Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/NwGNC> GNSO Session agendas<https://community.icann.org/x/CwGNC> For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 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

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 01 October at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund 25 Sep '20

25 Sep '20

Dear WG Members, Please find below the updated proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 01 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=… and also the redline submitted by Justine Chew reflecting the changes from the Proposal by At-Large dated 11 Jun 2020: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS13a70f3BGx0b1gOyjvvRCoAKvxtlfO/edit – start at 4-B Opposition in the WG document, page 19, and then proceed to Criterion 1/overall comments from Justine 3. Applicant Support * In the context of auctions; see: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-fin…, Topic 17: Applicant Support, page 67; Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets, page 167; and * Review as a comprehensive program; see Topic 17: Applicant Support, page 67 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>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland 24 Sep '20

24 Sep '20

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/kAC-C> (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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 24 September at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 24 Sep '20

24 Sep '20

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 24 September at 20:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations/Implementation Guidance: ACTION ITEM: Add Implementation Guidance in the AGB that “Identify” means that the applied for string closely describes either “the community” or “the community members”. Incorporate the guidance on “Nexus” provided by the At-Large proposal. Re: Criterion 2-A Guidelines ACTION ITEM: Insert a note in the clean/WG version that if we put in the guidelines provided above by At-Large then that would eliminate the need for this row. Re: 2-B Uniqueness ACTION ITEM: Add a comment to make it clear that it’s not a subject determination that there are better names for the community or is that a name that most people associate with that community as opposed to many other things. Criterion #4: Community Endorsement -- Re: Scoring: and “Consider whether the community institution or member organization is the clearly recognized representative of the community.” ACTION ITEM: Change to “a clearly recognized representative of the community”. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Phil Buckingham: -- Statement of Interest Update : Phil has been elected to serve as a Non-Executive Director on the Nominet .UK Board. 2. Activity/interaction with the ICANN Board/Org about planning for new gTLDs (question from Jim Prendergast) -- Periodic calls between Council leadership, Liaisons from the Board to SubPro, and SubPro PDP WG Co-Chairs to discuss any issues that we thought could be important to raise to their level, to try to void surprises. Not to advance policy or push implementation. -- Most recent meeting was on 08 September after we restarted the calls. -- The call was to get coordinated again and to work on a schedule for future coordination calls. To get things back up and running. -- No issues of substance were discussed. Told them that the topics featured in the Webinar were the ones that generated a lot of discussions and comments recently. -- Emphasized the importance of getting comments from the Board, particularly on the questions we posed specifically about the Closed Generics issue. What it really bmean and what they believe it means now. Clarification on what they would like to see going forward. -- Also they discussed the timeline. (Note that this was not a discussion of the timeline for a launch of the subsequent gTLDs.) ICANN69: Two sessions where we’ll talk about public comments for prioritized topics (like those highlighted in the Webinar). 3. Administrative Items – WG Guidelines/Scope for the Remainder of the WG’s Work Section 3.3 of the WG Guidelines: “WG members should be mindful that, once input/comment periods have been closed, discussions or decisions should not be resurrected unless there is group consensus that the issue should be revisited in light of new information that has been introduced.” See: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g…. -- Need to keep this in mind and to not reopen issues unless there is new information from the public comments. -- Seems like there weren’t final discussions on CPE guidelines or some other issues. -- Things like the CPE scoring, definition of communities (or lack thereof) have been under discussion for a few years. -- What about things that there wasn’t opposition to but they were rejected anyway? -- Need to keep in perspective on CPE is that a large portion of this WG did not participate and so may not have opinions on it. Most don’t understand how the community applications process works. -- Purpose of raising this section is to give context to the WG’s discussions. 4. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=…, start at page 7, and also note the redline submitted by Justine Chew reflecting the changes from the Proposal by At-Large dated 11 Jun 2020: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS13a70f3BGx0b1gOyjvvRCoAKvxtlfO/edit CPE Guidelines with WG Redlines/Comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=… Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community Re: “Identify” means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community. -- It appears that from the AGB that “identify” could describe “the community” -or- “the community members”. -- EIU required that the applied for string describes -both- “the community” -and- “the community members”. -- Have an added guideline that emphasizes that it could be either or. -- Don’t want the evaluators going off to the EIU to ask them what they meant by the text. -- Made the point in our recommendations that evaluation criteria should not have been added after the AGB was out. But the EIU had to evaluate things that were pretty vague. -- At-Large proposal: 2= String identifies the Community without over-reaching substantially beyond the Community. Question: Should we be providing more detailed guidance on what scores which number. Specifically the text in the right column in the description of “Nexus”. -- At-Large is trying to make sure that we understand very clearly what is meant, so to describe in detail. -- Seems like there is no objection from the WG to provide further guidelines on the categories of scoring (as in what At-Large has provided). -- What out for a bias towards economic communities versus other types of communities. -- WG agrees that there is no need to change the EIU definitions of “Match”, “identify”, and “Over-reaching substantially” or the following questions. ACTION ITEM: Add Implementation Guidance in the AGB that “Identify” means that the applied for string closely describes either “the community” or “the community members”. Incorporate the guidance on “Nexus” provided by the At-Large proposal. Re: Criterion 2-A Guidelines -- Deleted in the At-Large proposal. -- Put a note in the clean version that if we put in the guidelines provided above by At-Large then that would eliminate the need for this row. ACTION ITEM: Insert a note in the clean/WG version that if we put in the guidelines provided above by At-Large then that would eliminate the need for this row. Re: 2-B Uniqueness -- At-Large proposal: Question is who do we rely on determine who is unique? EIU took a certain position that .gay wasn’t unique enough. Important to see what the global community thinks is unique. -- We should make clear that there should be independence between evaluation / scoring of each Criterion and sub-criterion. -- The nexus scoring should address the issue that the evaluators might not think it’s the best name for the community. Make sure that there’s guidance that prevents that from happening. -- Make sure it isn’t the evaluator that decides whether that is the best name for a community. But what if there is a name that’s used to describe lots of things that aren’t the community. -- In the At-Large proposal they have provided guidance in the right-hand box wherever there is scoring. ACTION ITEM: Add a comment to make it clear that it’s not a subject determination that there are better names for the community or is that a name that most people associate with that community as opposed to many other things. Criterion #3: Registration Policies -- At-Large proposal: Changed the flow to make it more easily comprehensible. Scoring hasn’t been changed. -- The CPE evaluators need to have the power to ask all pretenders to find an agreement among them using the stick not to assign it at all. -- We should talk it through since, until now, the only way out is an auction or private resolution.  Criterion #4: Community Endorsement -- We have addressed aspects of this in several of our recommendations. Re: Scoring: and “Consider whether the community institution or member organization is the clearly recognized representative of the community.” -- Communities may not have one institution that is “the clearly recognized representative of the community” but may have multiple recognized representatives. -- Change to “a clearly recognized representative”. -- Doesn’t seem to be a fair way to evaluate support/opposition. -- Guidelines in the AGB were very clear, but the way they were implemented by the EIU went against a lot of communities that had large-scale support. ACTION ITEM: Change to “a clearly recognized representative of the community”. Re: Definitions -- At-Large proposal: Retained the reference to “the clearly recognized representative”. From the proposal: [a] Is the applicant the recognized community representative? [b] If applicant is not the recognized community representative, is the applicant a recognized institution or member organization of the community? [c] If the applicant is neither the recognized community representative nor a recognized institution or member organization of the community, then has the applicant provided full documentation that it has authority to represent the community with its application? [d] If the applicant does not meet any of the above limbs, then does the applicant have Documented Support from at least one group with relevance? -- If we are making it clear that we are not looking for “the clearly recognized representative” do we need all of the above text? -- At-Large is trying to be as descriptive as possible, but not asking the WG to adopt all of the text. -- Question: Did the EIU consider comments that came in during the public comment period to be documented support? Or only formal letters? Answer: There wasn’t much detail provided in the score cards. EIU didn’t describe which opposing organization was the one that took the point away. -- Could be additional bullets that illustrates some of the approaches – a series of example that highlight what an organization could be that is considered to represent a community. -- At-Large is proposing substantive change to the way that community support and opposition are evaluated. Look at the top of Criterion 4. -- Also go back to Criterion 1 – trying to find a flexible way of defining “community” so that there is no bias towards structured communities relating to trade and business. To avoid a bias against unstructured communities. And to introduce a community expertise element where it could be internationally or regionally recognized. -- Next Meeting: Start with 4-B Opposition and also the overall bias against unstructured communities. -- Also go back into the issues around public comment periods for changes to CPE applications.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 24 September at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund 22 Sep '20

22 Sep '20

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Activity/interaction with the ICANN Board/Org about planning for new gTLDs (question from Jim Prendergast) 3. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=…, start at page 7 4. Applicant Support * In the context of auctions; see: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-fin…, Topic 17: Applicant Support, page 67; Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets, page 167; and * Review as a comprehensive program; see Topic 17: Applicant Support, page 67 5. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 1