September 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"
by Alexander Schubert Sept. 21, 2020

Sept. 21, 2020

Hi Mark,I understand what you say; and it's interesting.Let me start with the notion why exclusive use registries have (per your assertion) seemingly been singled out:I don't think they were singled out at all. GAC should be lauded for having taken upon themselves the Hercules task of sifting through all applications - and they flagged quite a few. Among those flagged was only one group that stood out as conglomerate of applications with similar specs: closed generics. They are all closed; a great common identifier. In order to avoid havoc in the next new gTLD rounds the board relayed to the GNSO that policy advice is missing. The message is essentially:"If you force us we will flag all those again in the next round; then we decide the fate of these strings: better if the community would agree on policy advice; so please do your job this time". Which we still haven't.So no singling out of closed generics by GAC or Board. In my mind.In regards to the semantics of the board resolution ("issue"):"..... that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work."First I recognize that I am not a native (American) English speaker. "The issue" could be tied to "exclusive registry access" - with "generic strings serving a public interest goal" specifying the object such access is sought for. If the "public interest goal" was a given; then they could have left the "serving a public interest goal" portion away one might note. But the board was likely aware that not everybody knew about the public interest goal; so presumably they wanted to slip that in for reference.You however seem to suggest that "the issue" was tied to "serving a public interest goal". That would reduce their concerns to the simple question: does the registry have to operate a string in a way that serves the public interest in some way form or shape?But clearly that wouldn't cover all concerns they had. Imagine a product/service related string; e.g. .scooter. Even if the GNSO would declare that the operation of .scooter doesn't have to serve a public interest goal; there would be still other concerns. E.g. BIRD (a leading U.S. scooter share app) operating .scooter solely for their products: that might create issues beyond "public interest". E.g. competition issues.So I don't think the semantic interpretation that the board tied "the issue" to "serving a public interest goal" holds water. In my mind they demanded to create policy how the exclusive registry access for closed generics will be governed. That any such policy has to follow the new gTLD program goals (among which is "public interest) is a given in my mind. That to decide would be beyond our scope: it was decided a long time ago.Comments from others?Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com Date: 9/16/20 23:37 (GMT+02:00) To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" Alex, The Board is saying the specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work – so to consider and address this issue. If the Board had decided that exclusive registry access for generic strings MUST serve a public interest goal then they would have just said so and there would be no issue and nothing for the GNSO to address. The fact that the Board says “issue” makes clear that the matter is not decided. Merriam-Website defines “issue” as “a vital or unsettled matter” and “a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/issue) I would also add that Kurt, Mike and I feel like maybe our proposal is misunderstood. We are not arguing that closed generics do not necessarily need to be in the public interest. Indeed we think it is quite clear that everything that ICANN does must be in the public interest, per various specific provisions in the Articles and Bylaws saying just that. What we are saying is that closed generics should not be subject to a different public interest test than other new gTLDs. Rather, they ought be presumed or assumed to be in the public interest just as any other new gTLD is, and that any test to analyze whether they are/are not is fraught with subjective difficulties and so any decision would be challenged. Indeed, this is why they were allowed in the last round, ... until they suddenly weren't. To put it more simply, I will re-ask the question that I asked during the last numerous times verbally and in the chat and that no one answered: If the public interest requirement is so important and everything that ICANN does must be in the public interest then why are we singling out closed generics to have to meet a special test and be operated by not for profits? Assuming we need a special test/standards (which we don’t believe are practical for the reasons previously stated) shouldn’t this requirement and test apply to ALL new gTLDs? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" Hi Mark, The original text from the board resolution seems to be: "..... the NGPC requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue." It's not a request for consideration. The portion "for generic strings serving a public interest goal" has not sprung from the fantasy of the board; it's enshrined in the new gTLD program goals. So how does the terminology "consider" fit in here? It's a clear request by that board. At least that is how I read it. Thanks, Alexander Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Date: 9/16/20 21:35 (GMT+02:00) To: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" Alan, In the section you cited below, the Board directed the GNSO to specifically consider the issue exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal. Which is exactly what we have been doing in the many discussion on the topic of closed generics. The Board did not direct the GNSO to come to the conclusion that exclusive registry access for generic strings can only exist if it serves a public interest goal. Rather, the Board directed the GNSO to specifically consider this issue because the GAC advised that generic strings can only exist if they serve a public interest goal. This is because the Board must consider GAC advice, but not necessarily follow it. Accordingly, if the WG made a recommendation that closed generics should be allowed without a public interest requirement this would be aligned with the Board’s instructions to the GNSO, so long as the issue of whether or not the public interest goal should be required was discussed – which it clearly was (and is). Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:20 PM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" *EXTERNAL TO GT* While preparing a presentation for At-Large on Closed Generics, I noted something that I think needs to be considered going forward. In the Pritz, Trachtenberg and Rodenbaugh proposal "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" advocating the unrestricted delegation of closed generics, the following statement is made in relation to the Board action in response to GAC Advice: The Board consequently decided to halt the processing of applications for ?closed generics? for the current round, and sought additional policy recommendations from the GNSO on how closed generics should be treated in subsequent rounds. That is not accurate as a critical part of the Board resolution is omitted. The exact wording was: NGPC requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue. The key missing phrase is that the GNSO Council was instructed to initiate policy work for exclusive registry access for generic strings SERVING A PUBLIC INTEREST. I understand the authors' belief that a test for the public interest is not possible or practical, but that does not remove the clear requirement in the charge the Board gave to the GNSO Council. Regardless of my personal views on the issue of closed generics, I do not believe that the PDP can or should make a recommendation that is not aligned with the Board's instructions to the GNSO. Alan If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster(a)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

2 6

Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 17, 2020

Sept. 17, 2020

While preparing a presentation for At-Large on Closed Generics, I noted something that I think needs to be considered going forward. In the Pritz, Trachtenberg and Rodenbaugh proposal "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" advocating the unrestricted delegation of closed generics, the following statement is made in relation to the Board action in response to GAC Advice: The Board consequently decided to halt the processing of applications for "closed generics" for the current round, and sought additional policy recommendations from the GNSO on how closed generics should be treated in subsequent rounds. That is not accurate as a critical part of the Board resolution is omitted. The exact wording was: NGPC requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue. The key missing phrase is that the GNSO Council was instructed to initiate policy work for exclusive registry access for generic strings SERVING A PUBLIC INTEREST. I understand the authors' belief that a test for the public interest is not possible or practical, but that does not remove the clear requirement in the charge the Board gave to the GNSO Council. Regardless of my personal views on the issue of closed generics, I do not believe that the PDP can or should make a recommendation that is not aligned with the Board's instructions to the GNSO. Alan

5 6

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 17, 2020

Sept. 17, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/jQC-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 - 17 September at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 17, 2020

Sept. 17, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 17 September at 15:00 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/2020-09-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations/Implementation Guidance: Re: “Pre-Existing”: ACTION ITEM: Add to “Pre-existing” the same language used above: “Some understanding that the community existed prior to the opening of the application window.” Re: “Delineation”: ACTION ITEM: WG can comment that the EIU’s interpretation of “delineation” was too narrow and we think it should be [what we think in the positive]. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance; see: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf and https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-fin…, Topic 34: Community Applications, page 157; with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=…; and the Proposal by At-Large<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01B.%20CPE%20Gui…> Proposal by At-Large: -- Received the proposal from At-Large or a subset thereof. -- Asked them to resubmit during public comment. CPE Guidelines with WG Redlines/Comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=… -- Redline from Anne Aikman-Scalese. -- Would need to harmonize against the WG’s recommendation. -- Verify that it’s the same language that is in the Draft Final Report. Re: "Pre-existing" means that a community has been active as such since before the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed in September 2007. -- We would need to develop a recommendation for what we think “Pre-existing” means – some period of time prior to a round opening up. -- Do we really want this pre-existing commitment to be so strict? Are the rest of the guidelines the guardrails about what it means to be a community? -- This was designed to prevent gaming. -- Don’t know that the reason for this being here is really a reason. -- If there is an arbitrary window it should be shorter and with exceptions. -- If we keep the statement with any timeline it almost guarantees that the concept of community application applied to a community with a piece of paper with a starting date on it. It has to be demonstrably a group, but putting a timeline on it means it has to be an officially sanctioned group. This has to go. -- Also, there might be geographic communities, which just established themselves as a result from foundation of new countries. We saw that in eastern europe just a couple of years ago. -- Or just say it has to be pre-existing before the opening up of the application window. -- Report says there should be a predictable window based on volume or time. -- Dropping it entirely is a major change. -- It is also part of the scoring “Has the community been active since at least September 2007?” -- Keep it but without the requirement for documented proof, but demonstrable. -- We could note it for the very particular and strenuous discourse in deciding to drop or not in implementation. -- “Pre-existing” should be in the patent/copyright form – that it was around (not documented). -- Could be a loose association of people as a community. Could note that governmental sources of proof are only one method. Do like the suggestion that it should be by the application date. -- I would argue that a good case for a "Well defined and clearly delineated organised community" would be bolstered by as MUCH evidence as possible. -- If you use the term “pre-existing” we should be clear that this does not require documented proof. -- The easiest thing to do is to just make it that when we say “pre-existing” it needs to have had activities prior to the opening of the application window. -- How about "demonstrable and significant activities"? -- Or just use the term "established" then burden of proof is influenced by actual evidence whatever it may be as presented. -- If we don’t say anything the IRT could make the assumption that for the next round the approval could be 2020 so the cut off is December 2020. We need to provide guidance. -- Saying “Pre-existing” means that it is a “community” as defined in these Guidelines prior to the application window opening. -- The At-Large proposal proposes "prior to the launch of this application window" (this meaning the applicable application window). ACTION ITEM: Add to “Pre-existing” the same language used above: “Some understanding that the community existed prior to the opening of the application window.” Re: “Delineation”: -- The problem was the deep dive in the Evaluation Guidelines. It is discriminatory. -- At-Large’s proposal was to redraft the Guidelines. -- The Evaluation Guidelines on delineation favor communities with large and structured memberships, over other less-structured groupings. Favors membership communities. -- At-Large’s proposal provided a looser definition of a community. -- The At-Large proposal went through the usual mechanism for proposing text for At-Large to endorse; it has been endorsed by At-Large, it wasn’t put to a formal vote. -- Does the WG agree that the definition in the Evaluation Guidelines is too narrowly focused? -- The left side text is from the AGB, so the WG should consider whether the left-hand text is problematic. -- Sounds like the word “membership” should be removed. -- Changing the AGB language is a bigger deal than changing the Evaluation Guidelines. We could say by “delineation this is what was actually meant”. -- We could add Implementation Guidance that it is our belief that the EIU too narrowly interpreted the definition of “delineation” and we think it should cover [whatever we think it should]. -- Even if we were to change the interpretation the AGB says, “where a clear and straight-forward membership definition scores high”. Need to not have discriminatory scoring. -- Changing the scoring would be a big change. -- Being a member of a community is very different than having membership in a community. -- We’ve discussed this for many years and we haven’t agreed to change the scoring or the elements of the scoring. We are talking about the interpretation that the EIU provided. -- Helpful for the WG to indicate in comments to the Guidelines what we think “delineation” should also apply to. -- Agree that the way this was interpreted by EIU was not what was intended. -- WG can comment that the EIU’s interpretation of “delineation” was too narrow and we think it should be [what we think in the positive]. -- After we review the CPE Guidelines we’ll need to see if there are any other impacts. ACTION ITEM: WG can comment that the EIU’s interpretation of “delineation” was too narrow and we think it should be [what we think in the positive]. Re: “Organized” and Was the entity established to administer the community? -- Comment from Anne Aikman-Scalese: There is language about awarding points based on the idea that the applicant entity was formed to "administer the community". Does this requirement make sense when we are trying to encourage Community TLDs for purposes of Applicant Freedom of Expression? It would seem more appropriate to talk about an entity that is formed for the purpose of administering the TLD for a clearly-delineated community. Is there an assumption here that all communities are somehow "administered"? And was that the assumption in the 2012 AGB? -- We should be thinking of administering and/or advocating on the behalf of a community. -- We are trying to see if the applicant is one who is responsible for organizing community activities? -- There is also a really narrow approach by the EIU here. -- We need to have two tracks to deal with Community applications. For PROFESSIONAL and TRADE communities you have to Apply all criteria. But for the others you need to introduce flexibility… -- Are there communities that have various entities that administer their activities? Seems like those would be scored lower. Re: “Extension”: and “The following questions must be scored when evaluating the application: Is the community of considerable size? Does the community demonstrate longevity? -- Comment from Anne Aikman-Scalese: t is a bit confusing that the 1 point category is defined as "not meeting the 2 point category" Is the only difference here the fact that 2 points emphasizes "considerable size AND longevity" whereas 1 point could mean "either considerable size OR longevity" or could the entity be of less than considerable "size" but have lots of longevity - maybe like the Kurds? -- “Longevity” is a forward-looking criteria. 3. AOB: Has there been any further activity/interaction with the ICANN Board/Org about planning for new gTLDs. I know there were meetings months ago but it’s been months. -- There was a recent call. We’ll add that as an agenda item at the start of the next meeting.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"
by Alexander Schubert Sept. 16, 2020

Sept. 16, 2020

Hi Mark,The original text from the board resolution seems to be:"..... the NGPC requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue."It's not a request for consideration. The portion "for generic strings serving a public interest goal" has not sprung from the fantasy of the board; it's enshrined in the new gTLD program goals.So how does the terminology "consider" fit in here? It's a clear request by that board. At least that is how I read it.Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Date: 9/16/20 21:35 (GMT+02:00) To: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" Alan, In the section you cited below, the Board directed the GNSO to specifically consider the issue exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal. Which is exactly what we have been doing in the many discussion on the topic of closed generics. The Board did not direct the GNSO to come to the conclusion that exclusive registry access for generic strings can only exist if it serves a public interest goal. Rather, the Board directed the GNSO to specifically consider this issue because the GAC advised that generic strings can only exist if they serve a public interest goal. This is because the Board must consider GAC advice, but not necessarily follow it. Accordingly, if the WG made a recommendation that closed generics should be allowed without a public interest requirement this would be aligned with the Board’s instructions to the GNSO, so long as the issue of whether or not the public interest goal should be required was discussed – which it clearly was (and is). Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:20 PM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" *EXTERNAL TO GT* While preparing a presentation for At-Large on Closed Generics, I noted something that I think needs to be considered going forward. In the Pritz, Trachtenberg and Rodenbaugh proposal "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" advocating the unrestricted delegation of closed generics, the following statement is made in relation to the Board action in response to GAC Advice: The Board consequently decided to halt the processing of applications for ?closed generics? for the current round, and sought additional policy recommendations from the GNSO on how closed generics should be treated in subsequent rounds. That is not accurate as a critical part of the Board resolution is omitted. The exact wording was: NGPC requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue. The key missing phrase is that the GNSO Council was instructed to initiate policy work for exclusive registry access for generic strings SERVING A PUBLIC INTEREST. I understand the authors' belief that a test for the public interest is not possible or practical, but that does not remove the clear requirement in the charge the Board gave to the GNSO Council. Regardless of my personal views on the issue of closed generics, I do not believe that the PDP can or should make a recommendation that is not aligned with the Board's instructions to the GNSO. Alan If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster(a)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 17 September at 15:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 15, 2020

Sept. 15, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance; see: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf and https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-fin…, Topic 34: Community Applications, page 157; with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=…; and the Proposal by At-Large<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01B.%20CPE%20Gui…> 3. Applicant Support (time permitting) * 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

**On now** Meeting Invitation | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Webinar | Monday, 14 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 14, 2020

Sept. 14, 2020

**On now** Dear all, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Webinar is scheduled on Monday, 14 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Before joining the call: Please be sure you have read the Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/DwC-C Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/y5639mdm [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/y5639mdm__;!!PtGJab4!tiDRdjU…> Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/96228789659?pwd=SUNxZ1dGZGlPaVNHcmRNLzJrVHdQQT09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/96228789659?pwd=SUNxZ1dG…> Passcode: E91YcT&9X^ Or iPhone one-tap: US: +16699006833,,96228789659#,,,,,,0#,,8883615260# or +13462487799,,96228789659#,,,,,,0#,,8883615260# Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 962 2878 9659 Passcode: 8883615260 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acEBw59hZz [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acEBw59hZz__;!!PtGJab4!t…> Webinar recordings will be published and circulated shortly after the end of the session. Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Webinar on the draft Final Report
by Steve Chan Sept. 14, 2020

Sept. 14, 2020

Dear WG Members, As a reminder, there is a webinar on Monday in support of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group’s draft Final Report. The webinar is scheduled for Monday, 14 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Attached, please find the slides that will be used for the webinar. If you have any questions in advance, do not hesitate to ask of course. 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

5 6

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Webinar | Monday, 14 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 11, 2020

Sept. 11, 2020

Dear all, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Webinar is scheduled on Monday, 14 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Before joining the call: Please be sure you have read the Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/DwC-C Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/y5639mdm [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/y5639mdm__;!!PtGJab4!tiDRdjU…> Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/96228789659?pwd=SUNxZ1dGZGlPaVNHcmRNLzJrVHdQQT09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/96228789659?pwd=SUNxZ1dG…> Passcode: E91YcT&9X^ Or iPhone one-tap: US: +16699006833,,96228789659#,,,,,,0#,,8883615260# or +13462487799,,96228789659#,,,,,,0#,,8883615260# Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 962 2878 9659 Passcode: 8883615260 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acEBw59hZz [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acEBw59hZz__;!!PtGJab4!t…> Webinar recordings will be published and circulated shortly after the end of the session. Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 September at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 10, 2020

Sept. 10, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 September at 03:00 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/2020-09-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Send the SubPro Draft Final Report Webinar slides to the WG by Friday, 11 September. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Update on the Public Comment Forum/Early Feedback (if any) Requests for Extensions: -- Received two requests for extensions of the public comment period for a specific amount of time, due to the length of the draft Final Report. -- Only way to deliver the Final Report according to the timeline is not to formally grant extensions. -- But as we get closer and we see that groups might need an extra day or two we won’t close the comment period immediately. -- Staff is now going to be analyzing and putting together the public comment report by the 21st of October, for the most part during ICANN69. -- Hoping that staff support for the GAC can provide an indication of their positions even if they need more time for their formal response, but the GAC has not requested an extension. Public Comment Input Form: -- Submissions go into a spreadsheet. It is hard to read but it isn’t the final output. Staff will create a Public Comment Review Tool. -- Anyone can submit so some responses are spam – those will be left out of the review. -- Partial submissions will be displayed in the spreadsheet – staff will combine incomplete submissions if they aren’t reflected in the spreadsheet as one entry. -- Urge you to put your responses in the Word version of the Google form and then paste them into the survey all at once – saving the Word document as backup. -- That is how we recommend doing it in the Google form demonstration. -- We aren’t going to use the donut/bagel charts that RPMs used as these can be misleading. -- We also will cover this on the SubPro draft Initial Report Webinar that will be held on Monday, 14 September at 2000 UTC. Spend the bulk of the highlighting 7-8 topics from the draft Final Report. ACTION ITEM: Send the SubPro Draft Final Report Webinar slides to the WG by Friday, 11 September. 3. Closed Generics Proposals: In-Depth Discussion – see: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Proposals+Included+in+Draft+Final… a. A Proposal for Public Interest Closed Generic gTLDs (PICG TLDs)(submitted by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, George Sadowsky, Greg Shatan): Word<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ProposalforPICGn…>, PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ProposalforPICGn…> b. The Case for Delegating Closed Generics (submitted by Kurt Pritz, Marc Trachtenberg, Mike Rodenbaugh): PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/ClosedGenerics24…> Discussion: -- Read the proposal as though section 4.2 was not there, or not a focal point. -- Does this include other socially driven mission organizations, or dedicated to the public interest? -- One question that is coming up on the Board a lot is how do we determine public interest? -- This proposal is malleable. In other words, changes can be made that would allow for greater flexibility within the concept of the closed generic or the closed concept. -- For instance, if there are jurisdictions where there functionally isn't really a nonprofit concept or even many or any relevant ideas or INGOs that something else could work or even in places where it does. -- Would hope that we don’t have to get bogged down in defining the public interest. -- Could deal with it by a series of concrete or relatively concrete attributes as opposed to, you know, looking for a unified field theory of the public interest. -- There's no way to define and create standards for what's in the public interest, it's just completely unworkable and having a public interest standard is only going to guarantee that applicants will be arguing about this and battling with I can't for years and suing ICANN. -- We're doing ourselves and the community disservice by recommending anything that can't be implemented because even now, people can't think of what the standards would be. So we can't put it this own panel and some give them some guideposts, that's just not going to work. We have to be realistic here. -- So there’s no basis for a requirement that an applicant be a not-for-profit. And being a not-for-profit doesn’t mean you can’t generate substantial profits. Nor does it guarantee that you will be acting for good. -- There's no evidence whatsoever anywhere that allowing applicants or registries to operate close generics will result in any harm whatsoever. This is 100% speculative. -- We did put some criteria in the proposal about what it means to act in the public interest. -- You aren’t going to make a lot of money getting one of these Closed Generic gTLDs, so it has to be a public interest goal that is served. -- We never let Closed Generics go through so we don’t know what would have happened if we had. -- It may be possible to developed standards for a Public Interest Closed Generic that is more limited in the scope of the definition than the overall definition of Global Public Interest. -- We understand the Board is working on this, that it has to serve the public interest, and looking to the GNSO to define it or define the conditions. See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/langdon-orr-neuman-to-… -- The Board looks at the public interest as dictated by their Bylaws. -- If you look at Community Applications you have a list of factors and they fly or they don’t. For Closed Generics you could come up with standards and questions to be answered and rates and points that address whether a Closed Generic serves a public interest goal. c. Closed Generics Proposal (submitted by Jeff Neuman in his individual capacity): Word<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/Neuman%20Closed%…>, PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/144376220/Neuman%20Closed%…> (see original email message<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/2020-August/003328.html>) Discussion: -- Really consideration needs to be given to the end users. -- Have to acknowledge that this will be a subjective determination. -- What this proposal, then does is to say that these are some of the factors that should be looked at by a panel in determining whether it serves a public interest goal, the details. -- Don’t think it’s fair to tell people to expect that it will be subjective and they have to accept that. -- The proposal is saying this was an acknowledgement of a subjective determination that attempts to use this these criteria. -- You can establish a rating system and you can answer questions and the applicant can provide support and logical arguments and I'm really not sure why you would want to characterize the evaluation is subjective. -- It is subjective because it's going to be done by individuals, it's going to be done by people making their best attempt using the guidelines that they're given from the community. -- Why have a different standard for Closed Generics? why should, why should a non-Closed Generic be able to operate in a way that's not in the public interest, give this public interest is so important? 4. AOB: ICANN69 -- We are scheduled to have two back-to-back sessions on the Wednesday of the week for internal meetings (not the plenary week) – 14 October. -- By that time we should have received all of the public comments. -- We are hoping there are certain sections that we can prioritize to have ready for review during the ICANN69 sessions. -- The time zone for the official meeting will be Hamburg.

1 0