January 2021 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

FINAL REMINDER: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Jeff Neuman Jan. 8, 2021

Jan. 8, 2021

All, Thank you for the responses we have thus far. Just as a reminder, your response is due by : TODAY, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Also, please keep in mind as you respond that the Co-Chairs and the Working Group have been working in good faith throughout the process to ensure that all perspectives have been taken into account in the Final Report. The Consensus Call is not a new request for input or comments, and should not be used to raise new issues that have not been previously discussed by the Working Group. We look forward to your responses. Sincerely, Cheryl and Jeff Co-Chairs, SubPro [cid:image003.png@01D6E5A2.D1A7DC30] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Jeff Neuman Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 11:42 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Reminder #2: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC All, Just to follow up, we want to ask that everyone be as specific as possible with the areas that they do not support. For example (and I am intentionally picking extreme examples here): 1. Lets say, for whatever reason, I do not support the recommendation that "Evaluation scores on all questions be limited to a pass/fail scale (0-1 points on)", but I do support all of the other recommendation/implementation guidance in Topic 27. Rather than stating that "I do not support Topic 27", you should state "I Support all of the recommendations in Topic 27 except for Recommendation 27.2 because I believe that........" 1. Lets say that I do not support having an Applicant Support Program at all. But if there is an Applicant Support Program the recommendations / implementation guidance in the Working Group Final Report make sense. That is important information! So, rather than saying I do not support all of Topic 17, you should expressly state that "I do not support having an Applicant Support program, but if there is an Applicant Support program, then I would support the recommendations / implementation guidance in Topic 17." For the record I do support the program, I am just using an extreme example. Bottom line is that we ask you to be as specific as possible with the areas of non-support. Thanks. Jeff Neuman [cid:image005.png@01D6E5A2.D1A7DC30] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 9:41 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Happy New Year everyone! I hope you all were able to enjoy some time off with your loved ones (even if it was via Zoom as was the case for the Neuman Family). Just wanted to send this reminder that the due date is quickly approaching for the end of the Consensus Call: Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Welcome back and we are nearly there!!!!! Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image006.png@01D6E5A2.D1A7DC30] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Susan Payne Jan. 8, 2021

Jan. 8, 2021

Dear All Thanks to WG leadership, Cheryl and Jeff, all the work track leads, Emily, Steve and all our support staff, and to the WG members who have devoted so many hours to this herculean effort. Like, I imagine, many others, the recommendations from the PDP do not always reflect my preferred outcomes but can, to the most part, be accepted as a suitable compromise. A number of other WG members have already voiced their opposition to recommendation 35.4 regarding the use of second price sealed bids for ICANN Auctions of Last Resort, to which I add my objections. I do not believe that any problem has been identified for which a second price, sealed bid process would provide a solution and, like Kurt, I am concerned that the WG, without the benefit of expertise in this complex field, is making a recommendation favouring a specific type of auction operation without there having been any real assessment of the impact. If there are to be second price sealed bid auctions, however, I am strongly opposed to the timing for the submission of those bids reflected in recommendation 35.4. Requiring applicants to submit a bid so early in the process and without the benefit of all relevant information is unfair, does not allow applicants to properly assess the appropriate level of their bid, and does not allow for changing circumstances with the passage of time between bid and auction. The submission of bids before applicants know whether any of the other contention set applicants will fail evaluation, a LRO or other Objection process, or otherwise withdraw, means that bids are based, potentially, on a false understanding of the number of applicants in the contention set. The identity of the other applicants in the contention set is also directly relevant information for an applicant in determining what they should bid. This is particularly so where an applicant is a dotBrand. From the brand owner applicant's perspective this is not a commodity and there is not, necessarily, a single price they are willing to pay since there are numerous risk-based factors that have to be weighed-up, including the identity of the other applicants, their past history (positive or negative) in this space, the type of business model they are proposing, the existence, or lack, of measures they propose to apply to safeguard against confusion with the brand, and so on. Furthermore, this appears to have been proposed as the solution to a theoretical rather than an actual problem, i.e. collusion and bid rigging, there being no evidence presented that this actually occurred. Many thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude | Valideus 28-30 Little Russell Street London WC1A 2HN United Kingdom D: +44 20 7421 8255 E: susan.payne(a)comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> | www.valideus.com<http://www.valideus.com/> [cid:image002.jpg@01D6E614.7BB76800] ________________________________ 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 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland;Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Brian Winterfeldt Jan. 8, 2021

Jan. 8, 2021

Dear Co-Chairs, Staff, and Fellow Working Group Members, Attached please find our responses to the Consensus Call. We look forward to reviewing the Co-Chairs’ proposed consensus designations in due course. Congratulations to all for reaching this milestone. Best regards, Brian and Griffin ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b…]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b…]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> griffin(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Pruis, Elaine Jan. 8, 2021

Jan. 8, 2021

Dear Jeff, Cheryl, Steve, Emily, and Julie, Thank you for your leadership and support on this incredibly complex PDP. I actively contributed to the development of the new gTLD program and the 2012 AGB. After that I implemented on 200 new gTLDs. When I first read about the SubPro PDP, I thought about how difficult addressing the many pain points from the previous policy and AGB might be. Thank you to WG members for your years of dedication to developing better policies and procedures for future rounds. I think we got it 85% right, which is a fair bit better than the last time around. Attached please find my few statements of non-support. Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 [signature_90803440] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1dymtmts4f-NSFStApEFJZxEyQcHt_KF2Bt9i8Pi1qRAi8…>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1KLG2hxjufVpXR5FTOYyl0arw3nn6SkSalPOPFX5ljh4oR…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

1 0

Additional time
by Kathy Kleiman Jan. 8, 2021

Jan. 8, 2021

Hi Jeff and Cheryl,In light of the events of week, including in the US, Hong Kong and the UK, I would like to request an extension of today's deadlines until at least Sunday night. This active list has been very quiet, and the events of the day may tell us why. A little extra time under the extraordinary circumstances will not hurt ICANN, and will help those of us trying to continue our participation. Best, Kathy

2 1

Reminder #2: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Jeff Neuman Jan. 6, 2021

Jan. 6, 2021

All, Just to follow up, we want to ask that everyone be as specific as possible with the areas that they do not support. For example (and I am intentionally picking extreme examples here): 1. Lets say, for whatever reason, I do not support the recommendation that "Evaluation scores on all questions be limited to a pass/fail scale (0-1 points on)", but I do support all of the other recommendation/implementation guidance in Topic 27. Rather than stating that "I do not support Topic 27", you should state "I Support all of the recommendations in Topic 27 except for Recommendation 27.2 because I believe that........" 1. Lets say that I do not support having an Applicant Support Program at all. But if there is an Applicant Support Program the recommendations / implementation guidance in the Working Group Final Report make sense. That is important information! So, rather than saying I do not support all of Topic 17, you should expressly state that "I do not support having an Applicant Support program, but if there is an Applicant Support program, then I would support the recommendations / implementation guidance in Topic 17." For the record I do support the program, I am just using an extreme example. Bottom line is that we ask you to be as specific as possible with the areas of non-support. Thanks. Jeff Neuman [cid:image003.png@01D6E420.EDCF98E0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 9:41 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Happy New Year everyone! I hope you all were able to enjoy some time off with your loved ones (even if it was via Zoom as was the case for the Neuman Family). Just wanted to send this reminder that the due date is quickly approaching for the end of the Consensus Call: Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Welcome back and we are nearly there!!!!! Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image005.png@01D6E420.EDCF98E0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Minor error in SubPro report
by Emily Barabas Jan. 6, 2021

Jan. 6, 2021

Hi Gg, Thanks for catching this. We will correct the error when we update the report to include outcomes of the consensus call. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Levine, Gertrude via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Reply to: "Levine, Gertrude" <glevine(a)nabp.pharmacy> Date: Tuesday, 5 January 2021 at 23:48 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Minor error in SubPro report Hi Jeff and Cheryl, I have come across what appears to be a minor error in the SubPro final report. In the Summary of Outcomes on pages 267-268, Recommendation 9.1 references Specification 11 3(a)-(d) and includes footnote #295, which lists the relevant sections. However, the footnote lists what should be sections (a)-(d) as sections (e)-(f). The corresponding footnote in the body of the report on pages 37-38 lists the sections correctly. Best regards, Gg Gertrude “Gg” Levine Digital Health Manager 847/391-4497 [cid:image001.png@01D6E407.3FCF42E0]National Association of Boards of Pharmacy 1600 Feehanville Dr, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 www.nabp.pharmacy<http://www.nabp.pharmacy> | glevine(a)nabp.pharmacy<mailto:glevine@nabp.pharmacy> [cid:image002.png@01D6E407.3FCF42E0]<https://www.facebook.com/NABP1904/> [cid:image003.png@01D6E407.3FCF42E0]<https://twitter.com/nabp> [cid:image004.png@01D6E407.3FCF42E0]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/national-association-of-boards-of-pharmacy/> [cid:image005.png@01D6E407.3FCF42E0]<https://www.youtube.com/c/NationalAssociationofBoardsofPharmacy>

1 0

String Similarity Recommendation
by Donna＠registry.godaddy Jan. 6, 2021

Jan. 6, 2021

Jeff and Cheryl I'm in the process of reviewing the Final Report and I have a question regarding Recommendation 24.3 and the dot points that follow the recommendation. The last dot point appears inconsistent with the Recommendation and also inconsistent with my recollection of our discussions on this topic that concluded the meaning of the string could not be a determining factor. Perhaps I'm missing something so would appreciate clarification. Recommendation 24.3: The Working Group recommends updating the standards of both (a) confusing similarity to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name, and (b) similarity for purposes of determining string contention, to address singular and plural versions of the same word, noting that this was an area where there was insufficient clarity in the 2012 round. Specifically, the Working Group recommends prohibiting plurals and singulars of the same word within the same language/script in order to reduce the risk of consumer confusion. For example, the TLDs .EXAMPLE156 and .EXAMPLES may not both be delegated because they are considered confusingly similar. This expands the scope of the String Similarity Review to encompass singulars/plurals of TLDs on a per-language/script basis. * An application for a single/plural variation of an existing TLD or Reserved Name will not be permitted if the intended use of the applied-for string is the single/plural version of the existing TLD or Reserved Name. For example, if there is an existing TLD .SPRINGS that is used in connection with elastic objects and a new application for .SPRING that is also intended to be used in connection with elastic objects, .SPRING will not be permitted. * If there is an application for the singular version of a word and an application for a plural version of the same word in the same language/script during the same application window, these applications will be placed in a contention set, because they are confusingly similar. * Applications will not automatically be placed in the same contention set because they appear visually to be a single and plural of one another but have different intended uses. For example, .SPRING and .SPRINGS could both be allowed if one refers to the season and the other refers to elastic objects, because they are not singular and plural versions of the same word. However, if both are intended to be used in connection with the elastic object, then they will be placed into the same contention set. Similarly, if an existing TLD .SPRING is used in connection with the season and a new application for .SPRINGS is intended to be used in connection with elastic objects, the new application will not be automatically disqualified. Thanks Donna From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:45 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fourth Topical Questions: String Similarity Outstanding Questions Notice: This email is from an external sender. All, This is the Fourth topical E-mail on outstanding questions being "put to the list." The first was on Predictability, second on Applicant Support, third was the Guidebook, and this covers string similarity (Topic 24). Remember: We are down to the wire on this, so unless you have a VERY strong objection to these, we will put these into the document. If you do have a big issue with the responses to these (all of which were previously discussed and in emails over the past 1.5 months), please let us know ASAP. Only comments that provide the rationale for the objection with proposed replacement text to address the specific outstanding questions will now be considered. Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 1. Intended Use Comments * Comments: Some commenters have expressed concerns about Recommendation 24.3 in that it calls for an evaluation of the "intended use" of an applied-for string to determine whether terms that appear to be the singular/plural of each other will be allowed to co-exist (our paraphrasing). * WG Recommendations i. Recommendation 24.3. ...Specifically, the Working Group recommends prohibiting plurals and singulars of the same word within the same language/script in order to reduce the risk of consumer confusion. For example, the TLDs .EXAMPLE74 and .EXAMPLES may not both be delegated because they are considered confusingly similar. This expands the scope of the String Similarity Review to encompass singulars/plurals of TLDs on a per-language/script basis. * An application for a single/plural variation of an existing TLD or Reserved Name will not be permitted if the intended use of the applied-for string is the single/plural version of the existing TLD or Reserved Name. For example, if there is an existing TLD .SPRINGS that is used in connection with elastic objects and a new application for .SPRING that is also intended to be used in connection with elastic objects, .SPRING will not be permitted... * Path Forward i. First, put aside for the moment the issues expressed by the Board on "content" and assume for now that we can make these recommendations. An e-mail later will address the content / bylaws issue. ii. Second, most of the Working Group had little/no issue when the Plural / Singular evaluation was between two brands or a brand and a generic application. * Examples: Apple (brand) / apples (generic); Caterpillar (Brand) / caterpillars (generic); Gap (brand) / gaps (generic); Whirlpool (Brand) / whirlpools (generic). iii. Remember also that we have added sections to the Report to now require that applicants describe their proposed use of a TLD in their application and that the evaluators can ask Clarifying questions if they are unable to ascertain the intended use from the Applicant Responses (IG 24.4). Finally, If both versions (singular/plural) are allowed, then both applicants (in the case where they are both applied for strings) or the 1 successful applicant (in the case where the application is for a singular/plural of an existing TLD) will have to agree to be bound by its commitment to use the TLD only in the manner in which it proposed in its application. * Again, please ignore the potential Bylaws issue FOR NOW. We promise that we will address this later. iv. Here are the options we have * Leave the language As-Is; * Ban the co-existence of Singulars and Plurals except for where either one or both of the strings are a Specification 13 (Brand TLD); or * Ban the co-existence of Singulars and Plurals regardless of intended use completely. v. Absent agreement on either 2 or 3, we will stick with the language that we have (Option 1). A lot of work has gone into this already so we need a good amount of support from within the Working Group to change. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Monday, December 7, 2020. Sincerely, Jeff & Cheryl SubPro Co-Chairs

2 1

Minor error in SubPro report
by Levine, Gertrude Jan. 5, 2021

Jan. 5, 2021

Hi Jeff and Cheryl, I have come across what appears to be a minor error in the SubPro final report. In the Summary of Outcomes on pages 267-268, Recommendation 9.1 references Specification 11 3(a)-(d) and includes footnote #295, which lists the relevant sections. However, the footnote lists what should be sections (a)-(d) as sections (e)-(f). The corresponding footnote in the body of the report on pages 37-38 lists the sections correctly. Best regards, Gg Gertrude "Gg" Levine Digital Health Manager 847/391-4497 [cid:image002.png@01D6E382.921D5DA0]National Association of Boards of Pharmacy 1600 Feehanville Dr, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 www.nabp.pharmacy<http://www.nabp.pharmacy> | glevine(a)nabp.pharmacy<mailto:glevine@nabp.pharmacy> [cid:image003.png@01D6E382.4D195DD0]<https://www.facebook.com/NABP1904/> [cid:image004.png@01D6E382.4D195DD0]<https://twitter.com/nabp> [cid:image005.png@01D6E382.4D195DD0]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/national-association-of-boards-of-pharmacy/> [cid:image006.png@01D6E382.4D195DD0]<https://www.youtube.com/c/NationalAssociationofBoardsofPharmacy>

1 0

FW: [Ext] Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Emily Barabas Jan. 4, 2021

Jan. 4, 2021

Please see below, which is being shared with the mailing list to include on record. From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 12:47 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear Emily Please see below my revised 7 clarified statement Dear Cheryl Dear Jeff Dear All, Revised /Clarification on my unqualified Consensus The introductory / preamble of the Consensus call stated This statement supersedes and replaces my earlier statement sent on 22 Decmber 2020 . Statement Quote “The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. It is also indicated that the Report is the consolidated results of the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. We were thus encouraged to consider the Outputs in the aggregate output document The document undoubtedly is not perfect. In fact, it could not be perfect at all due to the fact that is stemmed from an intense and extensive negotiation which involved the establishment of a balance between various views from users with different interest and different objectives I wish to state that a) this is a consensus call i.e. a call to the entire community to pronounce their consensus which in a simple language means even if one or several parts totally or partially is7qare not agreed but one could leave with that as a collective efforts making a trade-off between various options, views, insights, visions, expectations and demands; b) Commenting on a document as a whole requires that an overall approach be taken without disintegrating various elements of an output on any subject matter. c) Even if we still believe there are parts that we may not fully ssupport, specific identification of an elements, item in a given parts as not fully reflect individual views of each one of us may generate further discussion, disputes and divergence of views. d) Drilling into the poppy while may satisfy one or few persons, entities but globally would be counter productive. e) What was discussed during the last 5 years in different tracks back and fort to the main group may not be appropriate to be reopened for one or several rounds of discussions In view of the above, having been in this business for decades and recognizing that there is no absolute perfection and every thing may have advantages and disadvantageous I wish to submit my unqualified consensus support for the entire report. I therefore may request your kind indulgence requesting each one of you to take a pragmatic approach to treat this very precious output which is the results of months and years of collective efforts of the entire community to the best of their understanding, knowledge I wish to emphasize that and my above-mentioned unqualified consensus to the Report only and merely applies / covers those Recommendations which were concluded /adopted by CONSENSUS at the level of working group. For non consensus or partial consensus Recommendations I have no comments at this stage with my best regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 22 Dec 2020, at 23:00, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Cheryl Dear Jeff Dear All, The introductory / preamble of the Consensus call stated Quote “The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. It is also indicated that the Report is the consolidated results of the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. We were thus encouraged to consider the Outputs in the aggregate output document The document undoubtedly is not perfect. In fact, it could not be perfect at all due to the fact that is stemmed from an intense and extensive negotiation which involved the establishment of a balance between various views from users with different interest and different objectives I wish to state that a) this is a consensus call i.e. a call to the entire community to pronounce their consensus which in a simple language means even if one or several parts totally or partially is7qare not agreed but one could leave with that as a collective efforts making a trade-off between various options, views, insights, visions, expectations and demands; b) Commenting on a document as a whole requires that an overall approach be taken without disintegrating various elements of an output on any subject matter. c) Even if we still believe there are parts that we may not fully ssupport, specific identification of an elements, item in a given parts as not fully reflect individual views of each one of us may generate further discussion, disputes and divergence of views. d) Drilling into the poppy while may satisfy one or few persons, entities but globally would be counter productive. e) What was discussed during the last 5 years in different tracks back and fort to the main group may not be appropriate to be reopened for one or several rounds of discussions In view of the above, having been in this business for decades and recognizing that there is no absolute perfection and every thing may have advantages and disadvantageous I wish to submit my unqualified consensus support for the entire report. I therefore may request your kind indulgence requesting each one of you to take a pragmatic approach to treat this very precious output which is the results of months and years of collective efforts of the entire community to the best of their understanding ,knowledge and mutual collaborations with my best regards Kavouss

1 0

Reminder: FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Jeff Neuman Jan. 4, 2021

Jan. 4, 2021

Happy New Year everyone! I hope you all were able to enjoy some time off with your loved ones (even if it was via Zoom as was the case for the Neuman Family). Just wanted to send this reminder that the due date is quickly approaching for the end of the Consensus Call: Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Welcome back and we are nearly there!!!!! Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image001.png@01D6E27D.A776ABD0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

1 0