- Gnso-newgtld-wg - lists.icann.org

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 18 May at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 18 May 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: 2.2.2 Predictability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kT… 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 May 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 14 May at 2000 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-05-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Add to #5 or as a new #8 a question about whether the exclusive use of the string would be a “Category Killer”, but try to find a different way to describe it without using slang (perhaps from Greg Shatan). ACTION ITEM: Note to continue the discussion on the list what the factors must be to help the Board in making its decision and draft text on characterizing the WG’s determination on Closed Generics. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: a. 2.7.3 Closed Generics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7O… General Discussion: -- Don’t think it’s helpful to discuss what the default would be because ultimately this will go back to the Board. -- GAC members supported Options 2 and 3. Some thought there could be a code of conduct and to allow Closed Generics. Factors that could be considered in developing a framework for evaluating the public interest, page 4 (suggested by Anne Aikman-Scalese with modifications by the Leadership): -- For 2. rather than Does .... , perhaps the better question is 'How does the proposed closed registry serve a public good?' -- Same for 3. How is the proposed mission… -- Could we think about how this evaluation would be done, considering that the Board would not want to be in the position of judging. -- Is there support for a framework? -- 6. seems to be a 'policy issue' in its own right so I don't think it should be a factor here. -- Same for 6. Also a yes/no question. Need to elaborate. -- I'm not so sure about 5. Shouldn't they each be assessed on their merits, and regardless of that assessment they go to auction. -- For #3, might the proposed mission and purpose of the registry be different to the use of the TLD? Should it be "How is the proposed mission and purpose of the registry [or proposed use of the string] innovative in nature? -- It's helpful to try to find a path forward, such as this. Closed generics were prohibited in the 2012 round as a direct result of the gac advice, and the GAC members, in their informal comments are firmly reiterating that their advice isn't for an outright ban but that there must be a public interest for the string to be allowed -- Further re: #3, understanding how the proposed use of the string is innovative is more important than for the proposed mission and purpose of the registry.  -- Public interest or public good is an overarching issue that haunts gTLDs as a whole, so we could think about whether this framework is helpful to the whole of the program. You aren’t making a statement about Closed Generics, but provides additional information for other TLDs. -- We need to be careful that in doing this for closed generics there aren't unintended consequences for other TLDs given it is specifically bringing in elements of public interest/public good.  -- Board Resolution: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06… Question 1: Why is the selected string necessary for your registry? -- Needs to be more nuanced. They should be able to explain in some depth. What other options did you consider and rule out? Etc. Question 2: How does the proposed closed registry serve a public good? -- Need to define “public good”. -- Shouldn't #2 be "serve the public interest". Not sure if that's different to "public good" but the GAC advice was public interest. -- Libraries are an example of a public good. -- GAC seemed to suggest that it is up to governments to define public good. -- If it’s a Closed Generic, how can it benefit all people. -- Looking at the Supreme Court case for booking.com, we need to be careful what we enable with this. -- You could restrict a TLD for all registrants, but still provide a benefit to end usres. -- Shouldn’t we be looking at “public interest goal” since that was the standard set by the GAC advice? You could ask the applicant how they would fulfill a public interest goal, but it’s not really a factor, it’s what we are trying to establish. -- Change the question to: “How does the proposed closed registry serve a public interest goal. What other information do you wish to provide to show it is in the public interest?” Move to the end of the questions. -- GAC advice: Beijing Communiqué: "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal". -- Should evaluate the effect on competition, but we go too far if we make an applicant show that they should have had a community application. -- Helpful to provide some guidance without making a recommendation either for or against Closed Generics. -- I think a question on what the effects on competition will be rather than requiring an applicant to chase down all competitors for consents. If I applied for .lawfirm with a really innovative, public benefiting use case, it would be quite impossible for me to get consent from every lawyer in the world. -- How do we reconcile the factors/questions with the rest of the text in the section? Question 3: How is the proposed mission and purpose of the registry innovative in nature? -- Better to look at how the proposed use of the string is innovative in nature. -- In the paragraph above we have proposed additional contractual provisions, so should be looking at these questions/evaluation in the context of the rest of the section. -- Suggest: “How is the proposed use of the string innovate in nature? How does the proposed mission and purpose of the registry support such use?” Question 4: What is the likely effect on competition of awarding the proposed closed registry for the same or similar goods and/or services? Is it minimal or is it vast? Why must it be closed? -- Don’t think an applicant can assess the likely effect on competition -- that is more an evaluation. -- If you don’t have support from your competitors then the evaluators could ask your competitors. -- Don’t know how realistic that is. -- But competition needs to be measured. -- Innovation for the benefit of users is another factor  which may still be in the public interest but not supportive of your competitors. -- Question: “Category Killer” -- What does that mean? Answer: A term which defines a good or service that would kill off any competition in the category or allow the applicant to control the category by the Closed Generic. So, tools, clothing, beauty aids, etc. that would define a significant category. -- Question: Would “Category Killers” have to be nouns? Answer: Yes, and not sure that something that isn’t a noun could be a Closed Generic. ACTION ITEM: Add to #5 or as a new #8 a question about whether the exclusive use of the string would be a “Category Killer”, but try to find a different way to describe it without using slang (perhaps from Greg Shatan). Question 5: Is there more than one proposed closed registry application for the same string and if so, how can these be evaluated for preference, e.g. scoring system? -- Not sure how anyone would answer this. -- This is a question to be considered by an evaluator. Who would perform the evaluation? The Board? An independent evaluator? -- It would have to be the Board since they are charged to look at the public interest. -- Think about what the process would be so that the Board has something to work with. ACTION ITEM: Note to continue the discussion on the list what the factors must be to help the Board in making its decision and draft text on characterizing the WG’s determination on Closed Generics.

1 0

Deadline 14 May - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 3
by Steve Chan May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

Dear all, As discussed on the previous working group call on 7 May, the leadership team is releasing the third set of revised draft recommendations for your review. There are 6 topics in package 3 here, beginning on page 24: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… [docs.google.com] · 2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures · 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds · 2.2.5 Application Submission Limits · 2.2.6 RSP Pre-Evaluation · 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression · 2.3.4 Universal Acceptance Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. Deadline for comments is Thursday 14 May at 23:59 UTC Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org 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

6 7

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 14 May at 20:00 UTC for 120 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 120 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: * 2.7.3 Closed Generics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7O… * 2.2.2 Predictability (time permitting): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kT… 1. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs
by Steve Chan May 11, 2020

May 11, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please note that the previous version of the compilation of GAC input, shared on 4 May 2020, required a minor update. Previously, the document included draft input from the United States. However the attached updated version integrates the final version of input from the United States, which is the only difference between the two documents. Please let us know if there are any questions. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, May 4, 2020 at 3:22 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: [Ext] Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs Please see below. From: Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> Date: Monday, 4 May 2020 at 12:06 To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "GACSTAFF (gac-staff(a)icann.org) (gac-staff(a)icann.org)" <gac-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs [cc’ing GNSO support staff to kindly forward to the SubPro PDP WG mailing list] Dear Cheryl and Jeff, I hope this email finds you well. As noted during ICANN67, following the focus on priority topics to the GAC on Subsequent Rounds of new gTLDs being discussed within the SubPro PDP WG, GAC members were asked to provide input on PDP WG draft recommendations available to date (attached – as of March 27th 2020) and answered three specific questions on each of the following topics: 1. GAC Advice and GAC Early Warnings 2. Public Commitments (PICs) 3. Applicant Support Program 4. Community Applications 5. Closed Generics Please note this input is not GAC consensus advice as specified in the compilation document but individual input from GAC Members and Observers on current draft final recommendations. For your reference, please find attached: The compilation document with input received from 23 GAC members and observers on the five topics mentioned above, via three specific questions on each topic; The GAC written consultation document originally submitted to GAC members for your reference, which includes: o Prior GAC positions; o Draft final recommendations from the SubPro PDP; o Questions to GAC members on each topic The GAC welcomes any further engagement with SubPro PDP WG Leadership on the input provided, and on ongoing recommendations being drafted. Many thanks for your continuous cooperation and engagement with the GAC. Kind Regards, --Manal

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 May 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 11, 2020

May 11, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 11 May at 1500 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/2020-05-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Change to “[Only] the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org may identify [initiate action on an issue]..” -- change throughout where this text occurs. ACTION ITEM: Make sure we deal with disagreements as to classification. ACTION ITEM: Add in brackets the 4 examples to category c. ACTION ITEM: Add in brackets to the process for 1a and 1b: "but shall nevertheless be reported on subsequent to their implementation". ACTION ITEM: Consider changing the title for Section 3. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: 2.2.2 Predictability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kT… Annex - Predictability Framework, page 4 Discussion: -- Question: What do we mean by “which may result in changes to the Program and its supporting processes”? Answer: The overview is meant to be general. The process depends on the issue that comes up. This is a process, not an outcome. -- This section is an attempt to minimize the impact of the things we didn’t predict. -- Question: Re: “The category will assist…” who will it assist? The SPIRT? Answer: These are meant to be guidelines for the community. -- The SPIRT may not be the one to address the issues that are identified. -- Question: For 1a and 1b should we say that these should not trigger the SPIRT? At the least 1a and 1b should be reported publicly. Answer: It would be odd to mention the SPIRT here as it hasn’t been introduced yet. -- Re: Operational: Changes to ICANN Organization Internal Processes -- can we have guardrails? That ICANN Org can’t introduce delays. -- What is the recourse of impacted applicant or community members to appeal against a 1b issue? -- The question is whether the change will have an impact on applicants. Non-minor changes that have impact will need to have community oversight. -- Re: “Operational - Non-Minor: Description: These are changes to ICANN Org’s internal processes that have (or are likely to have) a material effect on applicants or other community members.” -- Need the SPIRT to help determine what is implementation and what is policy. -- Question: So the recourse for an impacted applicant or community members against a 1b issue is to appeal to GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org on classification of the issue as a 1b issue? -- If we have any of these outcomes they would fall into category c: Operational - New Process: 1. Cannot suspend round; 2. Cannot delay more than 30 days; 3. cannot target specific;  4. Cannot delay future rounds -- But the guardrails exist in the structure, not in trying to enumerate every example. -- Question: Can we add "but shall nevertheless be reported on subsequent to their implementation" to the "Process" for 1a and 1b? ACTION ITEM: Change to “[Only] the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org may identify [initiate action on an issue]..” -- change throughout where this text occurs. ACTION ITEM: Make sure we deal with disagreements as to classification. ACTION ITEM: Add in brackets the 4 examples to category c. ACTION ITEM: Add in brackets to the process for 1a and 1b: "but shall nevertheless be reported on subsequent to their implementation". 3. Possible Policy Level New Proposals -- Those examples seem to be pure policy, so why are they going to the SPIRT? Answer: It may not be clear so the SPIRT may need to help determine. -- If it is clear policy then it should go only to Council, not to the SPIRT. -- Might be a problem of examples -- the idea was to get the SPIRT involved to determine if it involves policy. If it doesn’t then the Council doesn’t need to be involved, if it is clearly policy then it does. Think of examples on the edge of being policy or not. -- SPIRT doesn’t make recommendations but helps to make determinations. It is “screening”. -- Include the concept of screening in this text: “Process: If the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org identify an issue that they believe to be in this category, the Framework will be used to conduct an assessment and recommend the mechanism by which the solution will be developed.” -- Something that is clearly policy it should not be referred to the SPIRT. Only cases where Council is seeking guidance on whether it is policy or implementation. -- Should not assume that the Council will refer policy issues to the SPIRT to solve. It will be things that are unclear as to whether they are policy or implementation. -- May need to re-title section 3. -- Take this up again two calls from now. ACTION ITEM: Consider changing the title for Section 3.

1 0

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Monday, 11 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew May 11, 2020

May 11, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 11 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/voPsBw> (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 Terri

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 11 May at 15:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund May 8, 2020

May 8, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 11 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: 2.2.2 Predictability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kT… 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 07 May 0300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 7, 2020

May 7, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 07 May at 0300 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-05-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Add this text to the Working Document. 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only] Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): ACTION ITEM: Change the text of the second sentence to, “In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the finalization and publication of the next Applicant Guidebook...” Include a comment that Some WG Members are advocating to maintain the gap between finalization of the AGB and launch of the application period. ACTION ITEM: Consider on the WG list whether this should be a Recommendation or Implementation Guidance and consider the placement. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): ACTION ITEM: Add a reference in the rationale that the WG discussed the additional government comments from the GAC. 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) ACTION ITEM: Leadership will consider how to revisit this subject. ACTION ITEM: Consider the new idea from Rubens Kuhl that the information on number of applications in the contention set should include whether there are self-designated community or geo applications in the contention set. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… a. 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only]:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_… ACTION ITEM: Add this text to the Working Document. Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): Suggested language from Paul, Anne, Justine: Recommendation xx: “To the extent that the GAC provides GAC Consensus Advice (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws) in the future on categories of TLDs, the GAC should provide this Advice prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and whether the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, or to a particular string, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the possible detrimental effect of such timing in determining whether to accept or override such GAC Consensus Advice as provided in the Bylaws." Discussion: -- In GAC comments most governments pushed back and said they needed some flexibility on particular unexpected categories. -- This WG has discussed that there needs to be balance between providing advice on categories to the extent it could have been provided prior to the round opening up. -- Could say “after the opening of the application submission period”. -- The language on timing has a gap where it says to provide the advice before the final version of the AGB and if issue after the application submission period has begun. Do we want it at the publishing of the final AGB? Or should it be after the opening of the application submission period? -- Fine to ask for GAC action prior to the finalization of the AGB then after the application submission period has begun then the rest would apply. -- But there is a gap between the publishing of the AGB and the opening of the application submission window – potentially a 4-month period. The next sentence should be “in the event the GAC advice is issued after the finalization of the AGB” – but change to publication of the final version of the AGB. -- If we keep the gap in we should note that we knowingly did so for the Implementation Team. -- Publication of the final AGB is consistent with the predictability framework language. -- In the evolution of this text, we changed it to a recommendation, but it had been implementation guidance. Seems like if it isn’t binding it should be Implementation Guidance (says “should” not “must”). -- Question: Does this mean it won’t be implemented? Answer: We would say in the preamble that Implementation Guidance should be implemented unless it’s not feasible. The idea is to be transparent if something is implemented differently. ACTION ITEM: Change the text of the second sentence to, “In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the finalization and publication of the next Applicant Guidebook...” Include a comment that Some WG Members are advocating to maintain the gap between finalization of the AGB and launch of the application period. ACTION ITEM: Consider on the WG list whether this should be a Recommendation or Implementation Guidance and consider the placement. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): Re: “Section 3.1 of the 2012 Applicant Guidebook states that GAC Consensus Advice “will create a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved.” Noting that this language does not have a basis in the current version of the ICANN Bylaws, the Working Group recommends omitting this language in future versions of the Applicant Guidebook to bring the Applicant Guidebook in line with the Bylaws language.” Discussion: -- Many governments wanted to keep the strong presumption language in the AGB, unless there is strong consensus in the community to take it out. -- Question: Don’t we indicate in our recommendations an acceptance of Early Warning, so aren’t we recognizing that advice comes after applicants are made? Answer: GAC Early Warnings do not constitute consensus advice. -- The language is from a time that has gone by. Hate to miss an opportunity to have protective language for applicants. -- GAC can provide advice on this Final Report. -- Not all of the governments agree with keeping the presumption in, such as the US. Belgium was the only one that addressed the point we tried to make, that we think it provides a disincentive to come up with other solutions than rejecting the application outright. Could hamper a direct dialog with the applicant to reach a solution. -- A lot of governments do not agree with the removal of the language. -- Let the Bylaws take over and take out all reference to the presumption. -- Should we modify “strong presumption” instead and rewrite the text to reflect the fact that there was support from some countries to keep in “strong presumption”. ACTION ITEM: Add a reference in the rationale that the WG discussed the additional government comments from the GAC. b. 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) Discussion: -- Question: Are private auctions off the table? Answer: Looking at the bulk of the comments and the letter from the Board and the previous work it seems like there is much more support for not allowing private auctions than there is support for keeping them. -- Thought we decided that private solutions could still be allowed. -- Does private solutions include private auctions? -- We describe private auctions as a perceived problem; if it’s just perceived then private auctions should be back on the table. -- If we do allow private auctions to go forward there are limiting elements that the WG could consider. -- NEW IDEA (from Rubens): When the contention sets are revealed for the types of applications to be identified – such as community or geo: “I still believe that the information on number of applications in the contention set should include whether there are self-designated community or geo applications in the contention set. Like this example: there are 7 applications in the provisional contention set, 1 is community and 1 is both geo and community.” ACTION ITEM: Leadership will consider how to revisit this subject. ACTION ITEM: Consider the new idea from Rubens Kuhl that the information on number of applications in the contention set should include whether there are self-designated community or geo applications in the contention set.

1 0

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Thursday, 07 May 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 6, 2020

May 6, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 07 May 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/u4PsBw> (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