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

Please RSVP Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 5, 2016

Oct. 5, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Please RSVP via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANNpolicy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 03 October 2016
by Emily Barabas Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear All, Please find below notes and Actions Items from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 03 October 2016. Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Update from WT Leaders 4. GNSO Council letter - Update on GNSO Council call 5. Continued discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1 6. Work Track Coordination 7. AOB Notes and Action Items: 1. Kavouss Arasteh: Expressed appreciation to the CWG and everyone involved in the IANA Transition. 2. Steve Coates has an updated SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stephen+Jadie+Coates+SOI 3. Update from WT Leaders - Sara Bockey (WT1) - Initial discussions have been taking place around accreditation. Support for applicants from developing countries will be addressed in the upcoming call. - Michael Flemming (WT2) - The group has started discussing the base registry agreement, and has started looking at pros and cons for single agreement vs. agreements by category. The next topic will be terms and conditions. - Karen Day (WT3) - The group is starting to discuss objections. The next meeting will be a deep dive into limited public interest objections. - Rubens Kuhl (WT4) – The group is in an information discovery phase. They are seeking to interface with UASG, hoping to get information from ICANN staff on 2012 round, but ICANN staff has not been forthcoming with information. The group has started working on outreach questions and will likely continue working on developing those questions next week. 4. GNSO Council letter - Update on GNSO Council call- Many SG/Cs responded directly to the Council. This working group also sent a letter to the Council explaining that the group did not reach consensus on the topic. - This was a big agenda item, but there was very little time for it to be discussed on the GNSO Council call. - Resolution: a small group from the Council will compile all statement that will be sent to the Board. - The goal is to finalize the letter for the next meeting to send to the Board. - Summary of input received: https://community.icann.org/x/owu4Aw - Kavouss Arasteh: Will the small group response reflect that the Subsequent Procedures PGP WG has not reached consensus on this issue? - Mary Wong (staff): The small group will synthesize all of the feedback received and reflect this in its response to the Board. 5. Continued discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1 - Sections 2b and 2c: These question address which categories should or should not be included in the list. - Question raised by the IPC: if we have types, is there something distinctive about the way each type will be handled? - Donna Austin: It’s critical to understand: What's the consequence of defining categories? How do we move forward if we define categories? A brand has not been defined in terms of policy. Is this something the group needs to address, regarding whether Specification 13 still holds? We already have 1500 applicants that have gone through an initial process. What disparities are we creating by introducing categories at this point? How much of the conversation from the 2012 round do we reopen again? This is a complicated issue, and we need to understand the consequences and determine a path forward. - Jeff Neuman: It is complicated, but if we all accept the fact that there are categories, we can develop a checklist to use as we go through the different issues to identify where there are differences that we need to consider and what the consequences will be. There are categories and they are not going away. 1500 applications in the first round shouldn't dissuade us from making a change going forward. (Kavouss agreed) - Donna Austin: What is the benefit? Challenge: how do we define categories? Maybe is useful to review previous discussions on categories and see what information is still relevant. Do we need to have the category discussion before we have a substantive discussion about registry agreements in sub team 3? - Martin Sutton: With the process and agreement modeled around traditional open registry, selling domains, this causes barriers to new entrants. It also causes extreme issues in the post-application process for those that have ventured forth. - Avri Doria: In 2012, a list of possible categories came up, but we waited to see what emerged in practice. She sees at least four that we have to deal with (standard, community, geographical, brand). The closed generic ended up emerging as an issue-based category. Sensitive strings and highly regulated emerged in the context of PICs. Closed generics also emerged. As we walk through the issues, we should walk through the impact around those possible categories, without making a final determination on categories. If they didn't emerge in the last round, we shouldn't create them. Jeff Neuman: There was an IGO category as well Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, it applied to both governmental and intergovernmental organizations. As long as it's governmental, they would have a different contract. Jeff Neuman: right....so in the last round we had generic, geographic, brand, community, governmental Rubens Kuhl: What had an specific IGO angle were LROs (Legal Right Objections), where IGOs got automatic eligibility for filing a objection when though not having a trademark Rubens Kuhl: And the governmental could be generic, geographic, brand or exclusive use... it's a matrix. - Jeff Neuman: There was GAC advice sensitive strings. Certain applicants had to accept PICs. No policy process has looked at whether that was the appropriate way to address the issue, and whether this is an appropriate category. We owe it to the GAC and the Board to weigh in on this issue. - Jorge Cancio: Perhaps we should look at the different elements a category may mean: 1) a specific purpose; 2) a set of specific requirements for the applicant; 3) specific procedures to go through; 4) specific conditions in the registry agreement; etc. - Tom Dale: ALAC had asked the Board to examine the PICs. The Board responded that this PDP group is considering the PICs along with the CCT-RT. This would be a logical part of our work. - Avri Doria: There is a segment of the community that is unhappy with the PICs and feel that PICs were forced on people. Another question to address: to what extent are PICs enforceable? There is a whole set of issues that need to be discussed under PICs. This is somewhat separate from the discussion of categories itself. - Jeff Neuman: PICs will be addressed in WT 2 and 3: WT 2 will address the topic from the agreement and enforcement perspective, WT 3 from a dispute resolution perspective. It’s for us to consider whether there is this extra category of sensitive strings, and if so, how and where is this category treated differently. - Tom Dale: Just to add on PICs, it would be useful to check what the CCT Review Team has looked at in terms of consumer protection/safeguards. - Donna Austin: If we determine if the PICs are unenforceable, what is the consequence for registries that already have PICs from the last round. - Jeff Neuman: I think the question is not whether PICs are enforceable but who can enforce and how. Obviously, ICANN can enforce, but are third party actions appropriate. Another question is about time-based PICs. - Avri Doria: Yes, it is about how PICs are enforced, and also if a PIC is content related, how does that work? PICs never went through a policy process. It will go through one here. There are many issues, especially in the context of the new bylaws. - Kavouss Arasteh: Suggested moving the discussion forward because time is limited. - Avri Doria: Avri is not worried about spending extra time on this issue because it is important to address. Seven possible categories emerged during the 2012 round that we definitely need to look at more closely: standard, community, geographical, brand, closed generic, sensitive strings, highly regulated. Do we have more than 7 possible categories going forward in our discussions? Not sure about validated, IGO, and non-profit as special types. These did not emerge in the last round but that we included in CC1 questions. Do we work with 7 or 10? - Jorge Cancio: I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input. - Donna Austin: 7 it's a smaller number - Jorge Cancio: I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input - Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, that depends if such classification gets any kind of priority, like community TLDs. If it doesn't translate into different agreement or different contention set resolution, that it's definitely not to be looked at. - Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references? - Kristina Rosette: If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references? - Donna Austin: @Kristina, defining each category will be the challenge. - Kristina Rosette: @Donna: That's my point. But I don't see the value in using each category as a framework if we can't define them in a way that is clear, certain, and predictable - Avri Doria: There appears to be agreement to start with a list of 10. Section 2d: - Avri Doria: All three responses feed into the matrix approach, listing categories, issues distinct to those categories. - Kristina Rosette: Concern about where we are going and how long and it will take there if we discuss categories before defining them. We seem to be moving forward with discussing broadly defined categories. Need to define what they are and what they are not. - Avri Doria: This seems reasonable. - Karen Day: Wouldn't step 1 of the matrix by necessity be the definition? - Berry Cobb: Meta-tags may be a better way to consider possible strings rather than just looking at categories. Using the word categories is a difficult place to start, because strings may belong to more than one type. - Kavouss Arasteh: The use of or reference to category seems fundamental. - Jorge Cancio: some "categories" may indeed add up: a string could be a generic term, that describes a highly regulated industry and be presented as a community string. - Rubens Kuhl: A TLD can be governmental, geographic and community, like .barcelona. Or non-governmental, geographic and community like .osaka, or governmental and geographic but not community like .rio. - Avri Doria: We need to come some with some definitions, we have 10 categories/meta-tags, we have a column for aspects of application process, then we can come back to this in a more structured way. [Action Item: Staff will do an initial draft the groupings in the matrix and begin defining groups (Steve Chan)] Section 2e: - Avri Doria: There are a range of responses on this topic, ranging from all applications going through at the same time to allowing certain types of applications to go first. - Jeff Neuman: This has been discussed in other fora regarding the brand only round. There are arguments on both sides (pro/con) that should be aired in this group. - Avri Doria: There have also been proposals for rounds/windows only for developing economies or only IDNs. - Jorge Cancio: As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated. - Donna Austin: This is another place where category definitions are needed before we can move forward with substantive discussion. Concern with moving forward with a specific category round: there might me a sense that some of the demand had been alleviated and therefore no hurry for additional procedures. If there was a targeted round, there would need to be a commitment that the rest would follow shortly thereafter. - Avri Doria: There is also a concern that if there is a targeted round, will everyone try to squeeze their application into the type in this round? This feeds into the question from the Board. Agrees that it makes sense to revisit after we have done further work defining the categories. - Jorge Cancio: As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated. - Vanda: from mround y study from lac region with mostly brands interested in next round i do believe it will be positive a separate. - Rubens Kuhl: Most strings can have multiple meanings like brand and generic. Apple is both a fruit and a computer company... any limitated application on one type excludes the other types. - Martin Sutton: Given the unpredictable length of time before new applications may be opened, it could be an opportunity for ICANN to consider maintaining some momentum by looking at low-risk options, by opening up applications to those with less contention experienced in 2012 round, such as brands. It would be important to have a well-defined category. 6. Work Track Coordination - WT leads are coordinating on issues of overlap between the sub teams - The group should try to coordinate CC2 questions into a single request for input, so that four sets of questions don’t go out separately. [Action Item: Staff will send poll regarding this group’s attendance (in-person and remote) for Hyderbad] From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 4 October 2016 at 03:36 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 03 October 2016 Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 03 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter: Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw Michelle DeSmyter: Member page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw Carlos Raul Gutierrez: please mute the mics Jeff Neuman: we will kick off in a few minutes Carlos Raul Gutierrez: CLO: the new Room has not recognized you VIP status yet........ Carlos Raul Gutierrez: :) Carlos Raul Gutierrez: yes Carlos Raul Gutierrez: echo is clear and loud Jeff Neuman: I am waiting for an operator at the moment Michelle DeSmyter: thanks Jeff - I just gave them the heads up also Karen Day: terrible echo on staff Phil Buckingham: +++++1 Kavouss and all other CCWG participants jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): we are wildly in agreement :-) Steve Coates: I have an updated SOI - https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stephen+Jadie+Coates+SOI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes doing work tht wuld be good kavouss arasteh: Secretariat, kavouss arasteh: Pls correct I did refer to CWG AND NOT CCWG avri: Yes CCWG goes on and one Sara Bockey: CCT avri: ... and on Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): So true Avri :-) Mary Wong: 13 October Mary Wong: (next Council meeting) Mary Wong: @Jeff, that is corrrect. Philip Corwin: That is correct, Jeff. Council established a small subgroup of which I am one member. Steve Chan: @ Carlos, full dosclosure: Emily prepared it. Philip Corwin: As is Carlos Steve Chan: https://community.icann.org/x/owu4Aw Donna Austin: I think its just a compilation Mary Wong: Synthesize, is the word used during the Council meeting. Steve Chan: You can find all responses that the GNSO Council received, plus the draft staff/compilation summary. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: exactly Rubens Kuhl: Draft is the operative word here... Carlos Raul Gutierrez: I recommend looking at staffs compilation Carlos Raul Gutierrez: o comments Philip Corwin: We shall try to synthesize some widely divergent views, but it shall be a challenge. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: including the ones by this PDPs leaderhsip Carlos Raul Gutierrez: @Phil just emphasize divergence Emily Barabas: Avri -- we finished 2a in the previous call, so we still need to cover 2b today Jeff Neuman: Together makes sense Donna Austin: I think that's critical to understand. What's the consequence of defining categories. Jeff Neuman: There was an IGO category as well Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, it applied to both governmental and intergovernmental organizations. As long as it's governmental, they would have a different contract. Jeff Neuman: right....so in the last round we had generic, geographic, brand, community, governmental Rubens Kuhl: What had an specific IGO angle were LROs (Legal Right Objections), where IGOs got automatic eligibility for filing a objection when though not having a trademark Rubens Kuhl: And the governmental could be generic, geographic, brand or exclusive use... it's a matrix. Rubens Kuhl: (even though not having a TM) kavouss arasteh: Jeff+1 jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I'm losing time and again my connection jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): But just to recall the GAC input where the usefulness of categories was stressed kavouss arasteh: Jorge1+1 Martin Sutton: With the process and agreement modeled around traditional open registry, selling domains, this causes barriers to new entrants. It also causes extreme issues in the post-application process for those that have ventured forth. Rubens Kuhl: Categories and multiple agreements are indeed connected. Jeff Neuman: Its also connected to application criteria jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): perhaps we should look at the different elements a category may mean: 1) a specific purpose; 2) a set of specific requirements for the applicant; 3) specific procedures to go through; 4) specific conditions in the registry agreement; etc. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Jeff Neuman: And connected to objections, etc. Jeff Neuman: That is why it is an overarching issue :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Donna Austin: geographic had a specific definitiation in the guidebook Jeff Neuman: @Donna - that definition came after it was decided to create that category jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @staff: my audio is so bad that I cannot intervene, but please take up my points in the notes - thanks! Jeff Neuman: which is sort of what we are doing now. Should we formally recognize other categories Rubens Kuhl: One curious thing is that Geographic contracts have not carried the part of terms and conditions where ICANN was allowed to redelegate the contract due to opposition from the government that authorized it at application time. Rubens Kuhl: So it's yet to be seen what happens in a Geo TLD redelegation. Phil Buckingham: dont think we should categorise for profit and not for profit . this distinction should be dealt thro/ in the financial model / evaluation /application / capability tests and fee charged Martin Sutton: The latest round experiences should be used to improve the process and encourage competition. Lessons learnt would indicate that ignoring some of the complex issues could continue to create more protracted problems post application. Steve Chan: @Jorge, we will make sure your comment is raised jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @Steve: thanks! vanda: makes sense Avri. Rubens Kuhl: Or even if those PICs actually address GAC advice or not... Donna Austin: @Rubens, and what if they don't? Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, we either decide that GAC Policy Advice is not to be accepted, and maintain status quo, or decide to accept that advice, and make the changes required to actually fulfil that advice. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Tom e need ot address Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): to address Rubens Kuhl: PICs were forced down people's throats. Phil Buckingham: @ Tom PICs currently in WT2 Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): @Phil Indeed, thanks. kavouss arasteh: We certauinly need to maintain the notion of category but not having an extended list of categories kavouss arasteh: Ingac terms, we have highly sensitive and sensitive strings which we need to maintain the bnotion of category Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Avri Rubens Kuhl: Category, type, group, class... pick a word on move on. Donna Austin: Isn't that the PIC DDDRP? Rubens Kuhl: There is the PIC DRP and there is the PDDRP. Rubens Kuhl: PDDRP is oriented towards TM RPMs, PIC DRP is generic of PICs. Jeff Neuman: @Avri - Should get Becky Burr's view of PICs in relation to the Bylaws as she definately addressed them Donna Austin: and the PIC DRP is being discussed by the RPM WG isn't it> Susan Payne: hi donna, no, RPMs are dealing with PDDRP but not PICDRP Donna Austin: thanks Susan Steve Chan: @Donna, this WG will also cover RRDRP Donna Austin: the validation is more a business model decision rather than a category, or is it? Jeff Neuman: @Donna - perhaps Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Business model decision, in our view. Jeff Neuman: BUT, we could discuss whether they should have preference over non-validated in contention Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): Just to add on PICs, it would be useful to check what the CCT Review Team has looked at in terms of consumer protection/safeguards. Phil Buckingham: + 1 Donna + Kristina Jeff Neuman: Sort of like community Gg Levine (NABP): Any thoughts on what if an applicant fits into more than one category? Donna Austin: 7 it's a smaller number jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, that depends if such classification gets any kind of priority, like community TLDs. If it doesn't translate into different agreement or different contention set resolution, that it's definitely not to be looked at. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references? Donna Austin: @ Rubens and its a highly regulated string Philip Corwin: Confirming that RPM WG is only looking at PDDRP, not PICDRD Donna Austin: @Kristina, defining the each category will be the challenge jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): and defining what the effect of being categorized... Karen Day: Agree start to look at 10 Christa Taylor: 10 and moving downwards makes the most sense Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): May as well Martin Sutton: Agree start with 10 then remove if necessary Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @ Donna: That's my point. But I don't see the value in using each category as a framework if we can't define them in a way that is clear, certain, and predictable Rubens Kuhl: HIghly regulated gets different agreement, like what happened in 2012 having different PICs than other TLDs... possibly. Kevin Kreuser: agree w/ Kristina Donna Austin: I agree with you Kristina. Berry Cobb: The group may wish to consider assigning "meta-tags" to strings as opposed to calling them categories. As Kristina points out it may be difficult to properly defined a category and even more difficult to assing a string to one category especially since it could be assigned to more than one. For example a generic string might also be a sensitive string or perhaps a closed TLD. This aligns with the frameworking of building a matrix. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Berry Karen Day: Wouldn't step 1 of the Matrix by neccesity be the definition? Rubens Kuhl: Berry, attributes would be a word for it, perhaps ? Rubens Kuhl: Non-mutually exclusive comes to mind in such definitions. Phil Buckingham: so the questions asked on application are by each TLDs "attributes " ? kavouss arasteh: The use of or reference to category seems fundamental jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): some "categories" may indeed add up: a string could be a generic term, that describes a highly regulated industry and be presented as a community string... Rubens Kuhl: A TLD can be governmental, geographic and community, like .barcelona. Or non-governmental, geographic and community like .osaka, or governmental and geographic but not community like .rio. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Like the "tags" idea. Makes the new gTLD searchable jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): right - there may be multiple combinations... Carlos Raul Gutierrez: multiple tags jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): yes vanda: yes clear kavouss arasteh: Jorge, yes to what ? to multiple tag? kavouss arasteh: yes, tks jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated... vanda: from mround y study from lac region with mostly brands interested in next round i do believe it will be positive a separate Rubens Kuhl: Most strings can have multiple meanings like brand and generic. Apple is both a fruit and a computer company... any limitated application on one type excludes the other types. Martin Sutton: Given the unpredictable length of time before new applications may be opened, it could be an opportunity for ICANN to consider maintaining some momentum by looking at low-risk options, by opening up applications to those with less contention experienced in 2012 round, such as brands. Martin Sutton: It would be important to have a well-defined category. Donna Austin: sorry Avri, we seem to have some time delay Donna Austin: @Martin, brands needs to be defined Rubens Kuhl: To quote an example of the type of gaming that can occur, the dubious trademarks registered for the .eu sunrise is still a good example. Susan Payne: Will the WTs also have sessions? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Staff: Does this morning's announcement about the damaged equipment affect the abilty of folks to participate remotely (not in hubs)? Phil Buckingham: Isnt there a problem with RP ? Fire on ship Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): thank you. Rubens Kuhl: @Kristina: more of a guess, but it looks to affect more the Public Forum type of activity. Mary Wong: From what we hear, it seems tht remote participation via Adobe Connect should not be affected. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks Everyone...bye for now Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Thanks! Christa Taylor: Thank-you! Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Thank you everyone. Susan Payne: bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): talk soon jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): thanks to all and bye! Alexander Schubert: bye Phil Buckingham: Thanks Avri , Jeff

1 0

Call for RSVPs: GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | 10 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | October 10 2016 | 20:00 UTC Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> this form<https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> by 7 October 2016. Are you a new GNSO Working Group Member? Do you have questions you never asked about Adobe Connect or other participation tools that are used to facilitate Working Group deliberations? The upcoming Communication Tools Classroom is the place to look for answers to these and any other questions you may have in relation to Working Group tools. Please join the SO/AC Support team on October 10, 2016 at 20:00 UTC for the Communication Tools Classroom. In an informal setting, new Working Group members will be familiarized with the communication tools they will be using when taking part in GNSO Working Groups. Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Introduction to the SO/AC Support team & Policy Support Staff 3. Where to find relevant information: a. GNSO Master Calendar b. Individual Working Group Wiki pages. 4. Working Group Mailing lists: a. Difference between statuses (Observer/ Member) 5. Working Group Members a. Statements of Interests b. Email invitations c. Calendar invitations 6. Adobe Connect room 7. Questions This session will be recorded and the recordings will be made available on the GNSO Calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>. We look forward to your participation! Please RSVP via this form<https://goo.gl/forms/rGI0HvuV8eT00FJ53> by 7 October 2016.

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 03 October 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 03 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter: Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw Michelle DeSmyter: Member page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw Carlos Raul Gutierrez: please mute the mics Jeff Neuman: we will kick off in a few minutes Carlos Raul Gutierrez: CLO: the new Room has not recognized you VIP status yet........ Carlos Raul Gutierrez: :) Carlos Raul Gutierrez: yes Carlos Raul Gutierrez: echo is clear and loud Jeff Neuman: I am waiting for an operator at the moment Michelle DeSmyter: thanks Jeff - I just gave them the heads up also Karen Day: terrible echo on staff Phil Buckingham: +++++1 Kavouss and all other CCWG participants jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): we are wildly in agreement :-) Steve Coates: I have an updated SOI - https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stephen+Jadie+Coates+SOI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes doing work tht wuld be good kavouss arasteh: Secretariat, kavouss arasteh: Pls correct I did refer to CWG AND NOT CCWG avri: Yes CCWG goes on and one Sara Bockey: CCT avri: ... and on Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): So true Avri :-) Mary Wong: 13 October Mary Wong: (next Council meeting) Mary Wong: @Jeff, that is corrrect. Philip Corwin: That is correct, Jeff. Council established a small subgroup of which I am one member. Steve Chan: @ Carlos, full dosclosure: Emily prepared it. Philip Corwin: As is Carlos Steve Chan: https://community.icann.org/x/owu4Aw Donna Austin: I think its just a compilation Mary Wong: Synthesize, is the word used during the Council meeting. Steve Chan: You can find all responses that the GNSO Council received, plus the draft staff/compilation summary. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: exactly Rubens Kuhl: Draft is the operative word here... Carlos Raul Gutierrez: I recommend looking at staffs compilation Carlos Raul Gutierrez: o comments Philip Corwin: We shall try to synthesize some widely divergent views, but it shall be a challenge. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: including the ones by this PDPs leaderhsip Carlos Raul Gutierrez: @Phil just emphasize divergence Emily Barabas: Avri -- we finished 2a in the previous call, so we still need to cover 2b today Jeff Neuman: Together makes sense Donna Austin: I think that's critical to understand. What's the consequence of defining categories. Jeff Neuman: There was an IGO category as well Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, it applied to both governmental and intergovernmental organizations. As long as it's governmental, they would have a different contract. Jeff Neuman: right....so in the last round we had generic, geographic, brand, community, governmental Rubens Kuhl: What had an specific IGO angle were LROs (Legal Right Objections), where IGOs got automatic eligibility for filing a objection when though not having a trademark Rubens Kuhl: And the governmental could be generic, geographic, brand or exclusive use... it's a matrix. Rubens Kuhl: (even though not having a TM) kavouss arasteh: Jeff+1 jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I'm losing time and again my connection jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): But just to recall the GAC input where the usefulness of categories was stressed kavouss arasteh: Jorge1+1 Martin Sutton: With the process and agreement modeled around traditional open registry, selling domains, this causes barriers to new entrants. It also causes extreme issues in the post-application process for those that have ventured forth. Rubens Kuhl: Categories and multiple agreements are indeed connected. Jeff Neuman: Its also connected to application criteria jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): perhaps we should look at the different elements a category may mean: 1) a specific purpose; 2) a set of specific requirements for the applicant; 3) specific procedures to go through; 4) specific conditions in the registry agreement; etc. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Jeff Neuman: And connected to objections, etc. Jeff Neuman: That is why it is an overarching issue :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Donna Austin: geographic had a specific definitiation in the guidebook Jeff Neuman: @Donna - that definition came after it was decided to create that category jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @staff: my audio is so bad that I cannot intervene, but please take up my points in the notes - thanks! Jeff Neuman: which is sort of what we are doing now. Should we formally recognize other categories Rubens Kuhl: One curious thing is that Geographic contracts have not carried the part of terms and conditions where ICANN was allowed to redelegate the contract due to opposition from the government that authorized it at application time. Rubens Kuhl: So it's yet to be seen what happens in a Geo TLD redelegation. Phil Buckingham: dont think we should categorise for profit and not for profit . this distinction should be dealt thro/ in the financial model / evaluation /application / capability tests and fee charged Martin Sutton: The latest round experiences should be used to improve the process and encourage competition. Lessons learnt would indicate that ignoring some of the complex issues could continue to create more protracted problems post application. Steve Chan: @Jorge, we will make sure your comment is raised jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @Steve: thanks! vanda: makes sense Avri. Rubens Kuhl: Or even if those PICs actually address GAC advice or not... Donna Austin: @Rubens, and what if they don't? Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, we either decide that GAC Policy Advice is not to be accepted, and maintain status quo, or decide to accept that advice, and make the changes required to actually fulfil that advice. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Tom e need ot address Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): to address Rubens Kuhl: PICs were forced down people's throats. Phil Buckingham: @ Tom PICs currently in WT2 Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): @Phil Indeed, thanks. kavouss arasteh: We certauinly need to maintain the notion of category but not having an extended list of categories kavouss arasteh: Ingac terms, we have highly sensitive and sensitive strings which we need to maintain the bnotion of category Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Avri Rubens Kuhl: Category, type, group, class... pick a word on move on. Donna Austin: Isn't that the PIC DDDRP? Rubens Kuhl: There is the PIC DRP and there is the PDDRP. Rubens Kuhl: PDDRP is oriented towards TM RPMs, PIC DRP is generic of PICs. Jeff Neuman: @Avri - Should get Becky Burr's view of PICs in relation to the Bylaws as she definately addressed them Donna Austin: and the PIC DRP is being discussed by the RPM WG isn't it> Susan Payne: hi donna, no, RPMs are dealing with PDDRP but not PICDRP Donna Austin: thanks Susan Steve Chan: @Donna, this WG will also cover RRDRP Donna Austin: the validation is more a business model decision rather than a category, or is it? Jeff Neuman: @Donna - perhaps Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Business model decision, in our view. Jeff Neuman: BUT, we could discuss whether they should have preference over non-validated in contention Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): Just to add on PICs, it would be useful to check what the CCT Review Team has looked at in terms of consumer protection/safeguards. Phil Buckingham: + 1 Donna + Kristina Jeff Neuman: Sort of like community Gg Levine (NABP): Any thoughts on what if an applicant fits into more than one category? Donna Austin: 7 it's a smaller number jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, that depends if such classification gets any kind of priority, like community TLDs. If it doesn't translate into different agreement or different contention set resolution, that it's definitely not to be looked at. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references? Donna Austin: @ Rubens and its a highly regulated string Philip Corwin: Confirming that RPM WG is only looking at PDDRP, not PICDRD Donna Austin: @Kristina, defining the each category will be the challenge jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): and defining what the effect of being categorized... Karen Day: Agree start to look at 10 Christa Taylor: 10 and moving downwards makes the most sense Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): May as well Martin Sutton: Agree start with 10 then remove if necessary Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @ Donna: That's my point. But I don't see the value in using each category as a framework if we can't define them in a way that is clear, certain, and predictable Rubens Kuhl: HIghly regulated gets different agreement, like what happened in 2012 having different PICs than other TLDs... possibly. Kevin Kreuser: agree w/ Kristina Donna Austin: I agree with you Kristina. Berry Cobb: The group may wish to consider assigning "meta-tags" to strings as opposed to calling them categories. As Kristina points out it may be difficult to properly defined a category and even more difficult to assing a string to one category especially since it could be assigned to more than one. For example a generic string might also be a sensitive string or perhaps a closed TLD. This aligns with the frameworking of building a matrix. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Berry Karen Day: Wouldn't step 1 of the Matrix by neccesity be the definition? Rubens Kuhl: Berry, attributes would be a word for it, perhaps ? Rubens Kuhl: Non-mutually exclusive comes to mind in such definitions. Phil Buckingham: so the questions asked on application are by each TLDs "attributes " ? kavouss arasteh: The use of or reference to category seems fundamental jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): some "categories" may indeed add up: a string could be a generic term, that describes a highly regulated industry and be presented as a community string... Rubens Kuhl: A TLD can be governmental, geographic and community, like .barcelona. Or non-governmental, geographic and community like .osaka, or governmental and geographic but not community like .rio. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Like the "tags" idea. Makes the new gTLD searchable jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): right - there may be multiple combinations... Carlos Raul Gutierrez: multiple tags jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): yes vanda: yes clear kavouss arasteh: Jorge, yes to what ? to multiple tag? kavouss arasteh: yes, tks jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated... vanda: from mround y study from lac region with mostly brands interested in next round i do believe it will be positive a separate Rubens Kuhl: Most strings can have multiple meanings like brand and generic. Apple is both a fruit and a computer company... any limitated application on one type excludes the other types. Martin Sutton: Given the unpredictable length of time before new applications may be opened, it could be an opportunity for ICANN to consider maintaining some momentum by looking at low-risk options, by opening up applications to those with less contention experienced in 2012 round, such as brands. Martin Sutton: It would be important to have a well-defined category. Donna Austin: sorry Avri, we seem to have some time delay Donna Austin: @Martin, brands needs to be defined Rubens Kuhl: To quote an example of the type of gaming that can occur, the dubious trademarks registered for the .eu sunrise is still a good example. Susan Payne: Will the WTs also have sessions? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Staff: Does this morning's announcement about the damaged equipment affect the abilty of folks to participate remotely (not in hubs)? Phil Buckingham: Isnt there a problem with RP ? Fire on ship Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): thank you. Rubens Kuhl: @Kristina: more of a guess, but it looks to affect more the Public Forum type of activity. Mary Wong: From what we hear, it seems tht remote participation via Adobe Connect should not be affected. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks Everyone...bye for now Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Thanks! Christa Taylor: Thank-you! Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Thank you everyone. Susan Payne: bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): talk soon jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): thanks to all and bye! Alexander Schubert: bye Phil Buckingham: Thanks Avri , Jeff

1 0

Apologies,
by Greg Shatan Oct. 3, 2016

Oct. 3, 2016

All, Due to Rosh Hashanah observance, I will not be participating in today's call. Greg Shatan

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 3 October 2016 at 2000 UTC
by Steve Chan Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 3 October 2016 at 2000 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Update from WT Leaders 4. GNSO Council letter - Update on GNSO Council call 5. Continued discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1 6. Work Track Coordination 7. AOB The latest version of the CC1 Review Tool is available on the Wiki here https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw. As .xls - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20To… As PDF - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20To… If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

2 2

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG
by Michelle DeSmyter Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 19 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-19sep16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Px6sAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 19 September 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 19 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Wiki Member page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/Px6sAw Avri Doria:can we get audio support in the AC please. Michelle DeSmyter:try now Avri Doria:thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I was using 'holding our breath" in terms of the "anticipation' Avri, *not* suggesting any sort of delay... Perhaps Aussies use the term differently Rubens Kuhl:No objection. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):all good Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):You csn do ST4 update Rubens Rubens Kuhl:Will do, hope my computer audio is clear enough. Kavouss Arasteh:pLS KINDLY DIAL ME UP Kavouss Arasteh:Avri Kavouss Arasteh:Pls advise to dial me up Rubens Kuhl:I tried to speak but it cleary didn't make it. Kavouss Arasteh:I have asked to be dialed up Rubens Kuhl:Yes, everything covered. Michelle DeSmyter:yes Michelle DeSmyter:operator is dialing now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):GREAT your turn next time then ;-) Kavouss Arasteh:Is it a decision made by someone that I should be excluded from the meeting Kavouss Arasteh:Who dared to make such a decison Phil Buckingham:Avri - you are very very quiet Kavouss Arasteh:Vri Phil Buckingham:thanks Avri - much better Kavouss Arasteh:pls kindly advise to dial me up Avri Doria:we have advised and the attempt is being made. Kavouss Arasteh:Avri pèlease register my strong complaint and serious objection that I am excluded to participater at this meeting Avri Doria:I will register it, but I also note that staff is trying to connect you to the meeting Alexander Schubert:But you are online, right? Just plug in a headset and you re fine! Avri Doria:and i reiterate what Jeff said, no one is trying to exclude you. Alexander Schubert:Use a mobiole phone for example! Alexander Schubert:If you have a good enough Internet connction, of course .... jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Just to recall GAC input on related questions: "The starting point for development of policy on further releases of new gTLDs should first take into consideration the results of all relevant reviews of the new gTLD round and determine which aspects and elements need adjustment." Avri Doria:Staff, please add a note to minutes both of Kavouss Arasteh issue and on the repsonse made by Jeff and me; Rubens Kuhl:Kavouss, in my non-US experience one of the easier ways to join ICANN meetings audio is to dial the US toll-free number from Google Voice or Skype. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):And (also from our Helsinki decisions): "All measures available to the Board should be used to ensure that a comprehensive and measured approach to further releases of new gTLDs is taken in a logical, sequential and coordinated way rather than through parallel and overlapping efforts and/or timeframes that may not be agreed by all relevant interests." Kavouss Arasteh 2:Dear All Kavouss Arasteh 2:Pls kindly dial me up Alexander Schubert:Rubens: If the INternet connection is good enough for Skype - then why not simply using the Adobe audio? Steve Chan:@Avri, we'll get the note in - we can't type at the same time Rubens Kuhl:Alexander, Adobe audio just failed for me, so I'm not the one who will be advocating for that... ;-) Alexander Schubert:Hmmmm. Maybe wrong Audio Settings? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):did you want a dial out Rubens? Rubens Kuhl:CLO: I should have wanted it before. Now it's too late. ;-) Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: Your objection has been included at the top of the notes. Kavouss Arasteh 2:THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I AM SURPRISED HOW THIS HAS HAPPENED Rubens Kuhl:Kavouss, if you are not hearing, you will notice in the recordings that your issue was not ignored. Rubens Kuhl:I think Jorge is causing the echo... jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):sorry if I did Julie Hedlund:@Avri andJeff: The operator has successfully reached Kavouss. Rubens Kuhl:Avri and Alan: would NCSG and ALAC be amenable to completing policy but having the implementation done in parallel ? Robin Gross:The politices are too much intertwined and interdependent to be dividing the issues into now and later baskets. Alan Greenberg:I cannot speak to an ALAC position on this without consulting. However how could one do the Alan Greenberg:implementation Alan Greenberg:Sorry. willl repeat Alan Greenberg:I cannot speak to the ALAC position on this without consulting but I would need to understand how the "implementation" which last time meant writing the AG, could be done in parallel with the opening of a round (which presumes the AG is complete. Alan Greenberg:@Robin, I was not proposing splitting, just saying that it was the only way I could parse the letter. Robin Gross:Alan, I didn't think you were proposing it, but it does seem to be something we are discussing. Alan Greenberg:agreed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):not in favour of 'splitting' Rubens Kuhl:Jeff spoke 'round'. Many times. Many dollars for charity. Phil Buckingham:Rubens, I agree. Ideally we need to do policy issues and implementation issues in parallel, but unfrtunately there are too many overlapping issues Avri Doria:As I see that Kavouss is now the particpant of record, is it possible to lower the original Kavouss hand from the queue? Paul McGrady:@Jeff, isn't that a better question for the RPM WG? Avri Doria:Kavouss 2 will be the next speakr. Can other who have spoken lower their hands? Paul McGrady:@Jeff, is next Round expectancy in the 2007 principals or just in the Applicant Guidebook (which is a very robust implementation document)? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):tend to agree Paul Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):re RPM Alexander Schubert:All are completed - just 19 strings in the air. Alexander Schubert:The 2020 round was announced for 2013/2014. So b 2020 is is alrady 6 to 7 years delayed. Kavouss Arasteh 2:Alan+1 Kavouss Arasteh 2:We can not have paralel process Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Alan re UDRP Tom Dale:Some of the current review activity is not solely within the GNSO community, for example the CCT review, ongoing ICANN work on metrics etc. Jeff Neuman:Jorge - Is that a new hand? I assumed it was not, but if it is, let me know jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):sorry... :S Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we qre being asked to repond to GNSO not the Board though Kavous Kavouss Arasteh 2:I am sorry, I meant Council NOT Board Paul McGrady:@Jeff@Avri, I can make that request on th Council list as Liaison to this group if more time is needed. Kavouss Arasteh 2:Yes I am sorry, Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: I have corrected that in the notes. Kavouss Arasteh 2:I meant COUNCIL and NOT Board jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):As to the response to the Council: perhaps a factual summary on where we are as a group could help them in ascertaining the "ripeness" of fast-tracking or not certain issues for the present time Phil Buckingham:Agree Paul .Should we take the FInal AGB Jan 2012 add in changes since , so we have a revised AGB as of now . Those changes need to classified into policy or implementation ?? Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: The notes state "Council" now. Thank you. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):instead of asking and taking the floor, could you take up this suggestion in the notes?: "jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): As to the response to the Council: perhaps a factual summary on where we are as a group could help them in ascertaining the "ripeness" of fast-tracking or not certain issues for the present time" Paul McGrady:@Phil, perhaps or perhaps some of the changes which depart from the Paris Policy Principles should be affirmatively rejected by the community, rather than legitimized by baking them into the next revised AGB. Julie Hedlund:@Jorge: I will include your text in the notes. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Julie: thanks! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):well said Greg Rubens Kuhl:I think split defines it well... Paul McGrady:@Avri said what I was going to say on process of reporting back to Council. I'm happy to pass along the non-consensus on splitting or just providing commentary on a note that the Co-chair send. Steve Chan:On process, if it was determined that the WG wants to split it's work, that would require a modification of the charter via the GNSO Council. Steve Chan:Otherwise, the WG is expected to consider all elements in the charter. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):sounds right to me Paul Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):fine Jeff Paul McGrady:1. No consensus on splitting work; 2. Committed to our workplan; and 3. Prepared to further discuss this in Hyderabad. Jeff Neuman:@Paul - yes, I think that is the crux of it Rubens Kuhl:"Splitted on splitting" Paul McGrady:Thanks Avri. I'll look for the note from the 2 of you. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):In Hyderabad we should take care to involve all the community in the discussion... this looks very much like a high interest topic, right? Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:wE HEAR YOU jEFF Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I guess so Jorge Emily Barabas:Subject 2 begins on page 4. Everyone should have scroll control. Emily Barabas:Click the "+" sign to zoom in Emily Barabas:(at the bottom of the screen) Steve Chan:In the Agenda pod, you can find links to the documents to view on your own computer. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Kavouss: the GAC included this GAC 2010 text in its reply to the "overarching questions" - and stated that these issues remain relevant to future new gTLD processes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I guess Alan we should note ere that also comming out of discussions in 2010 with GAC ALAC also tended (If memory serves) to support Catagories and efficient / effective use therof jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):A new ALAC inout would certainly be helpful :-) jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):input Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Understood Jorge and of course it is 6 years ago and substantially a new ALAC now Alan Greenberg:We STRONGLY supported categories. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):hence, the use of such new input - that's also why we discussed and agreed in the GAC that we should recall the 2010 advice as we still considered it useful Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yup Avri Doria:the process in the last round cae too late and still cost applicants a bunch. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):agree that we still have work to be done for fostering the regional/geographic diversity of registries Vaibhav Aggarwal:I agree Paul McGrady:+1 Greg. IPC wasn't trying to say that auction proceeds are the proper subject of this team, nor was IPC trying to say that it thinks auctions, necessarily, have to be a feature of Round 2. We were just trying to be inclusive and thorough in our response. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Sure did Avri very dissapointing indeed Phil Buckingham:Do nt we should any auction proceeds or process in Round 2 . @ Greg , I agreed with this approach . Rubens Kuhl:Had to drop now. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Just got disconnected Rubens Kuhl:Will catch up with recording... bye all. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye Rubens Phil Buckingham:sorry - dont think we should have any auction proceeds or process in a Round 2 . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Back in Audio thanks Phil Buckingham:Thanks Alan for update Kavouss Arasteh 2:Request to secretariat, Paul McGrady:@Alan, will that Charter go to GNSO Council next or is this Board driven? Kavouss Arasteh 2:Pls remove my statement referring that I might have been excluded intentionally. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):mute please. Kavouss Arasteh 2:I wish that statement de deleted from the note Greg Shatan:Perhaps we should replace auctions with pistols at 20 paces. Very "Hamilton." Vaibhav Aggarwal::-) Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: Could you clarify what you would like deleted? Staff will be happy to do so. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Avri Headphines delliver the noise *very effectivly*! Alan Greenberg:@Paul, like with other CCWGs, it will go to the AC/SOs for first comments and then after any needed changes for ratification. Once ratified the CCWG will be formed. There has been extensive Board involement in the charter creation process and we wil have confirmation that they agree to the terms of the charter and the following CCWG, but they do not have formal Board approval rights. Kavouss Arasteh 2:tHE PART THAT i SAID,2 i MIGHT HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY OR WILLINGLY EXCLUDED TO ATTEND " Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: Many thanks for the clarification. Staff will delete it forthwith. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):I would like to add that according to the GAC 2010 advice reiterated now, categories are seen as a means to simplify the application process. Hence please consider redrafting the conclusion refered to the GAC as follows: "No consensus on additional categories, but GAC in favor AS IT CONSIDERS IT helps TO simplIFy. Registries are split..." Julie Hedlund:@Jorge: Staff will make that change. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):WT4 has that outreac to ACSO's etc., as part of its work plan Yes Avri Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Julie:Can you please help me understand staff's position on deleting from the record statements that were made during the meeting? It's my understand that the record of a meeting is to be accurate and complete, which means that it should include all statements made. (My question is general and for my understanding.) jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks Julie for taking up my comment Alan Greenberg:Not Monday... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):And f curse te MP3/recording and any transcripts are "as writ" Julie Hedlund:@Kristina: Staff was responding to the request, but has no formal position and in fact these are just informal notes. The transcript and recording are not altered. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Julie: OK, thanks. Julie Hedlund:Staff would seek guidance from Avri and Jeff whether staff should strike the objection from the informal notes. Alan Greenberg:Nov 3.- Thurs. Paul McGrady:@Staff, it would be super-helpful to have calendar invites for the in-person in Hyderabad, just so that we don't mess up the complex timezones jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):+1 Paul Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):+1 to Paul's request, please. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Paul Kavouss Arasteh 2:tKS aVRI Greg Shatan:Monday falls on Thursday this time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):doubt many of us have Avri Vaibhav Aggarwal:yes that's a good idea Steve Chan:@Paul, others, I think I've asked about this before and was told that that staff does not do this, but I will doublecheck Paul McGrady:Thanks Steve. It would be very helpful if you could. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):All Good Thx Bye for now Alexander Schubert:tnx Robin Gross:Thanks, bye. jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks, bye

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 19 September 2016
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 19 September. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 19 September 2016 1. Review Agenda Action Item: Change the order of the items in the agenda to move #5 to #3. 2. Work Track Sub Team Status Updates: · Sub Team 1 -- Sara Bockey: Meeting 20 Sept at 2000 UTC. No new updates from last meeting. · Sub Team 2 -- Michael Flemming: Discussed the schedule at the last meeting. Michael and Phil will work on the schedule and provide an update to the Sub Team. Third meeting on 22 September. · Sub Team 3 -- Karen Day: Met twice and co-chairs are in place. Last call discussed the priorities and which items to tackle first. Needed more information to map GNSO recommendations and guidelines to the AGB. Will pick up on third meeting on 27 September. · Sub Team 4 -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Had a second call. Looking at materials and specific work. Determined some plans of actions, such as reaching out to other parties in ICANN concerning specifics on clarifying questions on IDNs. Also reach out to Universal Acceptance Study Group. 3. Discussion – Letter from the GNSO Council re: the ICANN Board letter Jeff Neuman: Seeking a response by 25 September. On the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September. Questions: 1. Do we respond? 2. If we do respond do we have thoughts on this issue, i.e., bifurcating the work of the group analogous to the Work Stream process (WS 1 and 2) Action Item: Jeff and Avri will give Paul a note and Paul can explain it further to the GNSO Council. Discussion Notes: · Alan: Need to understand what they are asking before we can respond. I cannot speak to the ALAC position on this without consulting but I would need to understand how the "implementation" which last time meant writing the AG, could be done in parallel with the opening of a round (which presumes the AG is complete. · Jorge Cancio (GAC): Idea that the letter is a bit unclear. Need to have some further clarification on the intent and purpose of the letter. Already very complex. Not sure helpful to add complexity. · Jeff Neuman: The AGB said that there would be subsequent rounds after the 2012 application window closed. In theory around April/May 2013. In Helsinki the Board said that they would like to get started on the next round per the AGB. So, the Board is asking if anything needs to be solved before the next application window and are there anything that can wait. Example: PDP on RPMs. Does the UDRP review need to be done? Could be more appropriate for the RPM PDP WG. · Kavouss Arasteh: Could put a deadline to start a second round. This issue has been discussed many times. GAC has mentioned that until all the difficulties are solved we should not start a second round. Do not rush. · Alan Greenberg: Coment re: doing the implementation in parallel with a new round. The implementation in the last round was writing the AGB. Can't do that in parallel. Need to understand what is in our jurisdiction. Need clarity from the Board exactly what they would envision. · Avri Doria: How to respond to the letter by the 25th. · Kavouss Arasteh: Could decide to write back to the Board saying we need more time because we are in the middle of the discussion of the substance. Discuss in Hyderabad in the SOs and ACs. · Jeff Neuman: It is a Council deadline and we could ask them for more time. Discuss as an agenda item in each Work Track. · Paul McGrady: I could make that request to the Council as the Liaison. · Greg Shatan: What is pertinent is to do the work in front of us for the procedures for the next round. Going down this round to delay all the work, unless we could look at limited alternatives. Many items are intertwined. · Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): As to the response to the Council: perhaps a factual summary on where we are as a group could help them in ascertaining the "ripeness" of fast-tracking or not certain issues for the present time. · Avri Doria: We have two ways of responding and include the fact that there is no consensus for one way or another: 1) through the Liaison; 2) or Jeff and Avri could write a note to Council that there is no consensus and we can continue to work on this. Splitting it now makes everything take longer. Work Track Sub Teams are already looking at ordering. Premature for them to take this up now. · Steve Chan: If the WG decides to split then the Charter needs to be amended. · Paul McGrady: Can deliver the message -- in the timeframe provided we are not able to reach a consensus on whether the work should be split up and we are committed to our work plan. Paul McGrady: Can deliver the message -- in the timeframe provided we are not able to reach a consensus on whether the work should be split up and we are committed to our work plan. 1. No consensus on splitting work; 2. Committed to our workplan; and 3. Prepared to further discuss this in Hyderabad. · Kavouss Arasteh: Agree with sending a note that there is no consensus at this time. Discuss in Hyderabad. 4. CC1 Discussion: Subject 2: Categorization or differentiation of gTLDs (for example brand, geographical, or supported/community) in ongoing new gTLD mechanisms. See the CC1 Review Tool on the wiki at: - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20To…) Discussion Notes: Jeff Neuman: Already some recognition of categories in gTLDs. 2a.R1: GAC response. Kavouss Arasteh: Categorization may be helpful provided it provide simplification, not difficulty. 2a.R2: Registries response and 2a.R3: IPC comments: · Jeff Neuman: Auction funds not in the purview of this PDP WG. · Greg Shatan: This speaks for itself. Goes to the point of looking at different approaches for different types of applications -- not strong support for a Brands only round (or objection to it). · Kavouss Arasteh: Don't understand "underserved jurisdiction". Don't agree with IPC on extending the auction. · Greg Shatan: We are not suggesting any extention of the auction concept, but that the proceeds could be used to subsidize applications from underserved jurisdictions, those parts of the world that are "under-represented". · Alan Greenberg: The subsidy process last round maybe didn't work. Could be an intersection with the CCWG on Auction Proceeds. On Registries comments, interesting to hear how we could do that. · Jeff Neuman: There was a split in the Registries on categories. No consensus. · Kavouss Arasteh: On the auctions the issue was raised how the money would be spent. · Jeff Neuman: CCWG Charter Drafting Team is working on a charter for a CCWG to address the auction funds. · Alan Greenberg: Sent to the ACs/SOs a draft charter for comment. Hope to ratify by or at Hyderabad. Then a CCWG will be charged with coming up with a process. · Jeff Neuman: Summary -- Agreement that the categories in the AGB should go forward. No consensus on additional categories, but GAC in favor as it considers it helps to simply. Registries are split. IPC weighs in on Brands category. No consensus on additional categories, but GAC in favor if helps simply. Registries are split. IPC weighs in on Brands category. 5. Hyderabad Planning Discussion Notes: · Steve Chan: 4-hour working session on the first day, 03 November. Consider how to allocate that time. Could be 1 hour to each work track. · Avri Doria: How we respond to each CC1 comment. Have a draft to discuss. Consider the possibility getting out CC2 questions out before or just after.

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 19 September 2016 at 1500 UTC
by Steve Chan Sept. 16, 2016

Sept. 16, 2016

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 19 September 2016 at 1500 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Discussion – Letter from the GNSO Council re: the ICANN Board letter (Both the letter from the ICANN Board and from the GNSO Council are attached) 4. Continued discussion: CC1 Review Tool (PDF Attached and available via the links below) 5. Work Track Status Updates 6. AOB a. Planning for ICANN57 The latest version of the CC1 Review Tool will be made available on the Wiki here https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw. As .xls - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20To… As PDF - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20To…) If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

FW: Request for input from the GNSO Council regarding the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
by Jeff Neuman Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

All, Please find enclosed a letter we received today from the GNSO Council Chair. I have reproduced the text below for those not wanting to open the PDF doc. The letter asks for our input by September 25th so that the Council can discuss on its September 29th call. This is obviously not much time, so discussion is encouraged on the list. I am also going to ask that each of the Sub-team chairs cover this letter on their next calls and we will also discuss this on our next full group call on Monday the 19th. Please let us know if you have any questions. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12 September 2016 GNSO COUNCIL REQUEST FOR INPUT REGARDING NEW GTLD SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURES Dear Stakeholder Group, Constituency and new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Chairs, On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from the ICANN Board requesting feedback on the timing of subsequent procedures for new gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now seeking input from Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies and the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to help inform the Council’s response to the Board. The Council anticipates an initial review of this input during its meeting on 29 September in view of finalizing its response during the 13 October meeting, so the earlier your input is received, the better but it should be received no later than 25 September. In its letter, the Board asked the GNSO Council to provide its perspectives on the work plan of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP and the timing of a new application process for gTLDs: The Board is interested in the GNSO’s view of its current work in light of the existing policy recommendations and related review activities…For example, assuming all other review activities are completed, it would be helpful to understand whether the GNSO believes that the entirety of the current Subsequent Procedures PDP must be completed prior to advancing a new application process under the current policy recommendations. The Board is cognizant that it may be difficult to provide a firm answer at this stage of the process as the reviews are still underway and the PDP is in its initial stages of work, but if any consideration has been given in relation to whether a future application process could proceed while policy work continues and be iteratively applied to the process for allocating new gTLDs, or that a set of critical issues could be identified to be addressed prior to a new application process, the Board would welcome that input. The Board would also welcome any elaboration on the expected time frame outlined in the PDP Work Plan, as well as any additional points the GNSO might wish to clarify for the Board in its efforts to support the various areas of work underway in the multistakeholder community. The Business Constituency has already held discussions about the Board’s question and shared its views with the Council. In addition, the ALAC liaison to the GNSO Council gave ALAC input during the Council’s last meeting. Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies and the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are encouraged to review this input in formulating responses within their own groups. The GNSO Council anticipates that this issue will be a topic of community discussion at ICANN57 in November and therefore seeks to provide a response to the Board prior to ICANN57. We look forward to receiving your input. With best regards, Donna Austin, GNSO Vice Chair James Bladel, GNSO Chair Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice Chair Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Emily Barabas [mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:27 PM Subject: Request for input from the GNSO Council regarding the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Dear Jeff and Avri, As you know, the GNSO Council received a letter from the ICANN Board on 5 August requesting feedback on the timing of subsequent procedures for new gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now seeking input from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, Stakeholder Groups, and Constituencies to help inform the Council’s response. Please see the attached letter from the GNSO Council with additional information regarding its request. Note that the deadline for feedback is 25 September. Steve, Julie, and I look forward discussing how we can support the Working Group in preparing a response. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

3 2