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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 7 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan May 8, 2018

May 8, 2018

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 7 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Where are we now with the Initial Report? Review of the Initial Report (continued). Section 1.5: Application Submission (Application Fees; Variable Fees; Application Submission Period; Applicant Support; Terms & Conditions) Section 1.6: Application Processing (Application Queuing) AOB For Item 4, all relevant documents were already shared but are again attached again for your convenience. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org) Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office 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://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

3 2

Recording, attendance & chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 07 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 7, 2018

May 7, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and WebEx chat of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 07 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/VgwFBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-07may18-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 ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 07 May 2018
by Julie Hedlund May 7, 2018

May 7, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 07 May 2018. 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 will be provided separately. For reference see also the attached document. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Preamble/Introduction: WG Co-Chairs will suggest some language to make it clear that a consensus call was not held, and put it out to the list for review examples of how we got to a general type of agreement. General Note from the Co-Chairs to the WG list re: the issue of substantive comment vs report review and clarifications should be circulated in writing. 1.5.1: Add a definition of “speculation” and “warehousing”. Add a question in the Feedback section: “Should additional fees be added for certain aspects of application processing? For example, should additional fees apply when objections are made or when an application proposes new services that require a Registry Service Evaluation Process? Should additional fees apply where more than one application is received for the same string and an auction process becomes necessary?” 1.5.2: Add a question in the Feedback section: “If we established variable fees how can we be sure there is no gaming?” Add a question in the Feedback section: “How do we ensure there is predictability for the application?” 1.5.3: Re: dependencies – Note that whether or not there is only one window is a dependency. Add a question in the Feedback section: “Is 6 months enough time to complete a community application?” Notes: 1. Initial Report Excerpts: -- Sent to the list: 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.12; will send 1.10 soon. 1.5: Application Submission 1.5.1: Application Fees -- ICANN should continue to justify how the $185,000 was determined – couldn’t get an exact breakdown of how the fees were spent. Important that 30 percent of the application fee was for contingencies, which is the excess. Not released until the program is complete. -- $80 million left in the excess application fees, but this WG does not have jurisdiction to make recommendations on what is done with excess fees from the last round. -- The WG should contemplate the methodologies used to determine fees in the future. -- Did the WG discuss the use of these funds for ICANN’s legal defense? WG didn’t have the specific conversation about whether this should not be allowed in future application fees. We couldn’t dig into the methodologies without have the breakdown of the activities that related to the costs. Important that ICANN can have a contingency – shouldn’t have to dig into the reserve fund as a result of a legal challenge arising from the program. -- If there are no limits on the number of applications or no way to feasibly limit, then the WG is seeking feedback on this issue relating to speculation or warehousing. The discussions were relating to the correlation between price and demand of applications. A floor price was assumed to increase the number of applications. Noting the request for a definition of “speculation” and “warehousing”. 1.5.2: Variable Fees -- Did the Work Track consider whether different application fees should be applied to different categories of applications? Shouldn't the WG be asking for public comment on this? Yes, in the Variable Fees section, 1.5.2. -- If we established variable fees how can we be sure there is no gaming? ACTION: Add as a question. -- How do we ensure there is predictability for the application? ACTION: Add as a question. 1.5.3: Application Submission Period -- Time in which the application system is open to accept applications. -- I'm not sure if a period of 1 month between end of communication period and end of application period is sufficient to propose. Even in Europe many applicants made the decision on the last minute. Could be good to respond to the questions in the public comment period. -- Re: dependencies – Whether or not there is only one window. Some chapters of the report assume that there will be a single window. -- Was there a thorough discussion about the nature and logistics of a community application – is 6 months enough time to complete a community application?

1 0

Initial Report Excerpts - Section 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria
by Steve Chan May 4, 2018

May 4, 2018

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the Initial Report excerpt for section 1.7 on the Application Evaluation/Criteria. This section consists of: Reserved Names IGO/INGO Protections Geographic Names (this is only a placeholder/notice that the substantive work is still taking place in Work Track 5) Registrant Protections Closed Generics String Similarity IDNs Security and Stability Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services Name Collisions This section has been added to the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. Note, the WG will NOT be reviewing this section on the upcoming 7 May 2018 call. Best. Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office 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://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Working Group Newsletter - May 2018
by Emily Barabas May 4, 2018

May 4, 2018

Dear Working Group and Work Track 5 members, The May edition of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group newsletter is now available: http://go.icann.org/SubPro. Please feel free to share this newsletter with individuals and groups who may be interested in the Working Group’s activities. An archive of previous editions of the newsletter is available on the WG wiki<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001970> and on the GNSO website<https://gnso.icann.org/en/news/working-group-newsletters>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Recording, attendance & chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter April 30, 2018

April 30, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and WebEx chat of the call attached to this email. The MP3 recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/1y_8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-30apr18-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[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Section 1.5 - Rosette comments
by Rosette, Kristina April 30, 2018

April 30, 2018

Attached contains my comments and tracked suggested changes. K From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 7:58 PM To: 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Attached, please find section 1.5 on Application Submission. Also, as noted, a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:18 PM To: "'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org'" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued) 4. AOB For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Application Processing, which includes one topic. We hope to also distribute the section on Application Submission over the weekend, which consists of five (5) topics. Please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 30 April 2018
by Julie Hedlund April 30, 2018

April 30, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 30 April 2018. 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 will be provided separately. For reference see also the attached document. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Preamble/Introduction: WG Co-Chairs will suggest some language to make it clear that a consensus call was not held, and put it out to the list for review examples of how we got to a general type of agreement. General Note from the Co-Chairs to the WG list re: the issue of substantive comment vs report review and clarifications should be circulated in writing. 1.2.2.2: Note in the deliberations whether there has been discussion here or elsewhere on whether or when a “full refund” might be considered or recommended. Specifically call out evaluation processes in the language so that it is very clear. 1.2.3: Correct typos: "of" not "or a round", "none months" -> "nine months" Add as a dependency limit of 1,000 delegation per year and note the link to Section 1.7.6. Add as a dependency in addition to the CCT-RT Final Report, the SSAC NCAP study may affect this report if the SSAC develops a list of TLDs or a method for testing TLDs that yields the "DO NOT APPLY" category. 1.2.4: Add an additional question: “What would be the benefit of adding a further category/further categories?” 1.2.5: Add to the deliberations section: Reflect the discussion that you could limit that applications by entity, if we could determine if an entity is making multiple applications. Change the pros and cons to a tabular format. Instead of “none” under the feedback section, should ask at least one question: "Do you concur with the assessment made by the WG?". 1.2.6: Accreditation Programs Feedback section, Question 4:” Add text that this is not intended to limit that to only itself providing registry services, an application could also put forward a separate RSP. Section b, last paragraph: New RSPs, etc. They aren’t really new gTLD RSPs. Add a note that the example is from the 2012 round and is not a complete list, or don’t identify by name. Include links to the applicable sections in Work Track 4 that deal with technical evaluations. Include in feedback a question about what minimum timing might be acceptable. On the amount of time on when the pre-approval process should be complete, or when it starts? Add two questions. Notes: 1. Initial Report Excerpts -- General note from the chat: Given the fact that the issue of substantive comment vs report review has interfered with the progress of successive meetings, perhaps the repeated responses and clarifications by Jeff & Cheryl should be circulated in writing. With approximately 50 members joining the calls it does consume a lot of time that could be used more effectively to review the report. 1.2.2.1: Community Engagement: No comments. 1.2.2.2: Clarity of Application Process -- Should be a priority for entities that have not gotten any prior TLDs – dealt with this in Section 1.2.5 on application limits. -- We are trying to see if the initial report reflects the discussions that have occurred so far. If you have comments on substance those should be made in the public forum. -- Question on the section where we talk about providing appropriate refunds when there is a change in the AGB after they applied. Did we discuss what was appropriate? Did we discuss the opportunity for a full refund? Answer: I don’t think we decided whether it is in full or part, so that is why we used the word “appropriate”. We may have had that discussion in another sections, such as name collisions. We will note this and make sure it gets addressed. -- Question: What is considered “multiple” with respect to applications? Also, what do we mean by “community”? Answer: This section only deals with the clarity of the application process. If multiple applications are allowed this section only notes that there should be a mechanism to handle multiple applications. Whether to allow multiple applications would be addressed in the section on Application Limits. From the chat: “Re some of your other questions. Multiple is any number more than 1; Cost is flat fee Per Application; We are not at the Section that discussed "Community" just yet.” -- From the chat: “Question to the WT1 group .. does the reference to "all associated processes" include specific acknowledgement to evaluation processes? For example, community priority evaluation process was not formalized until after applications were submitted.” Answer: “To my understanding yes. The Applicant Guidebook should reflect and include all processes including community priority evaluation.” Response: “Could I request that evaluation processes be specifically called out in this language to that it is very clear.” ACTION: Call out language on evaluation processes. 1.2.3: Applications Assessed in Rounds -- Will change the language to not use terms such as “recommending”. -- Minor edits: "of" not "or a round", "none months" -> "nine months" ACTION: Correct typos. -- Question: Who decides on the final processing of the pros and cons? If we count the number of pros and cons it is not possible to decide based on the number since they might have different weights; Answer: The WG will decide on the final recommendations based on the comments in the public forum. The WG won’t do a quantitative assessment, but weigh each pro and con appropriately. From the chat: it's not about the numbers or weight of pros and cons at this time, it’s to ensure that they are all captured. -- Question: Does the limit of 1,000 delegation per year also impact this? Addressed also in 1.7.6 Security and Stability. ACTION: Add in this section as a dependency. -- COMMENT: In 1.2.3 Dependencies, in addition to the CCT-RT Final Report, the SSAC NCAP study may affect this report if the SSAC develops a list of TLDs or a method for testing TLDs that yields the "DO NOT APPLY" category. ACTION: Add in this section as a dependency. 1.2.4: Different TLD Types -- Question from the chat: What would be the benefit of adding a further category/further categories? ACTION: Add this as an additional question. 1.2.5: Application Submission Limits -- Even if there was no recommendation could we reflect the discussion that you could limit that applications by entity, if we could determine if an entity is making multiple applications? Answer: There were discussions about putting limits, but the WG could not agree on a mechanism to enforce those limits. ACTION: Ensure this is included in the deliberations. -- There should be a principle relating to people who try to warehouse TLDs via multiple applications. -- From the chat: Just a formatting suggestion. Pros and Cons were listed in a table in a previous section, but not this one. I think the tables are better presentationally. ACTION: Put pros and cons in tabular format. -- From the chat: I feel we should include questions for the public comment period. Just stating that there are none does not help to trigger the discussion. At least: "do you concur with the assessment made by the WG?" ACTION: Add as a question in the feedback section. 1.2.6: Accreditation Programs -- Feedback -- Question 4:” If RSPs that go through the Pre-Approval process are required to go through a reassessment process, should RSPs/applicants that do not take part in the Pre-Approval Program also be required to go through the reassessment process?” Do you feel it will lead to inconsistent treatment of RSPs otherwise? Add text that this is not intended to limit that to only itself providing registry services, an application could also put forward a separate RSP. ACTION: Edit text. -- Section b, last paragraph: New RSPs, etc. They aren’t really new gTLD RSPs. Add a note that the example is from the 2012 round and is not a complete list. From the chat: Perhaps best not to identify any entities by name. ACTION: Edit text. -- Include the applicable sections in Work Track 4 that deal with technical evaluations. ACTION: Add a reference. -- Include in feedback a question about what minimum timing might be acceptable. On the amount of time on when the pre-approval process should be complete, or when it starts? ACTION: Maybe ask two questions on this issue. 2. ICANN62 Planning -- Monday: Two sessions on Work Tracks 1-4; cross-community session on Work Track 5. -- Thursday: One session on Work Tracks 1-4, cross-community session on Work Track 5. -- See the draft GNSO schedule at: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/icann62-d…. Note that these are tentative and may change.

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan April 30, 2018

April 30, 2018

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued) AOB For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Application Processing, which includes one topic. We hope to also distribute the section on Application Submission over the weekend, which consists of five (5) topics. Please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org) Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office 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://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan April 28, 2018

April 28, 2018

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find section 1.5 on Application Submission. Also, as noted, a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 at 6:18 PM To: "'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org'" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 30 April 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued) AOB For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Application Processing, which includes one topic. We hope to also distribute the section on Application Submission over the weekend, which consists of five (5) topics. Please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org) Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office 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://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0