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

Working Group Newsletter - February 2018
by Emily Barabas Feb. 9, 2018

Feb. 9, 2018

Dear Working Group members, The February edition of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group newsletter is now available: https://go.icann.org/2nOLePk. 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

Register Now: Pre-ICANN61 Policy Open House – 1 March 2018 - ICANN
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 8, 2018

Feb. 8, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-02-08-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Register Now: Pre-ICANN61 Policy Open House – 1 March 2018 The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two sessions for an upcoming webinar: Pre-ICANN61 Policy Open House Thursday, 1 March 2018 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) The webinar will run in English and will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Recordings of the sessions will be made available here[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. Please register via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_vZw8kM&d=DwMGaQ…> by 26 February 2018! In this interactive 60-minute open house, the focus will be an active question and answer session with the Policy Development Support Team. To ensure that your questions about policy activities are addressed during the session, the Policy Team invites you to submit your questions through the registration form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_dVbmhQOT8…> or email them to policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. To assist with your preparation for this webinar and for ICANN61, the "Pre-ICANN61 Policy Report" and "Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Briefing: ICANN61 Edition" will be published by Monday, 26 February 2018. Please be sure to download and review these materials beforehand for helpful background on policy activities and topics that the Policy Development Support Team will discuss during the open house, such as: * An overview of the cross-community discussions that will take place at ICANN61: * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): WHOIS Compliance Models * A Walk in the Shoes of a New Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Registry Operator * Name Collisions * Open Data at ICANN * Policy development processes underway in the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Address Supporting Organization (ASO): * Retirement of Country Code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) * Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs * Next-Generation Registration Directory Service to Replace WHOIS * International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations Access to Curative Rights Dispute Resolution Mechanisms * Protections for Red Cross National Society Names in the Domain Name System * New gTLD Subsequent Procedures * Regional Internet Registry policy development activities * Advisory Committee activities within the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) and Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC): * Organizational Review of the At-Large community * At-Large Summit (ATLAS) III * GAC discussion on the .amazon Independent Review Process * GAC discussion on evolving relationships with ICANN Board and ICANN Org * RSSAC statement on entries in DNS Root Sources * RSSAC & SSAC Response to the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Root Scaling * SSAC Response to the ICANN Internationalized Domain Name Guidelines Working Group * SSAC work concerning the use of emoji in domain names * Other topics of note: * Organizational Review of the ASO * ccNSO Rejection Action Procedure as a Decisional Participant in the ICANN Empowered Community * Impact of ICANN's Implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on ccTLDs The Policy Development Support Team looks forward to helping the ICANN community prepare for ICANN61! Please register via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_vZw8kM&d=DwMGaQ…> by 26 February 2018! About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 06 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 6, 2018

Feb. 6, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 February 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 the following link to the Predictability Framework document and excerpts from the chat below: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BN5aJEJ-j57k0zcw0z2b4Smqaf6rRt6ahci…. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. SOI Updates: No updates. 2. Work Track Updates: Work Track 4: -- Discussing Financial Evaluations -- will continue on the next call. -- Today did Technical Evaluation and Operational Evaluation. -- Responses back from RSSAC, SSAC, and ICANN Org -- be more concerned with the rate of change; RSSAC no more than 5% per month growth. -- Asking for a clarfication from the RSSAC. -- Additional questions about new TLDs from cognificant science and library science. Work Track 3: -- 30 January meeting: limited public interest objection and community objection. -- Independent objector. -- Next meeting applicant freedom of expression, etc. Work Track 1: 16 January last meeting; next call 06 February -- Applicant Support. Work Track 2: -- Next WT2 call is February 8 at 21:00 UTC -- Topic scheduled: Vertical Integration. Work Track 5: -- 07 February at 14:00 UTC. -- 8 February 2018 - 19:00 UTC New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team –Work Track 5 – Webinar on the History of Geographic Names at the Top Level at ICANN 3. Overarching Issue: Predictability Framework (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8…) ICANN Org changing form custom application interface to Salesforce.com -- I depends on the scope and magnitude of the change. -- Need stability. Need to analyze the scope of change and solution. Depends on the type of change. -- Determine if an issue arises what is the process to resolve that issue. -- If it merely involves an organizational change to ICANN and had no impact on operational parties -- any issues? What do we mean by operational changes? A description of what we mean by operational changes. Change in Delegation Testing -- Change in registry agreement to measure support. -- Some scenarios could give rise to using the procedures (see the chat below). Change from Digital Archery to Priority Draw: -- Who are the impacted parties? Those that actually applied to the string -- when ICANN switched from digital archery to a priority draw, there was no change in processing in the real world. -- Changes to ICANN organizational internal operations. Standing IRT: Support for the motion: Discussion: --- Perception of a conflict; Issue of what constitutes a conflict is different. -- Difficult to say which contracted parties don't have a conflict. -- Conflict is something more than a stakeholder. Could have a Statement of Interest, but not a conflict of interest. Make interest more transparent. -- Look for the conflicts we want to avoid with this panel of IRT. -- A model that has been used is to establish a standing committee. There is one on the budget process in the GNSO Council, but supplemented by people with subject matter expertise. A model that could be used. Doesn't require another structure. -- Disagreement on this model. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Okay Jeff - so we are saying one through 3 do not fit there? Rubens Kuhl: The change from digital archery to priority draw changed the balance among ICANN regions, so it's something that definitely should have gone to a community consultation. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): To say more - offshore applicants were added to EU region Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): even islands from ocean, which was far from Europe , and it changed balance for EU applicants Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT - which of your "use cases" already fall within the description of issues in relation to "GNSO Guidance", "GNSO Input", Expedited PDP, or PDP. The question that has to be asked is which of your use cases ALREADY fit within that Policy and Implementation framework already established. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): I have an example Rubens Kuhl: In this use case, provided the Terms and Conditions are kept the same as before Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: I am going to have to express reservations on this Predictiability Framework since this entire question and various use cases were addressed by the Policy and Implementation Working Group. I know that Jeff feels there are changes that can be made by staff that are not covered by the work product of the Policy & Implementation Working Group. Since the recommendations of that group were adopted by the GNSO and then also by the Board, I think that we should only be focusing on "internal operations change" that does not (theoretically) fall within any of the cases specified by the GNSO and the ICANN Board to come under "GNSO INput" or "Expedited PDP" or "PDP" In other words, those procedures already apply and we are duplicating. COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): @Jeff: please add this use case: Need to transfer contacts from Applicant to Registry in ICANN systems (or replacement with the Registry contacts) when RA executed (or right before the moment).in our case The RA was executed and ICANN was still trying to obtain approvals (such as passwords change, in situation where ICANN staff changed it "for our security") from the Applicant contact (consultant company) after RA execution.This created a deadlock (Applicant contact has no formal contract with the new Registry, and ICANN staff explicitly requests approvals from them, and not from RA , whith whom ICANN has an agreement.Given that the passwords were changed without confirmation from Applicant or Registry )which we had to resolve by mentioning that ICANN effectively sabotages execution of our RA.it looks to be Revised Pocess Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Would the proposed revised NSP ToU fall in this category? Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): @Michelle , please read my example, it is too early here an I can not us mic Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): *use Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): with correction "and not from RO" Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Maxim's comment/question should take priority over mine (as far as I'm concerned). Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @JEFF - The Policy and Implementation Working Group determined after a lot of work that there is no way to define what is policy and what is implementation. We should not be duplicating that work and there is not nearly enough cross-reference going on in this discussion with the work already done and adopted by the GNSO and subsequently by the ICANN Board. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): OK, thanks. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Maxim's comment/question should take priority over mine (as far as I'm concerned). Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @JEFF - The Policy and Implementation Working Group determined after a lot of work that there is no way to define what is policy and what is implementation. We should not be duplicating that work and there is not nearly enough cross-reference going on in this discussion with the work already done and adopted by the GNSO and subsequently by the ICANN Board. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): OK, thanks. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Jeff - the whole purpose of the WG was to address issues that arise AFTER go live. We examined use cases just like these and that is why that framework developed. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - Please just ask Chuck Gomes Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): as I understand, we discuss processes between going live and execution of RA with the new Registries Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Also ask Marika - she was the ICANN policy person and Chuck Gomes led the WG Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): and processes specific to the next new gtld round, and not to other policies Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: No one is looking at how the framework already adopted by the Board in relation to issues arising after the applications are accepted interacts with this so-called Predictability Framework. Rubens Kuhl: On measuring position of impacted parties, the registry agreement amendment process has some useful precedents. Rubens Kuhl: Defining where a change is supported or not by impacted parties. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): few year of approval/negotiations for annual process of RA amendment Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT - which of your "use cases" already fall within the description of issues in relation to "GNSO Guidance", "GNSO Input", Expedited PDP, or PDP. The question that has to be asked is which of your use cases ALREADY fit within that Policy and Implementation framework already established. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Okay Jeff - so we are saying one through 3 do not fit there? Rubens Kuhl: The change from digital archery to priority draw changed the balance among ICANN regions, so it's something that definitely should have gone to a community consultation. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): To say more - offshore applicants were added to EU region Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): even islands from ocean, which was far from Europe , and it changed balance for EU applicants Rubens Kuhl: entire community in that case Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): +1 Trang Nguyen: How does the role of the ICANN CEO as the top executive with operational oversight and the role of the ICANN Board as an escalation path for ICANN org fit into this framework? Kavouss Arasteh 3: Jeff, we need to examine and decide on the scope ,magnitude of change, the entity or entities requesting and submitting the chane, the threshold for accepting changes, the manner and means to examine those changes , justification for changes, implementation of changes and more importantly the impact of change i.e. retroactivity or otherwise of changes if and when implemented Rubens Kuhl: Because it was not just the randomization, there was also a regional balance. Rubens Kuhl: DA had a per region system. Rubens Kuhl: Not able to speak anymore, late here. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION: How do you determine which party is affected and how big the effect is? Who makes that determination? Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): also regional balance was shifted due to addition of applicants from some offshore jurisdictions to EU Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): without geo reasons (tiny islands in ocean are not in EU region) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): name collision definitely comes under the Policy & Implementation Working Group framework - at the very least GNSO Guidance. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: Standing IRT is a GREAT idea! Rubens Kuhl: Specifically on topics of security and stability, RSTEP could also be invoked. Greg Shatan: Also support the Standing IRT. Mike Rodenbaugh: I don't think a standing IRT sounds very realistic, since any of a myriad of issues could arise, so the team to evaluate them might need different skillsets. Rubens Kuhl: The panel. The process would require some tweaks. Trang Nguyen: Currently, org goes to the GNSO when we have policy questions. It seems if the recommendation is for org to go to an IRT instead, that the GNSO should weigh in on that recommendation. Justine Chew: @Mike: composition of IRT can address that Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Trang - the way the IRT works, it brings issues to the attention of GNSO if needed. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): My concern is that the potential IRT panel members with the relevant skills are also most likely to be the folks who have an interest (financial, conflict of, etc.) in the panel's determination. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): @Kristina, most probably Mike Rodenbaugh: +1 Kristina. Maybe a standing IRT composed of subset of the GNSO Council might make most sense. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Mike - like that idea. Justine Chew: and TOR for IRT should be specific Rubens Kuhl: They being here. ;-) Steve Chan: There could be a model were the GNSO Council members make decisions, but be supplemented with subject matter expertise as necessary? Rubens Kuhl: IRT, not IRP Greg Shatan: IRT = "Implementation Review Team" Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Thinking back to those Council as PDP days gives me a headache. Raises the issue, though, that having the IRT be subset of Council could overload a group of folks with extreme bandwidth issues to start with. Mike Rodenbaugh: for sure Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Disagree with Kavouss - this is exactly the best and highest use of the IRT Mike Rodenbaugh: but I can't see a realistic vetting and selection process for such an IRT, outside of existing Council members, especially without knowing the specific issue(s) it might address Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: ICANN should have a procedure for participants to identify when they should recuse themselves. Greg Shatan: Acronym Collision Greg Shatan: The IRT is typically a subset of the WG. Often those hardy enough to remain engaged.... Justine Chew 2: Every group should be subject to Conflict of Interest policy, if not already Rubens Kuhl: In case of consensus-based groups like WGs, having published SOIs is considered enough. Rubens Kuhl: But that assumes that less than the majority of members are non-conflicted. Mike Rodenbaugh: remember that nearly half the Board recused itself from the NGPC Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): is request to extend history of text windows in Adobe Connect fall into minor changes (this tool might be used in the next round :) Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): *does Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Do not support "perception or appearance of a conflict"" It disqualifies too Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Disqualiffies too many people Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): and registrars too Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): the issue is - industry is not large, and excluding all experts with "perception of appearance of a conflict" will make it full of totally non-relevant persons into the team ... I doubt that outcome will be great Mike Rodenbaugh: agreed, Maxim -- that is EXCTLY what happened with NGPC and it was a disaster, imho Justine Chew 2: Where a member of group gets into a position of where a conflct of interest is reasonably likely to arise should recuse herself, and only in respect of a decision that can greatly influence the outcome? Just thinking out loud. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): and diversity requirement might help in finding balance (so , for example registries are outweighted by registrants e.t.c.) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think a direct conflict could merit recusal. For example, there could be specific strings implicated in a particular issue . Direct Greg Shatan: Steve, that group is intended for "Council-level" review and comment on the Budget. Each of the SGs and Cs also comment individually on the Budget. So I don't think it is usable here. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Jeff here Steve Chan: Actually, one comment I forgot to raise is that the Council is ultimately responsible for initiating the GNSO Expedited PDP and Guidance Process Trang Nguyen: Also, as the issues are wide ranging, it would be important to ensure that the process allows for relevant expertise to be consulted (i.e., SSAC/RSSAC/other technical communities on technical issues). Greg Shatan: @Steve, true, that is consistent with their policy management role. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): There was GAC advice that would have stopped certain applications from moving forward. The PIC process was developed to address that but GNSO definitely should have been consulted. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): and registrars, eventually. Steve Chan: Sure Jeff, I'll grab your suggestion from the transcript. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Yes Jeff _ i think that is right Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): as I understand the current GDD Portal is intended to be used later by applicants (now used by Registries, and will be used by Greg Shatan: Now the call is interrupted.... Justine Chew 2: Steve Chan is speaking Steve Chan: Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): @Jeff: please add this use case: Need to transfer contacts from Applicant to Registry in ICANN systems (or replacement with the Registry contacts) when RA executed (or right before the moment).in our case The RA was executed and ICANN was still trying to obtain approvals (such as passwords change, in situation where ICANN staff changed it "for our security") from the Applicant contact (consultant company) after RA execution.This created a deadlock (Applicant contact has no formal contract with the new Registry, and ICANN staff explicitly requests approvals from them, and not from RA , whith whom ICANN has an agreement.Given that the passwords were changed without confirmation from Applicant or Registry )which we had to resolve by mentioning that ICANN effectively sabotages execution of our RA.it looks to be Revised Process Steve Chan: That's easier than reading into the record!

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 06 February 2018 03:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 6, 2018

Feb. 6, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the AC Recording, MP3 recording, and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 06 February 2018 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Jgu8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-06feb18-en.mp3[mailer… AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4esx4ekprb/ 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/ Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle -------------------------------

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 6 February 2018
by Steve Chan Feb. 5, 2018

Feb. 5, 2018

Dear Working Group Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group meeting scheduled for Tuesday 6 February 2018 at 03:00 UTC (this may be Monday for some participants). Please note, this call is scheduled for 90 minutes. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Work Track Updates Overarching Issue: Predictability Framework (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8…) Next Steps and Timeline to Initial Report AOB Note that in relation to agenda item 3, the co-chairs are preparing an additional item for WG consideration that will be distributed prior to the call. The intention is to take the use cases agreed upon during the WG’s previous call and apply the Predictability Framework against them to see how well the framework fares. 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 1

Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input
by Jeff Neuman Feb. 5, 2018

Feb. 5, 2018

Just in from the RSSAC. We will add the questions asked of us to the appropriate Work Tracks. Although some of the, may naturally fit in Work Track 4, others may be overall questions to the Working Group. If you have any thoughts on responses, please do not hesitate to weigh in and we will start keeping track on a Google Doc. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude USA / Valideus USA 1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600 McLean, VA 22102 Jeff.Neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@comlaude.com> +1 (202) 549-5079 Begin forwarded message: From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.sheng@icann.org>> Date: February 2, 2018 at 8:49:36 AM EST To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, avri doria <avri(a)apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "rssac(a)icann.org<mailto:rssac@icann.org>" <rssac(a)icann.org<mailto:rssac@icann.org>> Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Dear Jeff and Avri, Per your request on 14 September 2017, attached please find RSSAC’s response on root scaling. In addition to its formal advice, the RSSAC raises the following questions for the wider community (including GNSO) to consider. These questions go beyond the specifics of operations of DNS, the IANA functions, and the root server system, to broader issues of the costs and benefits of aggressive expansion of the root zone: * Independent of expanding the commercial buoyancy of the DNS industry, how does the addition of many thousands of new gTLDs to the root zone make the Internet better for the people who use it, aside from the addition of IDNs for language and culture? * Using concepts from the disciplines of library and cognitive science, what number of TLDs results in their loss of memorability and significance? * Is adding a significantly large number of TLDs (e.g., more than 100,000) to the root zone, and presumably augmenting the business interests in the addressing system, a sustainable model for the DNS? At what point might this model fail. What next steps for naming system innovation are required, and when? Best Regards Steve Sheng on behalf of Tripti Sinha and Brad Verd Co-Chairs, Root Server System Advisory Committee

8 13

ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs
by Steve Chan Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

Dear WG and WT4 Members, Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad… This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. 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/

8 9

Working Group Newsletter - January 2018
by Emily Barabas Jan. 15, 2018

Jan. 15, 2018

Dear Working Group members, The January edition of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group newsletter is now available: https://gnso.icann.org/en/news/working-group-newsletters/newsletter-new-gtl…. 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
by Emily Barabas Jan. 15, 2018

Jan. 15, 2018

Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…) Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8…) which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following:   * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.o…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

14 16

FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Related to the Maximum Delegation Rate for New gTLDs
by Emily Barabas Jan. 11, 2018

Jan. 11, 2018

Dear Working Group members and Work Track 4 members, Please see the attached response from the SSAC to the Working Group’s request for input on root zone scaling. This document is also posted on the correspondence page of the Working Group wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB . Kind regards, Emily From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 22 December 2017 at 16:46 To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, avri doria <avri(a)apc.org>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Andrew Mcconachie <andrew.mcconachie(a)icann.org>, Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org>, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Related to the Maximum Delegation Rate for New gTLDs Dear Steve, On behalf of Patrik Fältström, SSAC Chair, please see the attached response from the SSAC concerning your request below. We wish you all a wonderful holiday and a very Happy New Year. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support From: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 8:00 PM To: "paf(a)frobbit.se" <paf(a)frobbit.se> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, avri doria <avri(a)apc.org>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input Related to the Maximum Delegation Rate for New gTLDs ** Sent on behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Co-chairs, Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman. The co-leaders of Work Track 4, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Rubens Kuhl, are copied on this message. ** Dear Patrik, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is seeking input from the community in regards to the maximum delegation rate of 1,000 TLDs per year. Please see the attached letter for details. As the letter notes, the WG co-chairs welcome your feedback and are available to answer any questions you may have about this request. 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