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

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 30 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan May 28, 2017

May 28, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 30 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Please note, this call is scheduled for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) Update - Community Comment 2 4) Update and Discussion – GDD response to select questions from GDD Summit 5) Drafting Team Update – Framework for Community Engagement and Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H8…) 6) AOB 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 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 4

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan May 22, 2017

May 22, 2017

Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ…) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-20… 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB 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 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/

29 114

Announcement: Pre-ICANN59 Policy Update Webinar Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew May 22, 2017

May 22, 2017

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-22-en Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will host a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), in preparation for the upcoming ICANN59 Policy Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and to brief the community on the Empowered Community consultation and cross-community sessions taking place in Johannesburg. Briefings on the Empowered Community Consultation and Cross-Community Sessions: * Special session on the Proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendments * Next-Generation Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services (RDS) policy requirements * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) * Geographic names * Operational side of ICANN's Operating Plan and Budget * Who sets ICANN's priorities? Updates on Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and regional Internet registries (RIR) policy development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community * Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs in English for 90 minutes. The webinar will be conducted via 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, participants may submit questions using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en> here. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. Ozan Sahin Community Engagement Support Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6218 Mobile: +90.533.641.0007 Email: ozan.sahin(a)icann.org <mailto:ozan.sahin@icann.org> Skype: ozan.sahin.icann www.icann.org

1 0

Discussion on TLD categories and structure for application procedures
by Emily Barabas May 22, 2017

May 22, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, There has recently been spirited discussion on the mailing list about two topics: whether categories of TLDs should be designated and the process for structuring future application procedures. Staff has attempted to capture key points, questions, and proposals from these discussions in two working documents: - Categories/different TLD types: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJ… - Rounds/other mechanisms: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7… As some may recall, the leadership team has created three Drafting Teams to address these two topics plus one additional topic. This may be a good moment to move the discussion from the main mailing list back into the Drafting Teams: - Categories/Different TLD Types -- Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw | List: gnso-newgtld-types(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-types@icann.org> - Rounds/Other Mechanisms – Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw | List: gnso-newgtld-rounds(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-rounds@icann.org> - Predictability Framework/Community Engagement -- Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/YqLRAw | List: gnso-newgtld-predict(a)icann.org A good first step could be for the Drafting Teams to review and build on the above working documents, leveraging the Drafting Team mailing lists. As a reminder, Drafting Teams are open to all Working Group members and all products of the Drafting Teams will go through the full Working Group. You can sign up for a Drafting Team by adding your name to this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-OoBec_Q6nnBofBvcTnfAotFh7yq07HUM7kxh6…. If you want to participate in a Drafting Team and do not use Google Docs, please email me, Steve, and/or Julie for assistance. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | 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] category discussion was [] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD ...
by avri May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

Hi Alan, Categories is one of the pending CC1 overarching issues. We discussed the drafting team doc at the last meeting in order to get a conversation going to help us find a way to resolve the issue. The drafting teams have been slow getting to the work done so we decided to bring the work back to the full meeting for discussion. Then, hopefully, the volunteers on the drafting team can more the work forward. We need to get this issue moving since it touches on much of the work being done in the work groups. I do not see this as a short circuit but rather a discussion we need to have and I am happy to see the discussion on the list. Avri Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device null

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Carlos Raul Gutierrez May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

+1 Michele Carlos Raúl GUTIERREZ Apartado 1571-1000 San José COSTA RICA On May 15, 2017 08:40, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: Volker All valid points, but for every point there is an equally strong counterpoint. I’m not suggesting that the arguments for or against categories are right or wrong, but I think that completely discounting them causes as many problems as it solves. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <+353%2059%20918%203072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <+353%2059%20918%203090> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 *From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann < vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> *Date: *Monday 15 May 2017 at 16:16 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC One argument against different categories might be accessability of the new gTLDs for applicants. If we reduce requirements for some applicants, why not for all? Will the applicants that benefit from lesser requirements be in a better position to get their TLD in case of a conflict? As an example, say a multi-million company that owns a brand that also is a generic term that a small public benefit initiative is also applying for, on top of the economic advantage that the one applicant has over the other we are now also saying that they must meet lower standards, making it easier and cheaper for them to operate the TLD in the long run, adding additional funds that can be thrown at beating the opponent in an auction process? We would also enter a minefield when a TLD fits into multiple categories. Does it then have to fulfill the requirements of all the categories or just the one the applicant intends to use it for? As we have seen, use cases may change over time. Am 15.05.2017 um 15:30 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Martin 100% agree I never understood why the concept of categories was rejected. Saying it’s “hard” does not mean it’s “impossible” or that it shouldn’t be explored. After the lack of categories we (the community) had to then deal with a complicated patchwork of exemptions and other funky manipulations to get around the quite meaningless limitations that were being imposed. For example, this weekend in Madrid ICANN shared some stats about SLA breaches from new TLD registries. Some people would argue that a “.brand” should not have to meet the same SLA targets as a “.generic”. While I can understand the logic of that argument the current lack of categories does not allow for that kind of differentiation. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <+353%2059%20918%203072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <+353%2059%20918%203090> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 *From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org> <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday 15 May 2017 at 15:25 *To: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin *Martin Sutton* Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. *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 or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kurt Pritz *Sent:* Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM *To:* Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for *not *adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt(a)kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 <(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld- subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB 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 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 <(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800 <(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649 <(310)%20823-8649> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive 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/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

1 0

Complaint to Ombuds: Meeting schedule was Re: Proposal to Extend CC2 Deadline
by Herb Waye May 17, 2017

May 17, 2017

Dear all, This email is in response to an email complaint filed on May 1st with the Office of the Ombudsman, to which you were all cc’ed. Since taking office as the ICANN Ombuds last July I have been particularly focused on being a resource to the greater ICANN community and have been vocal in offering my assistance on a broader scale than as stated in the old bylaws: actions, inactions by Board, staff etc. The new bylaws (Oct. 2016) are much more focused on the community and fair treatment for all. This effort has resulted in not only an increase in people contacting me regarding conflict in many of the working groups, but more importantly, people are contacting me immediately when conflict arises. This allows prompt intervention and remedy rather than a deterioration of relationships and the undermining of efficiency and effectiveness. Without going into detail I am pleased to advise the working group that this complaint has been resolved and that I can bear witness to a unanimous demonstration of support for the leadership of the working group. I would like to highlight the professional, “human” approach taken by all involved and their willingness to communicate in a clear, respectful and objective manner. This cooperative atmosphere allowed for a timely discussion and quick resolution. In closing I would like to remind everyone that as a community we are all in this together and underline the importance of professional and respectful behavior in all our interactions, whether online or in person. I wish the entire working group and its co-chairs a productive and positive environment moving forward so together we can maintain ICANN as a safe, respectful and harassment free environment for all. Respectfully, Herb Herb Waye ICANN Ombudsman https://www.icann.org/ombudsman https://www.facebook.com/ICANNOmbudsman Twitter: @IcannOmbudsman ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/expected-standards-15sep16-en.p… Community Anti-Harassment Policy https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/community-anti-harassment-policy-2017… Confidentiality All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint

4 3

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Jean Guillon May 16, 2017

May 16, 2017

I am also in full agreement that the protection of "Global Well Known Brands" is potentially beneficial to the Internet User and Trademarks. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander(a)schubert.berlin> wrote: > Hi Jannik, > > I am in full agreement that the protection of "Global Well Known Brands" > such as "Porsche", "Nike" or "DISNEY" is in some way potentially > beneficial to the Internet User. Especially if NOT based on a generic > keyword term. But if a the brand is based on a generic term and NOT > "Globally Well Known" - why does it deserve special protection in the DNS? > Do a search in a few TM databases (e.g. USA, Germany, Brazil) - you find a > TM for almost EVERY generic term. > > So we would need to develop a clear (and easy to implement) threshold for > "Well Globally Known Brand" - one that can't be games easily (so it needs a > cutoff date, a number of countries with registered TMs, etc). > > Thanks, > > Alexander > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jannik Skou [mailto:js@thomsentrampedach.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:53 PM > To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC > > Hi Alexander > > Well I admit that almost any criteria can be “gamed” - still it offers an > opportunity for local regional TLDs to get their TLDs without having to pay > large sums to win an auction against a brand or a portfolio applicant for > instance - and thus IMHO helps promote diversity. > > Should a branded .SUN have priority over an open for profit .SUN? > > In my view the need for additional open TLDs (maybe a part from IDNs) is > very limited, so I can live with such a scenario, in order to provide TM > owners large or small (you would still ned a lot of money to apply for and > operate a TLD so not any small TM owner could participate) to protect their > brand (and thereby also their consumers) by having their own .Brand TLD > (and maybe not having to defend their TM and consumers from fraud/false > affiliation amongst yet more open TLDs. > > As to rounds - I suggested in my public comments that a window must open > every two years (based on existing policies until new policy is developed) > until the community decides to simply open up for applications. > Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, > > Jannik Skou, MBA > Partner > > Thomsen Trampedach GmbH > Grundstrasse 22a > 6343 Rotkreuz > Switzerland > > T +45.22275696 > M js(a)thomsentrampedach.com > W http://thomsentrampedach.com > > > On 16 May 2017, at 15:31, Alexander Schubert <alexander(a)schubert.berlin> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – > and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit > into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I > must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. > > > > Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” > term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky > elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think > “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They > then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is > a geo location to almost every generic term. > > > > Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At > minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) > countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be > “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. > Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the > entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody > else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term > based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural > meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and > Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, > too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has > a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” > from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there > are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to > apply for a gTLD for them. > > > > And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on > a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would > create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and > down. > > > > So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – > once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF > there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a > policy issue, right? > > > > As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I > like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are > only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real > time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, > annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in > between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now > (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and > smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd > round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the > 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, > then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and > definite schedule! > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alexander > > > > > > > > > > > > From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- > bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM > > To: Rob Hall <rob(a)momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC > > > > And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand > issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not > constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. > > > > Alan > > > > At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: > > > > > >> Greg, > >> > >> Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where > anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? > >> > >> I believe this entire artificial â€œin roundsâ€ that we are doing now > is what is causing most of the issues. > >> > >> I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last > round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, > they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason > for â€œCategoriesâ€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of > another. > >> > >> By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of > the contention and issues. > >> > >> As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a > good idea. Can someone fill me in ? > >> > >> Rob. > >> > >> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > >> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM > >> To: Rob Hall <rob(a)momentous.com> > >> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman < > jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" < > gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> > >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC > >> > >> I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. > anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for > this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) > >> > >> There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough > not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" > version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. > >> > >> There were certainly problems with the community applications (not > really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing > better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different > parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should > learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. > >> > >> Greg > >> > >> Greg Shatan > >> C: 917-816-6428 > >> S: gsshatan > >> gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >> > >> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob(a)momentous.com> wrote: > >> I honestly canâ€™t see the purpose of categories. > >> > >> If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can > apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. > >> > >> The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are > having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just > imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not > learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? > >> > >> Rob. > >> > >> From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton < > martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org> > >> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM > >> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > >> Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> > >> > >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC > >> > >> That would be helpful. > >> > >> I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as > it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created > unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven > demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular > category, especially where the operating model is very different to the > traditional selling /distribution to third parties. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> Martin Sutton > >> Executive Director > >> Brand Registry Group > >> martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org > >> > >> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > > wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? > It may help our discussions later today. > >> > >> 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 or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com > >> T: +1.703.635.7514 > >> M: +1.202.549.5079 > >> @Jintlaw > >> > >> > >> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- > bounces(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz > >> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM > >> To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent > Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC > >> > >> Hi Everyone: > >> > >> In reading the agenda for todayâ€™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet > describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/ > spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff > zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ). > >> > >> It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in > 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs > in the last round because they would be problematic (read, â€œimpossibleâ€ > ) to implement. > >> > >> Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in > the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks > presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy > discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. > >> > >> Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. > >> > >> The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round > was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was > predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. > >> > >> In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: > community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was > problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with > .AFRICA. This wasnâ€™t just a process failure, the task itself was > extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government > approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, â€˜yesâ€™ and the other > â€™noâ€™? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community > applications. > >> > >> The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of > different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application > and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual > compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include > ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. > >> > >> For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, > the creation of categories should be avoided. > >> > >> Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg > -- *Jean Guillon* 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France *Phone:* +33.631109837 *Skype & Twitter:* jeanguillon *Web:* www.guillon.com

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Jamie Baxter May 16, 2017

May 16, 2017

3 2

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter May 15, 2017

May 15, 2017

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, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/CNTRAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-15may17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p178uck7kt0/ 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/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/CNTRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 15 May 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone! Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Hi all! Annebeth Lange:Greetings from Norway! Poncelet Ileleji:hEllo all Nick Shorey:hi folks. Hadia Elminiawi:hello all Christa Taylor:no Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:No - Vanda Scartezini:i am not too Christa Taylor:Michael we can't hear you Julie Hedlund:@Michael: We cannot hear you if you are speaking. Phil Buckingham:his computer froze Michelle DeSmyter:I will send him a chat Phil Buckingham:Continue and come back Jeff Neuman:I would go to WT 3 Phil Buckingham:We have a call on Thursday 18 May 21.00 UTC . We will be opening up the hornets nest that is Vertical Integration. and Vertical Separation . Susan Payne:@cheryl, can non members WT4 join your calls? Susan Payne:Thanks yes, I meant as a one-off, so thanks for confirming Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Thanks for circulating the info on the GDD... it looks as it is growing into policy issues...? Michael Flemming:@Jorge, it includes policy that impacts operations of contracted parties. So it is not completely ignorant of policy but has a larger focus on operations with an interest in policy that will affect operations. Michael Flemming:effect* Martin Sutton Brand Registry Group:Jeff, could the GNSO set a target date? Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, we have an idea of what those items are and will provide a list soon. Michael Flemming:Question: When will the links to the recordings be posted? Jim Prendergast:Recrorded yes - but not posted yet Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Thanks to Jeff for this recap - sounds very much like important policy discussions, but without some important stakeholders being there Donna Austin, Neustar:Jorge - i think that's an unfair characterisation of what took place. discussions took place, no decisions made, understand any policy topics would be done under correct mechanisms. Phil Buckingham:@ Trang - has ICANN started to cost " implementation processes " Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Donna: why unfair? just factually stating that important discussions take place, without important stakeholders Jim Prendergast:And there were no meetings of any policy development groups such as this one. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):May be easiest to think of GDD as a 2+-day meeting of the Registry and Registrar Stakeholder Groups, where members of those SGs who are not participating in this WG asked questions of those who are. Kavouss Arasteh:Jorge +1 Annebeth Lange:Jorge +1 Kavouss Arasteh:People may kindly refrain to characterize views of other to be fair or unfair. Annebeth Lange:Many of the subjects touched upon will also have implications for both governments and ccTLDs Kavouss Arasteh:This is very frustrating Alan Greenberg:There is no excuse for not simultaneously broadcasting meetings like this, and immediately posting them fore later viewing. ANything less is giving preferential access to information to only certain groups. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Fact is that ICANN the organisation and the contracted parties exchange on very sensitive topics - where we all have a stake Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jorge, not decisions were made and over a few days we were discussing a large range of issues that were directly relevant to contracted parties. As Jeff said, it's not dissimilar to GAC discussions. It's all recorded. No decisions were made. Annebeth Lange:Alan +1 Susan Payne:@Alan, I believe the Adobe was open to all Jim Prendergast:For more info on it - see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_gddsummi… Phil Buckingham:thanks Trang . Michael Flemming:I don't get it. The Non-contracted house have Intersessional Meetings where they discuss important policy issues. All that took place was discussion amongst parties with common interests. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):one hour call is quite different to a three day meeting - decision shaping is quite important - everybody knows that Annebeth Lange:Even if decisions not taken, it gives a feeling of a "parallell" ICANN Kavouss Arasteh:Every one should be given the opportunity to express his or her views freely ,openly and timely without being faced with group objection or preventing him or her by any means, what so ever, to stop commenting. Paul McGrady:We need to move on. Martin Sutton Brand Registry Group:@paul +1 Susan Payne:@Jorge most of the 3-day meeting was talking about topics entiirely unrelated to this. I think the converation with Akram could be seen as not dissimilar to the session at last year's ITU where Akram made comments about the timing of future new gTLDs and which were widely reported and was questioned by attendees at that meeting Martin Sutton Brand Registry Group:@susan +1 the GDD was operationally focused, at times it would touch on policy, inevitably Martin Sutton Brand Registry Group:Good to hear Nick Shorey's feedback, I am sure others could attend if they really (really) wanted to. Martin Sutton Brand Registry Group:Steve, this is very helpful, thank you Paul McGrady:Call dropped. Dialing back in. Donna Austin, Neustar:Has any work track discussed categories, or is this something that we are to discuss as a group of the whole. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Avri: could you send out an Email on this table of TLD types and establish a deadline for feedback? Steve Chan:@Donna, it's come up as a related issue, in that categories may impact other topics. But as a substantive topic, I do not believe so. It shoud be discussed in the drafting team ideally. Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Steve Christa Taylor:Categories could impact the development of application fee setting Steve Chan:@Jorge, we shared the link to the Google doc in the agenda, but we'll send around a PDF as well. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Christa, it has the potential to impact fees, applications, evaluation, type of contract and more. Christa Taylor:+1 Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed! Kavouss Arasteh:Avri, what would be the status of provisional decision Paul McGrady:I like to think of provisional decisions as "bread crumbs" to keep track of where we came from when we get there. Kavouss Arasteh:How and when these provisional decidions are coverted to more definitive as well as any impact of any provisional decision on other provisional decision Paul McGrady:+1 Avri. Kavouss Arasteh:I f the provisional decision making prevent to reach a consensus I have difficulty to accept Kavouss Arasteh:ok if it is a part of consensus building i have no problem Annebeth Lange:I have to leave for another meeting, sorry. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I have to drop for another meeting at the top of the hour. Kavouss Arasteh:Avri, I am sorry to indicate that I have to leave for another meeting Kavouss Arasteh:Bye Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):the GAC is working on an input on the CC2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):as is ALAC :-) Poncelet Ileleji:Avri, leaving for another Meeting, Bye All Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Cheryl: let's copy paste! ;P Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):;-) Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):the PDP F2F is at what time? Steve Chan:@Jorge, I believe it's Wednesday from 8:30-12:00 local time. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks, Steve! guess we'll have GAC Meetings at that time... :-( Vanda Scartezini:thank you all for the work done. and to finish on top of the hour, kisses Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... bye for now then... Alan Greenberg:Thanks all. Christa Taylor:Thank-you Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks everyone, bye! Trang Nguyen:thanks everyone. bye. Karen Day:Thanks everyone, bye! Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks & bay. Hadia Elminiawi:bye, thansk Robin Gross:bye Hadia Elminiawi:thanks Victor Zhang:bye Phil Buckingham:thanks

1 0