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

GAC Comment - GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 29, 2020

Sept. 29, 2020

Dear Cheryl and Jeff, On behalf of the GAC Chair, attached please find docx and pdf copies of the comments of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) regarding the “GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report” (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-draft-final-…) Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support Manager benedetta.rossi(a)icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

5 6

ICANN69: GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Sept. 29, 2020

Sept. 29, 2020

Dear all, All ICANN69 GNSO sessions have been listed for your reference on the ICANN69 GNSO wiki page. For all access information and Zoom details however, please refer to the ICANN69 schedule on the meeting website. Registration is compulsory to access the meeting schedule. Access information will not be circulated via mailing lists. The ICANN meeting website, which ICANN Meetings’ Team has put together, allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. HOW TO DOWNLOAD ICANN69 SESSION INFORMATION TO YOUR CALENDARS: Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN69 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage<https://69.schedule.icann.org/> and create a profile and login. Every session on the Full Agenda can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the [cid:image001.png@01D6965B.28C9C330] (blue ‘ + ’ box) in the upper right corner of each meeting. This adds it to your individual schedule, My Agenda, which you can then add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - To import your schedule into your calendar: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to your schedule, click on [cid:image002.png@01D6965B.28C9C330] (View My Agenda) * Click the down arrow next to Export * Select Export My Agenda (ics) * Open the exported meetings .ics and add to your chosen calendar * For Microsoft Outlook, right-click on the exported meetings .ics file and choose Show in Folder Right-click on the file, and select Open with Microsoft Outlook. Save & Close. Note: Your Agenda can only be exported from the desktop app; the ICANN69 phone app does not offer this feature Step 3 - All remote participation sessions will use Zoom rooms. You can find the Zoom room links for public meetings on the ICANN69 Meeting Schedule<https://69.schedule.icann.org/agenda#/?limit=20&sortByFields[0]=startsAt&so…>. PLEASE ENSURE YOU HAVE UPDATED YOUR ZOOM APP TO THE LATEST VERSION TO ACCESS ICANN69 SESSIONS. Please download the latest Zoom app<https://zoom.us/download> on your participation device (mobile or desktop computer). Need to learn or brush-up on using Zoom? Check out the Joining a Zoom Meeting Tutorial<https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362193-Joining-a-Meeting>. Step 4 - Download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN Meetings” in your app stores. There are three options to connect your audio: 1) Via VoIP, choose Computer Audio (from a smartphone choose Call using Internet Audio) 2) Getting a dial out from Zoom to your phone, choose Call Me (from a smartphone choose Call My Phone) 3) Phoning into the audio bridge (access numbers and Meeting ID are provided for that option), choose Telephone Audio (from a smartphone choose Dial in) 3 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN69 Meeting Schedule <https://69.schedule.icann.org/agenda#/?limit=20&sortByFields[0]=startsAt&so…> GNSO ICANN69 Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/NwGNC> GNSO Session agendas<https://community.icann.org/x/CwGNC> For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 01 October at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 25, 2020

Sept. 25, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the updated proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 01 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=… and also the redline submitted by Justine Chew reflecting the changes from the Proposal by At-Large dated 11 Jun 2020: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS13a70f3BGx0b1gOyjvvRCoAKvxtlfO/edit – start at 4-B Opposition in the WG document, page 19, and then proceed to Criterion 1/overall comments from Justine 3. Applicant Support * In the context of auctions; see: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-fin…, Topic 17: Applicant Support, page 67; Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets, page 167; and * Review as a comprehensive program; see Topic 17: Applicant Support, page 67 4. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 24, 2020

Sept. 24, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/kAC-C> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 24 September at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 24, 2020

Sept. 24, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 24 September at 20:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations/Implementation Guidance: ACTION ITEM: Add Implementation Guidance in the AGB that “Identify” means that the applied for string closely describes either “the community” or “the community members”. Incorporate the guidance on “Nexus” provided by the At-Large proposal. Re: Criterion 2-A Guidelines ACTION ITEM: Insert a note in the clean/WG version that if we put in the guidelines provided above by At-Large then that would eliminate the need for this row. Re: 2-B Uniqueness ACTION ITEM: Add a comment to make it clear that it’s not a subject determination that there are better names for the community or is that a name that most people associate with that community as opposed to many other things. Criterion #4: Community Endorsement -- Re: Scoring: and “Consider whether the community institution or member organization is the clearly recognized representative of the community.” ACTION ITEM: Change to “a clearly recognized representative of the community”. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: Phil Buckingham: -- Statement of Interest Update : Phil has been elected to serve as a Non-Executive Director on the Nominet .UK Board. 2. Activity/interaction with the ICANN Board/Org about planning for new gTLDs (question from Jim Prendergast) -- Periodic calls between Council leadership, Liaisons from the Board to SubPro, and SubPro PDP WG Co-Chairs to discuss any issues that we thought could be important to raise to their level, to try to void surprises. Not to advance policy or push implementation. -- Most recent meeting was on 08 September after we restarted the calls. -- The call was to get coordinated again and to work on a schedule for future coordination calls. To get things back up and running. -- No issues of substance were discussed. Told them that the topics featured in the Webinar were the ones that generated a lot of discussions and comments recently. -- Emphasized the importance of getting comments from the Board, particularly on the questions we posed specifically about the Closed Generics issue. What it really bmean and what they believe it means now. Clarification on what they would like to see going forward. -- Also they discussed the timeline. (Note that this was not a discussion of the timeline for a launch of the subsequent gTLDs.) ICANN69: Two sessions where we’ll talk about public comments for prioritized topics (like those highlighted in the Webinar). 3. Administrative Items – WG Guidelines/Scope for the Remainder of the WG’s Work Section 3.3 of the WG Guidelines: “WG members should be mindful that, once input/comment periods have been closed, discussions or decisions should not be resurrected unless there is group consensus that the issue should be revisited in light of new information that has been introduced.” See: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g…. -- Need to keep this in mind and to not reopen issues unless there is new information from the public comments. -- Seems like there weren’t final discussions on CPE guidelines or some other issues. -- Things like the CPE scoring, definition of communities (or lack thereof) have been under discussion for a few years. -- What about things that there wasn’t opposition to but they were rejected anyway? -- Need to keep in perspective on CPE is that a large portion of this WG did not participate and so may not have opinions on it. Most don’t understand how the community applications process works. -- Purpose of raising this section is to give context to the WG’s discussions. 4. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=…, start at page 7, and also note the redline submitted by Justine Chew reflecting the changes from the Proposal by At-Large dated 11 Jun 2020: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS13a70f3BGx0b1gOyjvvRCoAKvxtlfO/edit CPE Guidelines with WG Redlines/Comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=… Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community Re: “Identify” means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community. -- It appears that from the AGB that “identify” could describe “the community” -or- “the community members”. -- EIU required that the applied for string describes -both- “the community” -and- “the community members”. -- Have an added guideline that emphasizes that it could be either or. -- Don’t want the evaluators going off to the EIU to ask them what they meant by the text. -- Made the point in our recommendations that evaluation criteria should not have been added after the AGB was out. But the EIU had to evaluate things that were pretty vague. -- At-Large proposal: 2= String identifies the Community without over-reaching substantially beyond the Community. Question: Should we be providing more detailed guidance on what scores which number. Specifically the text in the right column in the description of “Nexus”. -- At-Large is trying to make sure that we understand very clearly what is meant, so to describe in detail. -- Seems like there is no objection from the WG to provide further guidelines on the categories of scoring (as in what At-Large has provided). -- What out for a bias towards economic communities versus other types of communities. -- WG agrees that there is no need to change the EIU definitions of “Match”, “identify”, and “Over-reaching substantially” or the following questions. ACTION ITEM: Add Implementation Guidance in the AGB that “Identify” means that the applied for string closely describes either “the community” or “the community members”. Incorporate the guidance on “Nexus” provided by the At-Large proposal. Re: Criterion 2-A Guidelines -- Deleted in the At-Large proposal. -- Put a note in the clean version that if we put in the guidelines provided above by At-Large then that would eliminate the need for this row. ACTION ITEM: Insert a note in the clean/WG version that if we put in the guidelines provided above by At-Large then that would eliminate the need for this row. Re: 2-B Uniqueness -- At-Large proposal: Question is who do we rely on determine who is unique? EIU took a certain position that .gay wasn’t unique enough. Important to see what the global community thinks is unique. -- We should make clear that there should be independence between evaluation / scoring of each Criterion and sub-criterion. -- The nexus scoring should address the issue that the evaluators might not think it’s the best name for the community. Make sure that there’s guidance that prevents that from happening. -- Make sure it isn’t the evaluator that decides whether that is the best name for a community. But what if there is a name that’s used to describe lots of things that aren’t the community. -- In the At-Large proposal they have provided guidance in the right-hand box wherever there is scoring. ACTION ITEM: Add a comment to make it clear that it’s not a subject determination that there are better names for the community or is that a name that most people associate with that community as opposed to many other things. Criterion #3: Registration Policies -- At-Large proposal: Changed the flow to make it more easily comprehensible. Scoring hasn’t been changed. -- The CPE evaluators need to have the power to ask all pretenders to find an agreement among them using the stick not to assign it at all. -- We should talk it through since, until now, the only way out is an auction or private resolution.  Criterion #4: Community Endorsement -- We have addressed aspects of this in several of our recommendations. Re: Scoring: and “Consider whether the community institution or member organization is the clearly recognized representative of the community.” -- Communities may not have one institution that is “the clearly recognized representative of the community” but may have multiple recognized representatives. -- Change to “a clearly recognized representative”. -- Doesn’t seem to be a fair way to evaluate support/opposition. -- Guidelines in the AGB were very clear, but the way they were implemented by the EIU went against a lot of communities that had large-scale support. ACTION ITEM: Change to “a clearly recognized representative of the community”. Re: Definitions -- At-Large proposal: Retained the reference to “the clearly recognized representative”. From the proposal: [a] Is the applicant the recognized community representative? [b] If applicant is not the recognized community representative, is the applicant a recognized institution or member organization of the community? [c] If the applicant is neither the recognized community representative nor a recognized institution or member organization of the community, then has the applicant provided full documentation that it has authority to represent the community with its application? [d] If the applicant does not meet any of the above limbs, then does the applicant have Documented Support from at least one group with relevance? -- If we are making it clear that we are not looking for “the clearly recognized representative” do we need all of the above text? -- At-Large is trying to be as descriptive as possible, but not asking the WG to adopt all of the text. -- Question: Did the EIU consider comments that came in during the public comment period to be documented support? Or only formal letters? Answer: There wasn’t much detail provided in the score cards. EIU didn’t describe which opposing organization was the one that took the point away. -- Could be additional bullets that illustrates some of the approaches – a series of example that highlight what an organization could be that is considered to represent a community. -- At-Large is proposing substantive change to the way that community support and opposition are evaluated. Look at the top of Criterion 4. -- Also go back to Criterion 1 – trying to find a flexible way of defining “community” so that there is no bias towards structured communities relating to trade and business. To avoid a bias against unstructured communities. And to introduce a community expertise element where it could be internationally or regionally recognized. -- Next Meeting: Start with 4-B Opposition and also the overall bias against unstructured communities. -- Also go back into the issues around public comment periods for changes to CPE applications.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 24 September at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 22, 2020

Sept. 22, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Activity/interaction with the ICANN Board/Org about planning for new gTLDs (question from Jim Prendergast) 3. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=…, start at page 7 4. Applicant Support * In the context of auctions; see: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-fin…, Topic 17: Applicant Support, page 67; Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets, page 167; and * Review as a comprehensive program; see Topic 17: Applicant Support, page 67 5. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"
by Alexander Schubert Sept. 21, 2020

Sept. 21, 2020

Hi Mark,I understand what you say; and it's interesting.Let me start with the notion why exclusive use registries have (per your assertion) seemingly been singled out:I don't think they were singled out at all. GAC should be lauded for having taken upon themselves the Hercules task of sifting through all applications - and they flagged quite a few. Among those flagged was only one group that stood out as conglomerate of applications with similar specs: closed generics. They are all closed; a great common identifier. In order to avoid havoc in the next new gTLD rounds the board relayed to the GNSO that policy advice is missing. The message is essentially:"If you force us we will flag all those again in the next round; then we decide the fate of these strings: better if the community would agree on policy advice; so please do your job this time". Which we still haven't.So no singling out of closed generics by GAC or Board. In my mind.In regards to the semantics of the board resolution ("issue"):"..... that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work."First I recognize that I am not a native (American) English speaker. "The issue" could be tied to "exclusive registry access" - with "generic strings serving a public interest goal" specifying the object such access is sought for. If the "public interest goal" was a given; then they could have left the "serving a public interest goal" portion away one might note. But the board was likely aware that not everybody knew about the public interest goal; so presumably they wanted to slip that in for reference.You however seem to suggest that "the issue" was tied to "serving a public interest goal". That would reduce their concerns to the simple question: does the registry have to operate a string in a way that serves the public interest in some way form or shape?But clearly that wouldn't cover all concerns they had. Imagine a product/service related string; e.g. .scooter. Even if the GNSO would declare that the operation of .scooter doesn't have to serve a public interest goal; there would be still other concerns. E.g. BIRD (a leading U.S. scooter share app) operating .scooter solely for their products: that might create issues beyond "public interest". E.g. competition issues.So I don't think the semantic interpretation that the board tied "the issue" to "serving a public interest goal" holds water. In my mind they demanded to create policy how the exclusive registry access for closed generics will be governed. That any such policy has to follow the new gTLD program goals (among which is "public interest) is a given in my mind. That to decide would be beyond our scope: it was decided a long time ago.Comments from others?Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com Date: 9/16/20 23:37 (GMT+02:00) To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" Alex, The Board is saying the specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work – so to consider and address this issue. If the Board had decided that exclusive registry access for generic strings MUST serve a public interest goal then they would have just said so and there would be no issue and nothing for the GNSO to address. The fact that the Board says “issue” makes clear that the matter is not decided. Merriam-Website defines “issue” as “a vital or unsettled matter” and “a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/issue) I would also add that Kurt, Mike and I feel like maybe our proposal is misunderstood. We are not arguing that closed generics do not necessarily need to be in the public interest. Indeed we think it is quite clear that everything that ICANN does must be in the public interest, per various specific provisions in the Articles and Bylaws saying just that. What we are saying is that closed generics should not be subject to a different public interest test than other new gTLDs. Rather, they ought be presumed or assumed to be in the public interest just as any other new gTLD is, and that any test to analyze whether they are/are not is fraught with subjective difficulties and so any decision would be challenged. Indeed, this is why they were allowed in the last round, ... until they suddenly weren't. To put it more simply, I will re-ask the question that I asked during the last numerous times verbally and in the chat and that no one answered: If the public interest requirement is so important and everything that ICANN does must be in the public interest then why are we singling out closed generics to have to meet a special test and be operated by not for profits? Assuming we need a special test/standards (which we don’t believe are practical for the reasons previously stated) shouldn’t this requirement and test apply to ALL new gTLDs? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" Hi Mark, The original text from the board resolution seems to be: "..... the NGPC requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue." It's not a request for consideration. The portion "for generic strings serving a public interest goal" has not sprung from the fantasy of the board; it's enshrined in the new gTLD program goals. So how does the terminology "consider" fit in here? It's a clear request by that board. At least that is how I read it. Thanks, Alexander Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Date: 9/16/20 21:35 (GMT+02:00) To: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" Alan, In the section you cited below, the Board directed the GNSO to specifically consider the issue exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal. Which is exactly what we have been doing in the many discussion on the topic of closed generics. The Board did not direct the GNSO to come to the conclusion that exclusive registry access for generic strings can only exist if it serves a public interest goal. Rather, the Board directed the GNSO to specifically consider this issue because the GAC advised that generic strings can only exist if they serve a public interest goal. This is because the Board must consider GAC advice, but not necessarily follow it. Accordingly, if the WG made a recommendation that closed generics should be allowed without a public interest requirement this would be aligned with the Board’s instructions to the GNSO, so long as the issue of whether or not the public interest goal should be required was discussed – which it clearly was (and is). Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 1:20 PM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" *EXTERNAL TO GT* While preparing a presentation for At-Large on Closed Generics, I noted something that I think needs to be considered going forward. In the Pritz, Trachtenberg and Rodenbaugh proposal "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" advocating the unrestricted delegation of closed generics, the following statement is made in relation to the Board action in response to GAC Advice: The Board consequently decided to halt the processing of applications for ?closed generics? for the current round, and sought additional policy recommendations from the GNSO on how closed generics should be treated in subsequent rounds. That is not accurate as a critical part of the Board resolution is omitted. The exact wording was: NGPC requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue. The key missing phrase is that the GNSO Council was instructed to initiate policy work for exclusive registry access for generic strings SERVING A PUBLIC INTEREST. I understand the authors' belief that a test for the public interest is not possible or practical, but that does not remove the clear requirement in the charge the Board gave to the GNSO Council. Regardless of my personal views on the issue of closed generics, I do not believe that the PDP can or should make a recommendation that is not aligned with the Board's instructions to the GNSO. Alan If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster(a)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

2 6

Comment on "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics"
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 17, 2020

Sept. 17, 2020

While preparing a presentation for At-Large on Closed Generics, I noted something that I think needs to be considered going forward. In the Pritz, Trachtenberg and Rodenbaugh proposal "The Case for Delegating Closed Generics" advocating the unrestricted delegation of closed generics, the following statement is made in relation to the Board action in response to GAC Advice: The Board consequently decided to halt the processing of applications for "closed generics" for the current round, and sought additional policy recommendations from the GNSO on how closed generics should be treated in subsequent rounds. That is not accurate as a critical part of the Board resolution is omitted. The exact wording was: NGPC requests that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue. The key missing phrase is that the GNSO Council was instructed to initiate policy work for exclusive registry access for generic strings SERVING A PUBLIC INTEREST. I understand the authors' belief that a test for the public interest is not possible or practical, but that does not remove the clear requirement in the charge the Board gave to the GNSO Council. Regardless of my personal views on the issue of closed generics, I do not believe that the PDP can or should make a recommendation that is not aligned with the Board's instructions to the GNSO. Alan

5 6

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 17, 2020

Sept. 17, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/jQC-C> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 17 September at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 17, 2020

Sept. 17, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 17 September at 15:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations/Implementation Guidance: Re: “Pre-Existing”: ACTION ITEM: Add to “Pre-existing” the same language used above: “Some understanding that the community existed prior to the opening of the application window.” Re: “Delineation”: ACTION ITEM: WG can comment that the EIU’s interpretation of “delineation” was too narrow and we think it should be [what we think in the positive]. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. CPE Guidelines and WG Recommendations / Implementation Guidance; see: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf and https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-fin…, Topic 34: Community Applications, page 157; with WG redlines/comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=…; and the Proposal by At-Large<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01B.%20CPE%20Gui…> Proposal by At-Large: -- Received the proposal from At-Large or a subset thereof. -- Asked them to resubmit during public comment. CPE Guidelines with WG Redlines/Comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=… -- Redline from Anne Aikman-Scalese. -- Would need to harmonize against the WG’s recommendation. -- Verify that it’s the same language that is in the Draft Final Report. Re: "Pre-existing" means that a community has been active as such since before the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed in September 2007. -- We would need to develop a recommendation for what we think “Pre-existing” means – some period of time prior to a round opening up. -- Do we really want this pre-existing commitment to be so strict? Are the rest of the guidelines the guardrails about what it means to be a community? -- This was designed to prevent gaming. -- Don’t know that the reason for this being here is really a reason. -- If there is an arbitrary window it should be shorter and with exceptions. -- If we keep the statement with any timeline it almost guarantees that the concept of community application applied to a community with a piece of paper with a starting date on it. It has to be demonstrably a group, but putting a timeline on it means it has to be an officially sanctioned group. This has to go. -- Also, there might be geographic communities, which just established themselves as a result from foundation of new countries. We saw that in eastern europe just a couple of years ago. -- Or just say it has to be pre-existing before the opening up of the application window. -- Report says there should be a predictable window based on volume or time. -- Dropping it entirely is a major change. -- It is also part of the scoring “Has the community been active since at least September 2007?” -- Keep it but without the requirement for documented proof, but demonstrable. -- We could note it for the very particular and strenuous discourse in deciding to drop or not in implementation. -- “Pre-existing” should be in the patent/copyright form – that it was around (not documented). -- Could be a loose association of people as a community. Could note that governmental sources of proof are only one method. Do like the suggestion that it should be by the application date. -- I would argue that a good case for a "Well defined and clearly delineated organised community" would be bolstered by as MUCH evidence as possible. -- If you use the term “pre-existing” we should be clear that this does not require documented proof. -- The easiest thing to do is to just make it that when we say “pre-existing” it needs to have had activities prior to the opening of the application window. -- How about "demonstrable and significant activities"? -- Or just use the term "established" then burden of proof is influenced by actual evidence whatever it may be as presented. -- If we don’t say anything the IRT could make the assumption that for the next round the approval could be 2020 so the cut off is December 2020. We need to provide guidance. -- Saying “Pre-existing” means that it is a “community” as defined in these Guidelines prior to the application window opening. -- The At-Large proposal proposes "prior to the launch of this application window" (this meaning the applicable application window). ACTION ITEM: Add to “Pre-existing” the same language used above: “Some understanding that the community existed prior to the opening of the application window.” Re: “Delineation”: -- The problem was the deep dive in the Evaluation Guidelines. It is discriminatory. -- At-Large’s proposal was to redraft the Guidelines. -- The Evaluation Guidelines on delineation favor communities with large and structured memberships, over other less-structured groupings. Favors membership communities. -- At-Large’s proposal provided a looser definition of a community. -- The At-Large proposal went through the usual mechanism for proposing text for At-Large to endorse; it has been endorsed by At-Large, it wasn’t put to a formal vote. -- Does the WG agree that the definition in the Evaluation Guidelines is too narrowly focused? -- The left side text is from the AGB, so the WG should consider whether the left-hand text is problematic. -- Sounds like the word “membership” should be removed. -- Changing the AGB language is a bigger deal than changing the Evaluation Guidelines. We could say by “delineation this is what was actually meant”. -- We could add Implementation Guidance that it is our belief that the EIU too narrowly interpreted the definition of “delineation” and we think it should cover [whatever we think it should]. -- Even if we were to change the interpretation the AGB says, “where a clear and straight-forward membership definition scores high”. Need to not have discriminatory scoring. -- Changing the scoring would be a big change. -- Being a member of a community is very different than having membership in a community. -- We’ve discussed this for many years and we haven’t agreed to change the scoring or the elements of the scoring. We are talking about the interpretation that the EIU provided. -- Helpful for the WG to indicate in comments to the Guidelines what we think “delineation” should also apply to. -- Agree that the way this was interpreted by EIU was not what was intended. -- WG can comment that the EIU’s interpretation of “delineation” was too narrow and we think it should be [what we think in the positive]. -- After we review the CPE Guidelines we’ll need to see if there are any other impacts. ACTION ITEM: WG can comment that the EIU’s interpretation of “delineation” was too narrow and we think it should be [what we think in the positive]. Re: “Organized” and Was the entity established to administer the community? -- Comment from Anne Aikman-Scalese: There is language about awarding points based on the idea that the applicant entity was formed to "administer the community". Does this requirement make sense when we are trying to encourage Community TLDs for purposes of Applicant Freedom of Expression? It would seem more appropriate to talk about an entity that is formed for the purpose of administering the TLD for a clearly-delineated community. Is there an assumption here that all communities are somehow "administered"? And was that the assumption in the 2012 AGB? -- We should be thinking of administering and/or advocating on the behalf of a community. -- We are trying to see if the applicant is one who is responsible for organizing community activities? -- There is also a really narrow approach by the EIU here. -- We need to have two tracks to deal with Community applications. For PROFESSIONAL and TRADE communities you have to Apply all criteria. But for the others you need to introduce flexibility… -- Are there communities that have various entities that administer their activities? Seems like those would be scored lower. Re: “Extension”: and “The following questions must be scored when evaluating the application: Is the community of considerable size? Does the community demonstrate longevity? -- Comment from Anne Aikman-Scalese: t is a bit confusing that the 1 point category is defined as "not meeting the 2 point category" Is the only difference here the fact that 2 points emphasizes "considerable size AND longevity" whereas 1 point could mean "either considerable size OR longevity" or could the entity be of less than considerable "size" but have lots of longevity - maybe like the Kurds? -- “Longevity” is a forward-looking criteria. 3. AOB: Has there been any further activity/interaction with the ICANN Board/Org about planning for new gTLDs. I know there were meetings months ago but it’s been months. -- There was a recent call. We’ll add that as an agenda item at the start of the next meeting.

2 1