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

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 19 November 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 17, 2020

Nov. 17, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the regular WG meeting on Thursday, 19 November 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Note: For the schedule of the upcoming meeting topics, please see the Work Plan at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5Kn…. WG members are requested to review scheduled topics and comments prior to the meetings. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9vbkFUNEAb55oEPCFRsdrDlowh06zIUBiU…> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: Topic 6: RSP Pre-Evaluation<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpR…> Topic 27: Applicant Reviews<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8Q…> Topic 39: Registry System Testing<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YimiR8dKA2F76QO_36hfDRCFE7-l5syuQ2z…> 1. 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 | Tuesday, 17 November 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Nov. 17, 2020

Nov. 17, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 17 November 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/5YXzC> (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 Terri

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 17 November 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 17, 2020

Nov. 17, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the working sessions on 17 November at 03:00 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/2020-11-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 41: Contractual Compliance<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PglquKDd8amHiqI6Wfko0Plb80RPpbEjTMS…> Row 13 – ALAC re: Compliance should publish thresholds and guidelines to assess registry/registrar practices. ACTION ITEM: Rec 41.2 – Adding text on the information we are seeking. Staff will consult with leadership on the new wording. Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mkfwWZtyGAOdIbN3LsgNtDnVs6ehPmgrONz…> Row 17 – RrSG re: Exempted registries must demonstrate unsuccessful outreach to registrars. ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the recommendation to provide clarity about this recommendation on the impact of .brands. Topic 25: IDNs<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8Q…> Row 11 – RySG re: Warn applicant if risk of string never being delegated; consider related work in progress. ACTION ITEM: Revise the recommendation to include the warning for an applicant that there is a risk of a string never being delegated. Row 14 – ICANN Board re: Don't process applied-for strings in script not integrated in the RZ-LGR; assess impacts on other processes; clarify which IDN tables “pre-vetted by the community” could still be used to remove IDN table testing for the new gTLDs. ACTION ITEM: The WG should work on the list to find middle ground on this issue. ACTION ITEM: Provide a rationale as to why the WG considered the Board’s comments on Recommendations 5 and 6 and didn’t address them. Row 15 – ALAC re: Supports offering IDN variants to registry operator of existing/applied for gTLDs, not separate application; metrics to evaluate promotion/availability of IDNs at top level. ACTION ITEM: Add this as Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Add a reference in the rationale re: offering IDN variants to registry operator of existing/applied for gTLDs, not separate application. Row 16 – ICANN Org re: various issues ACTION ITEM: Clarify definition of 1-character codes in accordance with ICANN Org's comments and what “single entity” means. ACTION ITEM re: “ICANN org notes that the PDP WG has taken into account the Variant TLD Recommendations, and has also identified areas which do not appear to be directly addressed. ICANN org understands that, following the work of the IDN Scoping Team, the GNSO is considering initiating another policy development effort focused on IDNs to address these areas. Until discussion on these additional topics is complete, some details may be unclear around how to proceed with IDN TLDs and variant labels in subsequent rounds. Thus, moving forward with the next round of TLD applications may have some dependency on the GNSO PDP on IDNs.” -- Take this issue to the WG list on this issue and the status of the IDN EPDP, and circle back with the IDN team in ICANN Org. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: Topic 41: Contractual Compliance<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PglquKDd8amHiqI6Wfko0Plb80RPpbEjTMS…> Row 9 -- Swiss Government OFCOM re: Strengthen compliance enforcement with financial penalties; Rec 41.2 insufficient. Leadership Comments: Do we want to introduce sanctions akin to RAA? Row 10 – IPC; Row 11 – INTA and Row 12 – GBOC (also anti-abuse); Row 19 -- BC re: Strengthen compliance Leadership Comments: Noted. Also related to DNS abuse provisions. Row 13 – ALAC re: Compliance should publish thresholds and guidelines to assess registry/registrar practices. Leadership Comments: Do we want to introduce more transparency into actions taken (and measurements used) for compliance actions that do not result in breach? Discussion: -- Usually these types of comments are closed. Contracted parties wouldn’t want this disclosed. -- Possible action to withhold the name of the entity. -- No clear indication of the thresholds to assess. -- Ask for what is it that ICANN Org is using to assess undesirable behavior by the contracted parties. -- We could add a few words that including the threshold…so long it is not publishing information about the registry operator. -- Question: Are we talking about setting up two compliance programs? We can’t reach backward. Answer: If we added the ALAC action about action, and instead added a few words about what ICANN is already doing then we wouldn’t be making new policy. --- Support introducing standards and thresholds. -- We can address this by adding a few words to the recommendation. ACTION ITEM: Rec 41.2 – Adding text on the information we are seeking. Staff will consult with leadership on the new wording. Row 17 – ICANN Board re: Recommended data is already being published. Leadership Comments: We believe Compliance Dashboard covers our recommendations sufficiently. Row 18 – ICANN Org re: WG should provide specific examples of data to be published and/or examples. Leadership Comment: ICANN Org asks why we believe this is only relevant for next rounds of new gtLDs? Response: We are not saying it is only relevant for the next rounds, but it is outside our scope to recommend anything with respect to legacy TLDs. Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mkfwWZtyGAOdIbN3LsgNtDnVs6ehPmgrONz…> Row 10 – BRG re: Supports exemption for .Brand TLD/include in Spec 13. Leadership Comments: Do we grant additional extensions (namely, not having to use a registrar at all)? This was discussed within Work Track, but not carried forward. Row 13 – ICANN Org re: No registrar application in New gTLD application; keep process separate and Row 21 InfoNetworks LLC re: Consider a consolidated Registry/Registrar Agreement. Leadership Comments: Do we want to revisit the notion of allowing both accreditations in same TLD application? Discussion: -- Did not have support in the WG to elevate this to a recommendation. Row 17 – RrSG re: Exempted registries must demonstrate unsuccessful outreach to registrars. Leadership Comments: Do we want to add this clarification (eg., true demonstration of outreach and then if policies change, a re-evaluation of exemption is needed). Discussion: -- Seems to add more clarity to an existing recommendation. -- Don’t see strong support for the exemption. Concern that ICANN’s role is to make the TLDs available, it’s up to the registries to make them successful. -- Comments were lukewarm. -- Goes back to what the BRG said. -- With .brands, we have never proposed getting rid of the exemption for Spec 13. Not sure that this question that was out for community input would affect .brands. -- The action item here is to provide clarification of the impact on .brands from this recommendation. ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the recommendation to provide clarity about this recommendation on the impact of .brands. Topic 38: Registrar Support for New TLDs<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mkfwWZtyGAOdIbN3LsgNtDnVs6ehPmgrONz…> Row 10 – InfoNetworks LLC re: Registrars without an RAA shouldn't be able to object to proposed RAA amendments. Leadership Comments: New idea: Limit Registrars review of RRA Amendments to only those Registrars that have signed the RRA, (Include with Base Agreement discussion). Probably just affect existing TLDs and not new TLDs. Topic 25: IDNs<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8Q…> Row 8 – Anthony Lee and other comments re: Continue to develop a mechanism that also takes the concerns of both the SSAC and Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Workgroup reports into consideration. Overarching Leadership Comment: Consider referring all of our recommendations to the GNSO IDN Scoping Team for including in their PDP. Row 9 -- Wei Wang (Individual) re: Waiving application fees of IDN gTLD variant and existing/applied IDN gTLD with same registry operator. Leadership Comments: Noted. Row 10 – IAB Leadership Comments: Noted. Row 11 – RySG re: Warn applicant if risk of string never being delegated; consider related work in progress. Leadership Comments: Warning sounds like a good clarification recommendation; See above on referring all recommendations to IDN Groups to consider. ACTION ITEM: Revise the recommendation to include the warning for an applicant that there is a risk of a string never being delegated. Row 12 – WIPO re: Domain abuse by homograph spoofing. Leadership Comments: This is an issue for IDN Group, RPM PDP and future DNS Abuse efforts. Row 12 – RrSG re: Vet IDN tables/variants prior to delegation, not outright rejection. Leadership Comments: Could this be part of the RSP Pre-approval process? -- We don’t talk about the tables being rejected. Row 14 – ICANN Board re: Don't process applied-for strings in script not integrated in the RZ-LGR; assess impacts on other processes; clarify which IDN tables “pre-vetted by the community” could still be used to remove IDN table testing for the new gTLDs. Leadership Comments: -- Review Recommendations 5 and 6 of Variant TLD Recommendations? The Board asks the PDP WG to clarify which IDN tables “pre-vetted by the community” could still be used to remove IDN table testing for the new gTLDs. The Board suggests that the PDP WG considers Reference IDN tables being published by ICANN org as the candidate pre-vetted IDN tables. (Pg. 178) ACTION ITEM: The WG should work on the list to find middle ground on this issue. ACTION ITEM: Provide a rationale as to why the WG considered the Board’s comments on Recommendations 5 and 6 and didn’t address them. Discussion: -- Board suggestion is different from the WG’s recommendation. -- Not sure how realistic the Board suggestion is. -- Would be difficult to do the evaluation if the RZL isn’t part of the rules. -- We discussed this at some length didn't we? I understand ICANN Board's desire for efficiency, but weren't we balancing out others who may be caught up in contention sets or want to file objections? -- The idea of having the RZ generation rules was that you could have a situation where you were using the rules is that you needed to have some rules for those that weren’t in the RZ generation rules. -- Is there a way to do both? The applicant would be entering contention at its own risk. It should be able to go through a number of steps until the RZ generation rules are finalized. -- For a string in a script that is not part of the RZ-LGR, there is no guarantee it will ever be valid. ACTION ITEM: The WG should work on the list to find middle ground on this issue. Row 15 – ALAC re: Supports offering IDN variants to registry operator of existing/applied for gTLDs, not separate application; metrics to evaluate promotion/availability of IDNs at top level. Leadership Comments: Noted. Discussion: -- Question: What does it mean: “and the corresponding level of assignment of ICANN staff support and evaluators”? This seems like an IRT issue. This will be noted by IRT. -- To be a meaningful measure then staff commitment comparison to other non IDNs need to be looked at as well NEW and yes Implementation. -- Question: Will this go to the IRT? ACTION ITEM: Add this as Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Add a reference in the rationale re: offering IDN variants to registry operator of existing/applied for gTLDs, not separate application. Row 16 – ICANN Org re: various issues Leadership Comments: -- Does the Working Group want to specify that unless and until new IDN rules are finalized, that it not hold up subsequent rounds, which will apply existing rules (eg., not allow variants). -- In the same token, should this group formally refer issues of "(a) the process by which an existing registry operator could apply for, or be given, an IDN variant for its existing gTLD; and (b) the process by which an applicant applying for a new IDN gTLD could seek and obtain any allocatable IDN variant(s) ICANN Org does not believe any string should be processed if the Label Generation Rules for that script are not integrated into the RZ-LGR; AND that these applications should not hold up other ones that are integrated. -- Clarify definition of 1 character codes in accordance with ICANN Org comments. Clarify what Single entity means. ACTION ITEM: Clarify definition of 1-character codes in accordance with ICANN Org's comments and what “single entity” means. ACTION ITEM re: “ICANN org notes that the PDP WG has taken into account the Variant TLD Recommendations, and has also identified areas which do not appear to be directly addressed. ICANN org understands that, following the work of the IDN Scoping Team, the GNSO is considering initiating another policy development effort focused on IDNs to address these areas. Until discussion on these additional topics is complete, some details may be unclear around how to proceed with IDN TLDs and variant labels in subsequent rounds. Thus, moving forward with the next round of TLD applications may have some dependency on the GNSO PDP on IDNs.” -- Take this issue to the WG list on this issue and the status of the IDN EPDP, and circle back with the IDN team in ICANN Org.

1 0

Proposed edits to Recommendation 9.1 re: Category 1 Safeguards
by Levine, Gertrude Nov. 17, 2020

Nov. 17, 2020

Hi all, In last Thursday's SubPro meeting, we discussed Topic 9: Category 1 Safeguards - in particular, Recommendation 9.1, which reads, in part, as follows: "Mandatory Public Interest Commitments (PICs) currently captured in Specification 11 3(a)-(d) of the Registry Agreement must continue to be included in Registry Agreements for gTLDs in subsequent procedures. ..." The section in question was Specification 11 3(a): Specification 11 3(a)-(d): 3. Registry Operator agrees to perform the following specific public interest commitments, which commitments shall be enforceable by ICANN and through the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process . . . (a) Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name. As we discussed in the meeting, Specification 11 3(a) as currently written falls short of its intended purpose, protecting end users. It is therefore necessary to revise Specification 11 3(a) to hold new TLDs that are subject to Category 1 Safeguards accountable for their registrants' contractual compliance with those safeguards. Existing TLDs could be grandfathered as exempt from the Specification 11 3(a) revision. It seems there was some interest among the working group members to further explore this idea. I would propose changing Recommendation 9.1 in the final report to add the underlined text below: "Mandatory Public Interest Commitments (PICs) currently captured in Specification 11 3(a)-(d) of the Registry Agreement must continue to be included in Registry Agreements for gTLDs in subsequent procedures." In addition, Specification 11 3(a) should be revised to hold new TLDs that are subject to Category 1 Safeguards accountable for their registrants' contractual compliance with those safeguards. Existing TLDs could be grandfathered as exempt from the Specification 11 3(a) revision. I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts. Thanks, Gg Gertrude "Gg" Levine Digital Health Manager 847/391-4497 [cid:image002.png@01D6BC2D.DF198470]National Association of Boards of Pharmacy 1600 Feehanville Dr, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 www.nabp.pharmacy<http://www.nabp.pharmacy/> | glevine(a)nabp.pharmacy<mailto:glevine@nabp.pharmacy> [cid:image003.png@01D6BC2D.DF198470]<https://www.facebook.com/NABP1904/> [cid:image004.png@01D6BC2D.DF198470]<https://twitter.com/nabp> [cid:image005.png@01D6BC2D.DF198470]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/national-association-of-boards-of-pharmacy/> [cid:image006.png@01D6BC2D.DF198470]<https://www.youtube.com/c/NationalAssociationofBoardsofPharmacy>

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 17 November 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 13, 2020

Nov. 13, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the regular WG meeting on Tuesday, 17 November 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Note: For the schedule of the upcoming meeting topics, please see the Work Plan at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5Kn…. WG members are requested to review scheduled topics and comments prior to the meetings. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9vbkFUNEAb55oEPCFRsdrDlowh06zIUBiU…> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: Topic 41: Contractual Compliance<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PglquKDd8amHiqI6Wfko0Plb80RPpbEjTMS…> Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mkfwWZtyGAOdIbN3LsgNtDnVs6ehPmgrONz…> Topic 38: Registrar Support for New TLDs<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mkfwWZtyGAOdIbN3LsgNtDnVs6ehPmgrONz…> Topic 25: IDNs<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8Q…> 1. 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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 November 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 13, 2020

Nov. 13, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the working sessions on 12 November 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/2020-11-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 34: Community Applications<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw…> ACTION ITEM: WG members are requested to review the notes from the three sessions on the CPE Guidelines: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…, https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…, https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Row 18 – ALAC re: (1) A need for greater community participation in ICANN’s engagement of a CPE service provider/panellists, namely in 4 aspects: (i) the development of criteria by which ICANN Org is to evaluate and select candidates; (ii) the shortlisting of identified candidates; (iii) the final selection process; and (iv) the terms for inclusion into the contract between ICANN Org and the selected candidate. ACTION ITEM: Take the ALAC 1(ii-iv) comments to the list for discussion. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Javier Rua has made some updates to his SOI. He has moved from ALAC to the ccNSO. 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: Topic 9: RVC/PICS<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AG…> Concerns about exemptions/waivers (Spec 11 3(s) and 3(b)): Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual) re: Exemptions/waivers: Concerns about exemptions/waivers for single-registrant TLDs for Spec 11 3(a) and 3(b); Row 12 – NABP re: stronger enforcement needed; Row 15 – BC; Row 27 -- Dotzon GmbH; Row 31 – ICANN Org Discussion: -- The exemptions aren’t necessarily tied to a single registrant TLD. -- Discuss whether this matters. Does the same rationale exists for the .brand TLDs if they aren’t a single-registrant TLD? -- Seem to be a good grouping of those who accept the wording as is. -- Recommendation and rationale don’t mention Spec 13. Wording seems good as is. -- No WG action noted. Content enforcement/conflicts with Bylaws: Rows 11 and 23 – NCSG; Row 29 – Board Leadership Comments: This will be covered in the discussions with ICANN Board Liaisons to solution within the Working Group. -- Hold for discussion with Board Liaisons. Strong enforcement needed: Row 12 – NABP; Row 13 -- Swiss Government OFCOM; Row 21 – RrSG; Row 30 -- GAC Leadership Comments: This also relates to topic from last week on Base Agreement where provisions only require that provisions documented in RRA, not actually doing it. Do we want to revise the recommendation to also include compliance of the PICs?; Consider limiting waiver of PICs to only those true single entity Spec 13 and Spec 9 CoC exemptions. -- Could there be a simpler mechanism to bring a complaint, other than the PICDRP. -- Will come back to this discussion in relation to the PICs and Bylaws conflicts. DNS Abuse: Row 13 -- Swiss Government OFCOM; Row 14 – IPC; Row 14 – BC; Row 16 – INTA; Row 17 – GBOC; Row 20 – ALAC; Row 30 – GAC -- Reminder that SubPro filed a letter with the Council that this should be handled in a holistic manner and is beyond the scope of this PDP. -- Some groups did not like this decision (GAC, ALAC). -- Nothing for the WG to do on the DNS abuse comments at this point. Topic 34: Community Applications<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw…> Definition of Community: -- Noted those comments. -- Address by providing more flexibility in the Guidelines (see notes from sessions during public comment period: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…, https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…, https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Row 11 -- Swiss Government OFCOM; Row 14 -- InfoNetworks LLC; Row 16 -- fTLD Registry Services, LLC re: threshold too high in 2012. Row 11 -- Swiss Government OFCOM re: New idea: Provide support for non-profit community-based applications. Leadership Comments: This is a new proposal. -- No WG action noted. Row 16 -- fTLD Registry Services, LLC Leadership Comments: Discuss the role of application change requests and community based applications. We did not conclude the discussion on whether there are any sections in the Application which should not be allowed to have material changes. -- No WG action noted. Row 18 – ALAC re: (1) A need for greater community participation in ICANN’s engagement of a CPE service provider/panellists, namely in 4 aspects: (i) the development of criteria by which ICANN Org is to evaluate and select candidates; (ii) the shortlisting of identified candidates; (iii) the final selection process; and (iv) the terms for inclusion into the contract between ICANN Org and the selected candidate. Discussion: -- Why would we not want community involvement? -- There could be increased bureaucracy or bias. -- I don't know what "greater community participation" means. Isn't that what we are doing now and what the IRT will do? Haven't we already developed analogous mechanisms like the selectors for the IRP standing panel? ACTION ITEM: Take the ALAC 1(ii-iv) comments to the list. Row 19 – Board re: recommendations should be more detailed. Leadership Comments: Reflect larger discussion of ICANN Bylaws issues. This relates to discussions we had during Public Comment Period Row 21 – ICANN Org Leadership Comments: On changing the Principles: We accept that in 2012 ICANN staff decided to outsource the evaluation of CPE. Whether ICANN decides to outsource those evaluations or not is a decision for ICANN Org so long as the recommendations in the report are carried out. Re - Efficiency, transparency and predictability, we have made a number of recommendations including: - All rules published in advance, including those used by evaluators to assess criteria, - There must be a verification of those entities that support and oppose Community Status - We have added clarity to CPE Guidelines. - We have encouraged more dialogue - Evaluators must disclose all outside research and give applicant chance to comment - We have added a challenge process - We have synchronized the public comment periods Question: Can we limit the potential Accountability Mechanism challenges?

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 12 November 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Nov. 13, 2020

Nov. 13, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 12 November 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/4oXzC> (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 Andrea

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 12 November 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 10, 2020

Nov. 10, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the regular WG meeting on Thursday, 12 November 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Note: For the schedule of the upcoming meeting topics, please see the Work Plan at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5Kn…. WG members are requested to review scheduled topics and comments prior to the meetings. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9vbkFUNEAb55oEPCFRsdrDlowh06zIUBiU…> https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: Topic 9: RVC/PICS<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AG…> Topic 34: Community Applications<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw…> 1. 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 Procedure Working Group call | Monday, 09 November 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Nov. 10, 2020

Nov. 10, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 09 November 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-11-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> (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 Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 09 November 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 10, 2020

Nov. 10, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the working sessions on 09 November 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/2020-11-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 31: Objections<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf…> Row 21 – ICANN Org re: Questions about "arbitration forum". ACTION ITEM: Check the language to make sure it is clear. Switch the terminology to make it clear -- use "panel" not "arbitration forum" or "arbitration" or be consistent. Topic 30: GAC Early Warning/GAC Consensus Advice<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf…> Row 13 – Swiss Government OFCOM and Row 14 – GAC France re: Concerns about removal of "strong presumption" Reiterates GAC concerns listed under "new information" and Row 20 – GAC re: WG shouldn't make recommendations on limiting GAC activities under Bylaws; amend Recommendation 30.6 to allow applicants to address issues raised in GAC Early Warning. ACTION ITEM: Take the discussion to the list on the three options with respect to Recommendation 30.3 and GAC Consensus Advice. Options: 1) don’t change the language of the recommendation; 2) clarify the recommendation as suggested by IPC; 3) revise the recommendation to use the language it as in 12.3 of the Bylaws. Row 21 – ICANN Org re: Clarification on whether amendments permitted in response to "non-consensus advice"; need clear process and deadlines to change an application. ACTION ITEM: Clarify with Leadership the terminology to use be consistent re: “GAC Advice” and “GAC Consensus Advice”. ACTION ITEM: Send the question to the WG list: “is the WG recommending particular actions in the event that the GAC issued non-consensus advice?” Topic 28: Role of Application Comment<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8Q…> Row 10 – Jamie Baxter re: Same application comment period for Standard and Community applications, for a predetermined period. ACTION ITEM: Add a recommendation along the lines suggested by Jamie Baxter/ALAC: “the Applicant Comment Period should only run for the predetermined period outlined in the AGB. Any comments received during the period would be the only comments considered during evaluations.” Row 14 -- PETILLION Law Firm re: Inform applicant if information is submitted on confidential portions of an application. ACTION ITEM: Revise Recommendation 28.13 that if such information is submitted, the applicant should be fully informed of the submitted information and be able to respond through the same mechanism. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments: Topic 31: Objections<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf…> Row 14 – ALAC re: ALAC should be equal in standing to the Independent Objector insofar as not having to prove a link to the community invoked in its Community Objection. Leadership Comments: WG Discussed whether ALAC should automatically have standing for Community-based objections and there was no agreement within the Working Group to give ALAC that. Does WG want to revisit? Discussion: -- No agreement in Work Track 3 on this. They didn’t want to duplicate the Independent Objector role. -- No interest from the WG to revisit this issue. Row 16 -- Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and PETILLION Law Firm re: Applicants in String Confusion Objection set should respond if an objection is filed. Leadership Comments: Does the Working Group wish to consider a default option? -- No WG action noted. Row 18 – ICANN Board re: Identify the purpose of continuing the IO role. Leadership Comments: We did discuss this and there was no agreement on changing this part of the program. Discussion: -- No agreement in the WG to keep the IO, but no agreement to get rid of it. -- Decide whether the WG should respond to the Board to address their comments. Could say that the same justifications for the IO program exist as they did for the 2012 round. -- Don't get continued employment of an IO. It was a failed experiment and the Board is right to question us. The best we could say that some WG members think the same justifications as in 2012 exist for subsequent rounds, other WG members think it’s a wasteful and unnecessary program. Row 19 – ALAC re: Questions about budget/resources for IO panel Leadership Comments: More an issue for ICANN Org/IRT. Row 21 – ICANN Org re: Questions about "arbitration forum". Leadership Comments: These are all clarifications - we should check the language to make sure it is clear. #1 and #2: Arbitration forum is the same thing as the panel. Switch the terminology to make it clear -- use "panel" not "arbitration forum" or "arbitration" or be consistent. #4 - The answer is to determine whether they are reasonable. ACTION ITEM: Check the language to make sure it is clear. Switch the terminology to make it clear -- use "panel" not "arbitration forum" or "arbitration" or be consistent. Topic 30: GAC Early Warning/GAC Consensus Advice<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf…> Row 13 – Swiss Government OFCOM and Row 14 – GAC France re: Concerns about removal of "strong presumption" Reiterates GAC concerns listed under "new information" and Row 20 – GAC re: WG shouldn't make recommendations on limiting GAC activities under Bylaws; amend Recommendation 30.6 to allow applicants to address issues raised in GAC Early Warning. Leadership Comments: Should we amend the language also submitted by Swiss Govt on "possible" mechanisms to address GAC Advice? Recommendation 30.3: As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, GAC Consensus Advice must include a clearly articulated rationale.[1] The Working Group recommends that GAC Consensus Advice be limited to the scope set out in the applicable Bylaws provisions and elaborate on any “interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.” To the extent that the rationale for GAC Consensus Advice is based on public policy considerations, well-founded merits-based public policy reasons must be articulated. Discussion: -- WG recommendations can’t change the Bylaws. -- GAC says it can provide advice on policy, which may not be in the law. -- The recommendation is not a Bylaws change. -- Example: There is no law against Closed Generics. The existing advice is based on public policy. -- On the GAC Consensus Advice, when that came through after applications were submitted was problematic. -- GAC when it provides advice it has to provide a rationale. -- Make sure we are being consistent in the recommendations. -- Options re GAC Consensus Advice: 1) leave as is; 2) clarify as suggested by IPC; 3) state it as 12.3 of the Bylaws states it. ACTION ITEM: Take the discussion to the list on the three options with respect to Recommendation 30.3 and GAC Consensus Advice. Options: 1) don’t change the language of the recommendation; 2) clarify the recommendation as suggested by IPC; 3) revise the recommendation to use the language it as in 12.3 of the Bylaws. Row 21 – ICANN Org re: Clarification on whether amendments permitted in response to "non-consensus advice"; need clear process and deadlines to change an application. Leadership Comments: Fix terminology to be consistent. Clarity on Deadlines? Discussion: -- Look at 12:2a1: That’s what we had in mind when we made the recommendations and maybe the IPC. -- Re: non-consensus advice in 2012 – is the WG recommending particular actions in the event that the GAC issued non-consensus advice? -- Should we change the recommendation to say that applicants should be able to change an application in response to non-consensus advice? ACTION ITEM: Clarify with Leadership the terminology to use be consistent re: “GAC Advice” and “GAC Consensus Advice”. ACTION ITEM: Send the question to the WG list: “is the WG recommending particular actions in the event that the GAC issued non-consensus advice?” Topic 28: Role of Application Comment<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8Q…> Row 10 – Jamie Baxter and also Row 12 – ALAC re: “the Applicant Comment Period should only run for the predetermined period outlined in the AGB. Any comments received during the period would be the only comments considered during evaluations.” Leadership Comments: This is still an issue. Agreed that it should be for a definitive period of time, but didn't say that they had to be at the exact same time. Recommendation 34.6: Evaluators must continue to be able to send Clarifying Questions to CPE applicants but further, must be able to engage in written dialogue with them as well. Recommendation 34.7: Evaluators must be able to issue Clarifying Questions, or utilize similar methods to address potential issues, to those who submit letters of opposition to community-based applications.  Recommendation 34.9: If the Community Priority Evaluation Panel conducts independent research while evaluating an application, limitations on this research and additional requirements must apply. The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: “The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have an opportunity to respond. The applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against the applicant or application.” Implementation Guideline 34.10: To support transparency, if the Community Priority Evaluation Panel relied on research for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. Discussion: -- Comment period needs to be aligned with when the objections happen. -- There were never two application comment periods. ICANN just never closed the application comment period for community applicants. -- Question: Is there information that could come in during the evaluation that would be subject to public review? Answer: Research is provided to the applicant and others could get clarifying question. There isn’t a general open public comment period. But opportunities for those who have provided letters of objection or support to provide clarifications. -- If there was independent research thought we said that the applicant would be notified. Might be prejudicial if an applicant couldn’t get public comment on research that the applicant doesn’t agree with. -- In Rec 34.10 we do say the applicant can respond, but it’s not a public comment. -- Add a recommendation to specify that there is only one comment period and that all comments should be provided in that period. ACTION ITEM: Add a recommendation along the lines suggested by Jamie Baxter/ALAC: “the Applicant Comment Period should only run for the predetermined period outlined in the AGB. Any comments received during the period would be the only comments considered during evaluations.” Row 14 -- PETILLION Law Firm re: Inform applicant if information is submitted on confidential portions of an application. Leadership Comments: Ask the WG if this is a good clarification. ACTION ITEM: Revise Recommendation 28.13 that if such information is submitted, the applicant should be fully informed of the submitted information and be able to respond through the same mechanism. Row 15 – ALAC re: Clarify consequences of violation of Recommendation 28.3 and related IG; allow applicant time to reply to late comments. Leadership Comments: Consequence of a violation is that it won't be considered. Bring this up with the WG. 28.12 -- It's a clarification. No WG action noted. Row 17 – ICANN Org re: Differentiate between Recommendation 28.3 and related IG; concerns with data privacy, verification, confidentiality, security, and implementation. Leadership Comments: Many of these are clarifications. These can be noted, but nothing new or to change. Might be information to be provided to the IRT to consider. No WG action noted. ________________________________ [1] Section 12.3. PROCEDURES of the ICANN Bylaws states: “. . .each Advisory Committee shall ensure that the advice provided to the Board by such Advisory Committee is communicated in a clear and unambiguous written statement, including the rationale for such advice.” See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en.

1 0