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

Mp3, Attendance, AC Recording & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 10 April 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter April 10, 2017

April 10, 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, 10 April 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/6rDRAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-10apr17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3qcegfprp3/ 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/6rDRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 10 April 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 10 April 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… John Laprise:Good morning all Michael Flemming:Good evening Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone. glad to attend this meeting after some time out of the office. Vanda Scartezini:yes clearly Michael Flemming:Just closed generics this week for WT2. Michael Flemming:That is all. Christa Taylor:WT1 meeting tomorrow at 20:00 Michael Flemming:I have added a few edits to my SOI. Nothing significant, however. John Laprise:Minor, non-material edits. Vanda Scartezini:thnaks Christa. in my agenda already. Vanda Scartezini:tks Christa Vanda Scartezini:thanks Christa Jonathan Zuck:nnot yet Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we were not doing WT updates Julie Hedlund:Lots of background noise. Reminder to mute when not speaking. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):but ok if we do later I guess, not that WT4 has any update to make since last Plenary John Laprise:RE: Trust (apologies I'm in a loud environment)- The new gTLDS are simply extending the long tail of trust. The original gTLDs will always (barring force majeure) be "most trusted" with ccTLDs following. New gTLDs are highly unlikely to ever instill the level of trust that .com does. Trust comes from saying what you're going to do and and then doing it repeatedly, over time. We can declare the first but the execution is not our call. We don't control Trust and have little influence over it. avri doria:The fact that they have already said that should be in our considerations already. John Laprise:Are we distinguishing end user trust from organizational/system trust? It sounds like we are conflating the two. Paul McGrady:I think we may be confliating trust with consumer expectation. Trust needs to hold steady. Consumer expectations change based upon new products and services. We should distinguish between the two. Kavouss Arasteh:Avri+1 Alan Greenberg:@John, it is the jump from trust of the org to trust of ANY use of that TLD that is the difficult part.. Currently my bacnk uses a .com, and I *know* I cannot trust every .com. So the question is what is different to make me consider .bank differently, and by extension, can I presume I can also trust .doctor.. John Laprise:Thanks for the clarification: I revert to my previous assertion: Trust comes from saying what you're going to do and and then doing it repeatedly, over time. We can declare the first but the execution is not our call. We don't control Trust and have little influence over it as it pertains to end users. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Alan, with regard to .doctor, the word has many different meanings and is not just about a doctor of medicine so how do you apply trust in that context? Rubens Kuhl:It's also of notice that some restricted registries operate on a pre-registration verification system, while others verify after registration (and among those there are ones doing 100% checks, and other doing sampling) John Laprise:@Alan I agree but IMO that requires an immense public advertizing campaign to introduce and convince the public that a new gTLD is worthy of trust. Kavouss Arasteh:Why .Doctor shoul apply any other thing than Medcin John Laprise:And there's no guarrantee of success, especially if domains are not scrupulous. Donna Austin, Neustar:@John, I would argue that the absence of an immense public advertising campaign regarding the introduction of new gTLDs and explaining to consumers that they exist is one of the reasons why folks don't know whether to trust something that doesn't have .com at the end of it. John Laprise:@Donna That's part of it but the larger component is the socialization of brands and the use of the original gTLDs for two decades. John Laprise:All original Internet users _know_ the original gTLDs Kavouss Arasteh:Why there should be no tust to .com but thrust to .bank? John Laprise:@Kavous: ask end users. .com is a known quantity to them; .bank isn't. Kavouss Arasteh:Do you mean that since . com is a known quantity then there is no trust? John Laprise:No. I'm saying that if you show two cards to an end user with one saying BankofEngland.com on one and BankofEngland.bank on the other, I'm strongly guessing that there will be a large preference among end users for the former over the latter solely based on familiarity. Michael Flemming:Would, however, certain TLDs have committed to PICs if GAC did not offer advice on this? Michael Flemming:Paul took my thunder. Kavouss Arasteh:but this is contrary to what someone's statement that there is no or less trust to . com vis a vis . bank John Laprise:Trust is an end user perception, not an absolute. I'm talking about how end users actually perceive and weigh information and the role of familiarity and use. John Laprise:.com ismore familiar than .bank and people tend to shy away from the unfamiliar Christa Taylor:Makes sense and helpful. Thank-you! Christa Taylor:yes, makes sense! John Laprise:Question: we mentioned ROI earlier. Is ICANN publishing any ROI data prior to the next round? Rubens Kuhl:I have to drop now, unfortunately. Will listen for the remaining of the call when available. Drew Bagley:Thanks everyone - please spread the word about the public comment period Paul McGrady:Well done Zuck & Co. Thank you. Christa Taylor:sorry mic not connected I need a min Vanda Scartezini:I have dropped and back now Emily Barabas:list of presenters is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Steve Chan:Nothing to add from me Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Avri Emily Barabas:Nothing from my end Emily Barabas:The GAC Working Group on the Protection of Geographic Names will present Susan Payne:@Kavouss, Olga gave the expression of interest Emily Barabas:Olga is the one who signed up on behalf of this group. The presenters may vary to accomodate the different time zones. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now then, talk again soon... Robin Gross:Thanks, Avri, and all. Bye. Please join WT3 today at 20:00 UTC on community issues Christa Taylor 2:Thank-you Phil Buckingham: thanks Avri Vanda Scartezini:my connection quite poor today Vanda Scartezini:my connection quite poor today - will comment online further.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 10 April 2017
by Julie Hedlund April 10, 2017

April 10, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 10 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes will be provided separately. The referenced slides also are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. Presentation and Q&A with Competition, Consumer Choice & Consumer Trust (CCT-RT) leadership (see attached slides): -- Interim report -- still some studies in the field: DNS abuse, trademark holders, impact of things at a regional level and of parking. -- Currently in a public comment period to the end of April. Convening in Johannesburg to go over comments. -- Slides include questions from the PDP WG. Open up for discussion and get questions answered. -- CCT-RT could provide some topic prioritization, rather than policymaking. Slide 2: Macro Questions/Suggestions: -- CCT-RT's task is to submit recommendations to the Board and they are the body that would accept or reject them. The recommendations are aimed at who would be implementing them. Explains why there is more than one group associated with a recommendation. -- Different about this review: ICANN staff have asked that at least a subset of the RT remain intact to help talk about implementation. Intention to remain engaged and keep the discussion open. -- Re: conflicting outcomes, could happen. Address in implementation. -- Will consider word usage and also re: making recommendations more precise. Keeping them more granular made it easier to talk about them. Slide 3: Recommendation 10 (slide 3): Debate remains as to which PDP (RPM or SubPro). Slide 4: Recommendation 14 (slide 4): -- Survey of end users reveals risk and opportunity. Some expectation of relationship between top level domains and the usage of those domains. Talking about trying to create incentives to match user expectations -- having restriction on TLDs; using top level name as a way to navigate the web. Talk about this as something to be cautious of. -- Examples: end users going to a TLD that ended in .photography would expect a web site to have something to do with photography. Where the trust relationship exists. Not a recommendation to create mandates. Identification of a risk in consumer trust. -- By "user expectation" it was almost you know it when you see it definition. Concerns on how these expectation move into the territory of content -- that there is an expectation of content managing the expectation of a TLD word. -- The end user would know it when he or she saw it. That would be the user expectation. This was part of a larger survey on trust. Suggested that there was a user expectation that the top level domain would be an indicator of use. -- When we are talking about user trust and expectation and "semantic web" that is almost playing a cruel trick on users. You set them up with something they can trust, such as .bank, but then they get something that they don't know they can trust. How can we use the term "user trust" when there is such an unknown? Question deserves further thought. Maybe consumer education is a component as well as incentives. How to mitigate that risk looking forward without getting ICANN into content management. -- GAC is likely to say something -- to what extent do you expect that? Comments are reinforced by end user expectation. Will need to look at hard in highly regulated industries. -- How do strings become more trustworthy if ICANN gets involved in content as opposed to where we are now? What in the survey got us to enforcing compliance? There are commitments that .bank made and adhering is a function of ICANN compliance today. The recommendation is about incenting these kind of commitments. May need to think about it from a policy perspective without making it mandatory. -- The comments and statements by the GAC that have gone before are already part of the set of issues that we need to address. -- We see this expectation as a risk for future trust. >From the chat: John Laprise: RE: Trust (apologies I'm in a loud environment)- The new gTLDS are simply extending the long tail of trust. The original gTLDs will always (barring force majeure) be "most trusted" with ccTLDs following. New gTLDs are highly unlikely to ever instill the level of trust that .com does. Trust comes from saying what you're going to do and and then doing it repeatedly, over time. We can declare the first but the execution is not our call. We don't control Trust and have little influence over it. avri doria: The fact that they [GAC] have already said that should be in our considerations already. John Laprise: Are we distinguishing end user trust from organizational/system trust? It sounds like we are conflating the two. Paul McGrady: I think we may be conflating trust with consumer expectation. Trust needs to hold steady. Consumer expectations change based upon new products and services. We should distinguish between the two. Alan Greenberg: @John, it is the jump from trust of the org to trust of ANY use of that TLD that is the difficult part.. Currently my bacnk uses a .com, and I *know* I cannot trust every .com. So the question is what is different to make me consider .bank differently, and by extension, can I presume I can also trust .doctor. John Laprise: Thanks for the clarification: I revert to my previous assertion: Trust comes from saying what you're going to do and and then doing it repeatedly, over time. We can declare the first but the execution is not our call. We don't control Trust and have little influence over it as it pertains to end users. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Alan, with regard to .doctor, the word has many different meanings and is not just about a doctor of medicine so how do you apply trust in that context? Rubens Kuhl: It's also of notice that some restricted registries operate on a pre-registration verification system, while others verify after registration (and among those there are ones doing 100% checks, and other doing sampling). John Laprise: @Alan I agree but IMO that requires an immense public advertizing campaign to introduce and convince the public that a new gTLD is worthy of trust. Kavouss Arasteh: Why .Doctor shoul apply any other thing than Medcin John Laprise: And there's no guarrantee of success, especially if domains are not scrupulous. Donna Austin, Neustar: @John, I would argue that the absence of an immense public advertising campaign regarding the introduction of new gTLDs and explaining to consumers that they exist is one of the reasons why folks don't know whether to trust something that doesn't have .com at the end of it. John Laprise: @Donna That's part of it but the larger component is the socialization of brands and the use of the original gTLDs for two decades. All original Internet users _know_ the original gTLDs Kavouss Arasteh: Why there should be no tust to .com but thrust to .bank? John Laprise: @Kavous: ask end users. .com is a known quantity to them; .bank isn't. Recommendation 33 (slide 5): -- Frustration with data availability for doing the competition analysis, safeguards, etc. There are a number of data-oriented recommendations. -- Note sure those data would be available by the time the PDP WG makes its decisions. -- High-priority items have about an 18-month time frame. Recommendation 34 (slide 6): Will understand better once we get our first DNS abuse report. So many variables that go into DNS abuse. Good to have ongoing regular data. Recommendation 35 (slide 7): Goes back to the idea of consumer trust and trying to do a cost-benefit analysis. Recommendation 36 (slide 8): Will take back to clarify what "undue" preferences means. Recommendation 38 (slide 9): No issues. Recommendation 39 (Slide 10): -- Voluntary PICs in first round came about in a complicated way. In the next round provide enough time for all members of the community to weigh in to provide the safeguard that these are in the public interest. Make sure there is plenty of time for that. -- That will require that everyone quites tinkering with the rules. >From the chat: Michael Flemming: Would, however, certain TLDs have committed to PICs if GAC did not offer advice on this? Recommendation 43 (slide 11): -- Somewhat open ended. Low application rate from the Global South. Made some attempts to understand that rate. There were some inequities. -- Recommendations for improving the outreach program, but also take a step back -- should our goal be to get more applications from the Global South, or make sure everyone who might apply finds out in time to do so. If the decision is made the applications are the priority that would require different recommendations. -- I note that you say that the Global South needs to be defined. Another term is the "developing world" or countries with "developing economies". This particular recommendation is not about targeting developing economies, but applications by businesses in developing economies. Question is deciding whether it is priority to get those applications. Recommendation 46 (slide 12): -- Correct that this is inconsistent terminology. Meant to be the same as "Global South" or "developing economies". -- Valid question as to whether recommendation would pertain to more than just operating costs. Question to consider if we want to encourage applications from the developing world. May be less relevant if application costs come down. Recommendation 47 (slide 13): Partly aimed at PDP WG is guidelines for submission to be included in the AGB -- more clarity on format for advice from the GAC. Recommendation 48 (slide 14): No questions. Recommendation 49 (slide 15): No questions. Recommendation 50 (slide 16): Will take back the PDP WG question as advice. 2. Work Track Updates: Work Track 1 (Christa Taylor): Meeting on 11 April 2000 UTC. Topics: Further discussing costs and ceilings and RSP program and Donna Austin's proposal. Work Track 2 (Michael Flemming): Meeting on 13 April at 2100 UTC to continue discussion on closed generics. Last week looked at pros and cons. Feedback was orientied more to the pros. This week look at the cons further to establish the potential harm. Work Track 3 (Robin Gross): Meeting on 10 April at 2000 UTC. Continue discussion with community issues: objections, evaluation, etc. Continue discussion of Council of Europe report. Continue discussion of issues raised on the last call re: costs versus benefits. Work Track 4 (Cheryl Langdon-Orr): Meeting on 20 April at 2000 UTC. Continuing conversation on name collisions. 3. Drafting Teams: -- Email lists are activated. -- First drafts will be appearing over the next week or so. -- Clarify that the update that the first thought drafts will go to just those Drafting Teams, not yet to the full PDP WG. 4. CC2 Public Comment: Reminder people of CC2 and the need to help your groups to get responses. 5. Update on Geographic Names Webinar: -- Passed the deadline for speakers. -- List of speakers on the wiki https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Geographic+Names+Webinar+and+ICAN…. -- Presentations are due by the 18th. -- In the process of requesting the sessions for Johannesburg.-- Is there anyone from GAC? Yes, GAC Working Group on the Protection of Geographic Names will present. Expression of interest from Olga Cavalli.

1 0

Meeting Invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedure Working Group on Monday, 24 April 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter April 10, 2017

April 10, 2017

Dear all, The following call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group is scheduled to take place on Monday, 24 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC. 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London, 22:00 CEST for other places see:http://tinyurl.com/zxv53ge ADOBE CONNECT Room : https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg If you require a dial-out, please email me with your preferred contact number at gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: NEW GTLD Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 10 April 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan April 6, 2017

April 6, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 10 April 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/review agenda 2. SOIs 3. Presentation and Q&A with Competition, Consumer Choice & Consumer Trust (CCT-RT) leadership. 4. AOB For this meeting and in relation to agenda item 3, we will be joined by Jonathan Zuck, Jordyn Buchanan, and Drew Bagley. If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. 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/

1 0

Working Group Newsletter - April 2017
by Emily Barabas April 6, 2017

April 6, 2017

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

- Community Comment 2 Next Steps
by Steve Chan April 4, 2017

April 4, 2017

Dear WG Members, As you probably know, the WG is currently drafting its second request for community comment. The WG co-chairs and co-leaders of the work tracks encourage you to review the draft Community Comment 2 (CC2) questions and make suggestions in the document to amend language, add questions, omit questions, etc. The WG is collaborating via Google Docs, which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…. Attached, please find an extract of the questions in Word, for those that are unable to access Google Docs. The intention is to distribute and publish these questions for public comment before ICANN58. To do so, here is the suggested path forward: · Members review and suggest changes. Some WTs may choose to discuss during their meetings, but we hope to conclude this phase on 24 February. Your contributions are critical to ensuring your voice is heard! · The full WG reviews CC2 on 27 February. This will be considered the first reading of CC2. · An additional full WG meeting will be scheduled for 6 March, where CC2 will be reviewed and be considered the second, and presumably final reading. Assuming agreement is reached on the 6 March meeting, CC2 would then be published for public comment, as well as distributed to the chairs of the various Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees. If you have any questions, please let staff or the WG leadership know. 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/

12 16

- Webinar on Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Draft Report
by Steve Chan March 29, 2017

March 29, 2017

Dear WG Members, Many of you may already be aware, but the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) will be conducting a webinar to provide information, answer questions, and collect input on their Draft Report. As many of the CCT-RT’s recommendations are directed at this PDP WG, members may find it useful to join this webinar. On 3 April 2017, there will be two separate sessions at 10:00 – 11:30 UTC and 19:00 – 20:30 UTC. Please see the announcement for full details: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-03-29-en 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/

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 28 March 2017
by Julie Hedlund March 28, 2017

March 28, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see attached the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 28 March. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes will be provided separately. The referenced slides also are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. Debrief on ICANN58 sessions, Work Track Updates Work Team 1 (Sara Bockey) -- Deep dive on RSP Program, Clarity of Application Process. Upcoming WT1 call will review comments in the ICANN58 F2F and do a deeper dive on these topics. -- New application window is getting more attention, we may see some new participant and greater participation. Work Team 2 (Michael Flemming) -- Upcoming - discussion of closed generics - potential benefits and potential harms. --IETF is discussing special use names, we should mark that as an issue. Work Team 3 (Robin Gross) -- Upcoming - CPE and Community Objections deep dive. -- (Jeff Neuman) Coming out of ICANN58, increased focus from governments on COE report. We should do a deeper dive into those and make sure we understand the recommendations. CC2 questions with respect to communities will provide communities an opportunity to share their experiences. >From the chat: Karen Day: Just wanted to add that WRT 58 - the big topic of interest from both our PDP sessions and the GAC are the community applications and the COE report. And also the Geo names will will be impacted by our upcoming discussions on Freedom of Expression Work Team 4 (Cheryl Langdon-Orr) -- Name collisions was discussed at ICANN58 and will continue in the call next week. CC2 questions were edited and pruned down. Cheryl and Avri attended APAC Space meeting. Cheryl promoted participation in discussions about IDNs. Geo name webinar - details at https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Geographic+Names+Webinar+and+ICAN… -- We need to make sure we are clear that this is only about the top level. There was discussion between the GAC, GNSO, and others about geo names at the second level at ICANN58. As we promote the webinar, we need to highlight that the focus is the top level. -- All are invited. If WT members know individuals who need an individual invitation to be presenter, please let the co-chairs know. 2. CC2 Status -- Outreach to SO/ACs; wide distribution. -- Reached out to the global stakeholder distribution. -- Translation ongoing to the comment period. -- Promoting CC2 to get geographic diversity and applicants to the first round. -- Promotion through social media channels. -- Thanks to ICANN staff to get this done so quickly after ICANN58. -- Please spread the word through your constituency and stakeholder group. -- Short answers are fine. 3. Review of recommendations from CCT-RT (See attached slides) -- Full CCT-RT report is available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.… -- Call with the leadership of the RPM to decide issues we need to address. -- Go through the CCT-RT recommendations -- and submit a comment on the work that should be delegated to us. -- Need to be explicit about this in any final report. -- Be very careful to communicate what we can do with each recommendation and if we need to act on them. -- Figure out what the CCT-RT wants to do. -- Might want to consider having someone from CCT-RT to give perspective on these recommendations. Before we reject them we need some idea from the CCT-RT. -- Read the CCT-RT report. -- We are looking at questions that we are asking them to clarify. -- Might be best when they have come out with their report. -- Will ultimately go to the Board. -- Call with CCT-RT on RPMs to see which PDP WG would tackle those. Recommendation 10 (Slide 2) -- Interesting as it was recommended to either our WG or the RPM WG. Discussion in Copenhagen: While certainly the RPM WG deals with RPM, but costs may not be in their purview. -- Looking through sunrise processes and registrations in general. There were a small number of brands that registered in a large number of TLDs. See if there is policy needed on cost review. -- Don’t know whether these would be assigned to the full WG or a Work Track. Might be a hybrid approach. >From the chat: Michael Flemming: I know I promised not to ask too many questions, but I feel this one is of importance. Will we be assigning these recommendations to individual WT/Full WG or will we just do this on the full WG level? Thanks. Michael Flemming: I will leave it be for now. Just that the key word is "consider" here. And how much of we can do with that from a policy standpoint. Recommendation 14 (Slide 3) -- Listed as a prerequisite. -- Is there any kind of incentive for industries to register in that TLD. -- Interesting in that not sure from a policy perspective we would want to have incentives, such as a monetary incentive. -- On safety and security of user information there is a note in the text on looking at things like new regulations. -- While it may not be possible we will have to have a good response as to why. -- Point out that the way some of these recommendations are written some say “consider” and some are a mandate; we need to be careful to communicate what we can do with each recommendation – do we have to act on it? -- Consider having someone from the CCT-RT come and talk with the WG go over the perspective behind the recommendations. Also, read the transcript from the Wednesday afternoon meeting that occurred during ICANN58 (15 March) and read the report. -- Stages: 1) looking at questions and asking them to clarify; 2) respond to questions when they come out with their draft, which may be a better time to have the in-depth discussion. Still more stages where we can comment. >From the chat: Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, correct. The study found a link between restrictions and level of trust. Donna Austin, Neustar: I'm not sure it is possible to 'create incentives to encourage' such things. So I think I'm agreeing with Michael. Greg Shatan: Not possible or not desirable? Victor Zhang: thanks, I think this must be handled before the Next Round ~ Donna Austin, Neustar: These seem also to be taken from the GAC safeguards associated with regulated sectors, Christa Taylor: +1 Greg - the insight would be really helpful Michael Flemming: +1 Christa Taylor:+1 Greg - the insight would be really helpful Michael Flemming:+1 to Greg, we need background for each of these recommendations Michael Flemming: Still, Jeff, having a separate session or presentation that presents each of these recommendations that are directed at our group would do well. Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jeff, there is a lot of information in the body of the report. Greg Shatan: I was there, and I still feel that we need more conceptual understanding of why they say what they say. Jeff Neuman: Emily - Also the link to our working session Karen Day: +1 Greg. I came away similarly scratching my head at what they are trying to get at with a lot of these. Recommendation 33 (Slide 4) -- Have questions about this one – not clear how our WG would be doing this. -- Think they are trying to basically look at the theory that those TLDs with restrictions would have more trust – would like to compare the TLDs with restrictions and those without. Not sure we would be in a position to do this. -- Not a prerequisite. -- May require ICANN to collect the data and provide it to the WG, but timing may not make sense. Greg Shatan: Note that Rec 33 is sent to ICANN Org and future CCT-RTs as well as us.... Trang Nguyen: I believe this recommendation requires ICANN org to collect the data and provide to the PDP WG. However, the timing doesn't make sense -- or rather the priority level Donna Austin, Neustar: It looks like a tough one to gather data for. Greg Shatan: I think one would need to define concretely what you are actually measuring. Recommendation 34 (Slide 5) -- This is high priority. -- Includes the category 1 restrictions. -- Question whether it is this PDP or RPM. Probably intended for us. >From the chat: Michael Flemming: This says PDP working group, but does that mean us? avri doria: I believe so, but we can confirm. Michael Flemming: We need to, because the Review looks at RPM PDP Working Group, Subpro, and others. Karen Day: I believe that those which do not specify a particular PDP are up for debate as to which PDP Emily Barabas: Some of the recommendations are directed to a PDP WG, but do not specify which group. These are included in the slides, as well as those that are specifically for this PDP. Recommendation 35 (Slide 6) -- High priority but not a prerequisite. -- Not sure this is something for us, other than the analysis of data. -- Ask a clarification question. >From the chat: Trang Nguyen: All of the data collection is directed at icann org Recommendation 36 (Slide 7) -- Public comments on impact of registration restrictions on competition. -- Restrictions in Spec 11 on highly regulated strings. -- We need to do some research about the terms "undue preferences" – refers to communiques from the GAC; should use “unjustified” rather than “undue” – having an impact on competition. -- Impact of next gTLD registration restrictions. -- Need clarity on this interpretation (see Kristina’s comments), particularly on the word “undue”. -- “restrictions on competition” what is this in reference to (see Greg’s comments) – Need clarification too; could refer to closed TLDs favored some registrants over others; no reason to have those. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Rec. 36 seems inconsistent with Rec. 14. Am I misunderstanding? OK, thanks. I'll read that section of the report. Greg Shatan: We need more clarity on what. the "restrictions on competition" are. Not sure that "restricts competition." Recommendation 38 and 39 (Slides 8 and 9) --- ccTLD Team trying to evaluate the voluntary PICs and their effectiveness. -- Background: The CCT-RT was trying to evaluate PICs and whether they have any relation to increasing trust and competition. Trying to understand the rationale for TLDs to agree to PICs. Many TLDs did PICs because they felt the were forced to. Relates to recommendation 39. If we have PICs in the next application window we should make sure that there’s enough time for the PICs to be reviewed by the community and the GAC to provide advice. Provide a mechanism for PICs to be reviewed. -- Kristina’s question below: Don’t think they are recommending that PICs should not be permitted. Note Greg’s comment re: “voluntary” PICs. See clarity in our comments to the CCT-RT. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): So is CCT effectively recommending that voluntary PICs *should not* be permitted if not included in the original application? Greg Shatan: This refers to "voluntary" PICs, so we wouldn't be mandating them necessarily. Michael Flemming: All we would need to do is say "If there are volunteer pics, then please state the goal". Donna Austin, Neustar: We can set objectives, but that doesn't mean they will be met. Recommendation 43 (Slide 10) -- Considerable discussion at working session at ICANN58. -- Set objectives for applications from the Global South including defining it. Need measurable goals although CCT-RT weren’t looking for an actual number. Just some way to assess whether having a Global South financial program meets a goal. Whether these programs are effective. -- Difficult to tackle. -- Would like to know what they mean by the "Global South" and what they mean by measurable goals. -- If we set objectives and we don’t meet them people will assume that it is a failure, but don’t necessarily agree. -- Need clarity on whether “needs to” = “should”. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Does "needs to" = "should" in the must/should/may scheme? Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree Jeff, a lot of potential difficulties with this one. difficulties with this one. Christa Taylor 2: A difficult one considering the difficulty of determining the 'middle' applicant Christa Taylor 2: yes Recommendation 46 (slide 11) -- Revisit the applicant support program. -- Applying for and running TLD is a lot more than $185,000. Cover overall costs including subsidies for “underserved communities”. -- Considering in Work Track 1. -- Inconsistent terminology – ask whether the terms are interchangeable: “underserved communities” versus “Global South”. -- In 2011 asked registries if they wanted to be included on a list to participate in a program to provide other forms of support. Nothing was done with the list. Question: Did ICANN refer the community to these registries did anyone contact the registries? Answer: ICANN did not try to play matchmaker and no one directly contacted the registries. -- Subsidies are different from price regulation. -- Costs could be considered with competition. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Is "underserved communities" different from "Global South"? Michael Flemming: On this one, I really think we are limited at looking at costs that are outside of the scope of ICANN. Back end costs, etc. are determined by the provider. Christa Taylor 2: I think Global South was from AMGlobal's focus in S. America vs. other geographic areas. avri doria: and do they mean to include both? avri doria: underserved communities is a term a lot of us try to use instead of Global south, in general Michael Flemming: Being willing to participate in a subsidized program or volunteer to do is different than price regulation. So, that would be something to explore. Greg Shatan 2: Isn't Rec 46 only about application costs, not operation costs? Robin Gross: underserved communities does sound more descriptive and accurate Christa Taylor 2: Same with volunteers who would support potential registries - it was posted on the ICANN site Michael Flemming: I think the costs of a back end could be associated with application in this case. As the way these recommendations are written, I wouldn't doubt if they wanted to include that. Key thing to ask for is clarity. Trang Nguyen: ICANN did not play matchmaker, only provided the forum for those wishing to provide pro bono services and those looking for them to be listed. Certainly, the program can be evolved. not directly. Recommendation 47 (Slide 12) -- Required by the Bylaws – could we create more structure on how GAC provides advice and early warning and a template on how that advice is provided. -- Part is to ensure that the advice from the GAC is actionable. Recommendation 48 (Slide 13) -- Something we are already doing: reviewing the community applications and address the concerns raised by the different groups. Make sure these are considered in policies for next round. -- Make sure we understand the concerns and ask questions on if it isn’t clear. Recommendation 49 (Slide 14) -- Already discussing and addressing. -- Come up with clear processes for these types of disputes going forward. Recommendation 50 (Slide 15) -- Low priority and shouldn’t be for this WG. We may not be around at this point. -- While we are looking at these and pulling out issues, it is not the review the CCT-RT is looking for: a catalog for all decisions made for next CCT-RT. -- Agree that as a prerequisite all of our core recommendations would be a higher priority. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can't we persuade some law student somewhere to write a law review article that covers rec. 50? Michael Flemming: We should submit those as a part of the Public Comment, no? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Michael: I'd rather we got their response before public comment so our public comment is appropriately directed. Trang Nguyen: Public comment is currently slated to close on 27 April. Questions: -- When do we have to have the clarifying questions back to the CCT-RT? How do we plan to convey them? When do they plan to release this draft? -- Rather than sending a written request for every question just reach out to the CCT-RT and ask them to present the materials and provide background. A lot of the clarifications are probably in the background of the report. -- The expectations that we need to set also need clarification. Action Items: 1) We should invite members of the CCT-RT to come to the next full WG meeting. 2) Once we get the background we need to put our request for clarity on the questions in writing and submit as a comment so it will be clearer in their final report. 4. CC1: -- Drafting Teams – 1) Different TLD types (10 people + Chairs) 2) predictability and community engagement (1 person + Chairs) 3) applications assessed in rounds (6 people + Chairs). Have not started these yet, but do need to get going, at least 1) and 3). Do we need an introductory meeting for each? Do we want to have a lead editor? Is there anyone from the teams that wants to be a lead editor? Could at least start on the Google Drive documents. -- Staff have created mailing lists for all three of the Drafting Teams. Action Items: 1) staff can send around a kick-off email; 2) staff can create the forms for the Google documents.

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC Recording & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on 28 March 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter March 28, 2017

March 28, 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 Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 3:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/6LDRAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-28mar17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7qm3nfeqwf/ <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** 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/6LDRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday, 28 March 2017 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 3:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Christopher Niemi:Heard :) Julie Hedlund:Yes, we can hear you Avri Michael Flemming:Good afternoon everyone! Annebeth Lange:Good morning, all! Emily Barabas:Emily Barabas: Upcoming topics: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread… Christa Taylor:nope, can't hear her Jeff Neuman:I cant either Karen Day:Sorry, new headset. Justine Chew:Nope, I can't either Karen Day:Go on to Jeff, I will type my update Robin Gross:sounds ok to me, Jeff. Karen Day:Just wanted to add that WRT 58 - the big topic of interest from both our PDP sessions and the GAC are the community applications and the COE report. Karen Day:And also the Geo names will will be impacted by our upcoming discussions on Freedom of Expression Jeff Neuman:Thanks Avri - that would be for WT2 (Special Use names) Emily Barabas:25 April Jeff Neuman:25th Jeff Neuman:2 Webinars :) Emily Barabas:Details about the webinar are here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Jeff Neuman:Emily - Has cc2 been sent to all applicants? Michael Flemming:Is a poll being circulated to figure out the expected attendance or the preferred times of day for the two webinars? Michael Flemming:Oh the two times are already set. Michael Flemming:Alright. Jeff Neuman:@Michael - yes two times 15-17:00 UTC and then 22:00 - 23:59 Christa Taylor:+1 Michael Flemming:+9,000 Michael Flemming:Have any comments been submitted, yet? Steve Chan:No comments received yet Emily Barabas:the slides are now unsynced Michael Flemming:I know I promised not to ask too many questions, but I feel this one is of importance. Will we be assigning these recommendations to individual WT/Full WG or will we just do this on the full WG level? Michael Flemming:Thanks Victor Zhang:Question : Any news about the name collision problem in the first Round , about ,home, .mail, etc ? Emily Barabas:The full CCT-RT report is available at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Michael Flemming:I will leave it be for now. Michael Flemming:Just that the key word is "consider" here. Michael Flemming:And how much of we can do with that from a policy standpoint. Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, correct. The study found a link between restrictions and level of trust. Emily Barabas:@victor, name collisions are within the scope of work track 4 Donna Austin, Neustar:I'm not sure it is possible to 'create incentives to encourage' such things. Donna Austin, Neustar:So I think I'm agreeing with Michael. Greg Shatan:Not possible or not desirable? Victor Zhang:thanks ， I think this must be handled before the Next Round ~ Donna Austin, Neustar:These seem also to be taken from the GAC safeguards associated with regulated sectors, Christa Taylor:+1 Greg - the insight would be really helpful Michael Flemming:+1 to Greg, we need background for each of these recommendations Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Yes, it was Wednesday. Michael Flemming:Still, Jeff, having a separate session or presentation that presents each of these recommendations that are directed at our group would do well. Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jeff, there is a lot of information in the body of the report. Emily Barabas:The transcript of the community-facing SubPro session at ICANN58 is available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve… Greg Shatan:I was there, and I still feel that we need more conceptual understanding of why they say what they say. Jeff Neuman:Emily - Also the link to our working session Karen Day:+1 Greg. I came away similarly scratching my head at what they are trying to get at with a lot of these. Emily Barabas:Transcript for SubPro Working Session at ICANN58: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_eve… Greg Shatan:Note that Rec 33 is sent to ICANN Org and future CCT-RTs as well as us.... Trang Nguyen:I believe this recommendation requires ICANN org to collect the data and provide to the PDP WG. However, the timing doesn't make sense. Trang Nguyen:*or rather the priority level Donna Austin, Neustar:It looks like a tough one to gather data for. Greg Shatan:I think one would need to define concretely what you are actually measuring. Michael Flemming:This says PDP working group, but does that mean us? avri doria:i beleive so avri doria:but we can conform avri doria:confirm Michael Flemming:We need to, because the Review looks at RPM PDP Working Group, Subpro, and others. Karen Day:I believe that those which do not specify a particular PDP are up for debate as to which PDP Trang Nguyen:All of the data collection is directed at icann org Emily Barabas:Some of the recommendations are directed to a PDP WG, but do not specify which group Emily Barabas:These are included in the slides Emily Barabas:as well as those that are specifically for this PDP Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Rec. 36 seems inconsistent with Rec. 14. Am I misunderstanding? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):OK, thanks. I'll read that section of the report. Greg Shatan:We need more clarity on what. the "restrictions on competition" are. Greg Shatan:Not sure that "restricts competition." Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):So is CCT effectively recommending that voluntary PICs *should not* be permitted if not included in the original application? Greg Shatan:This refers to "voluntary" PICs, so we wouldn't be mandating them necessarily, Michael Flemming:All we would need to do is say "If there are volunteer pics, then please state the goal". Donna Austin, Neustar:We can set objectives, but that doesn't mean they will be met. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Does "needs to" = "should" in the must/should/may scheme? Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree Jeff, a lot of potential difficulties with this one. Christa Taylor 2:A difficult one considering the difficulty of determining the 'middle' applicant Christa Taylor 2:yes Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Is "underserved communities" different from "Global South"? Michael Flemming:On this one, I really think we are limited at looking at costs that are outside of the scope of ICANN. Back end costs, etc. are determined by the provider. Christa Taylor 2:I think Global South was from AMGlobal's focus in S. America vs. other geographic areas Robin Gross:I would hope "global south" includes the likes of Detroit and Flint avri doria:and do they mean to include both? avri doria:Robin, aren't they underserved communities? :) Robin Gross:Yes, I think so. avri doria:underserved communities is a term a lot of us try to use instead of Global south, in general Michael Flemming:Being willing to subsidize or volunteer to do is different than price regulation. So, that would be something to explore. Michael Flemming:Being willing to participate in a subsidized program* Greg Shatan 2:Isn't Rec 46 only about application costs, not operation costs? Robin Gross:underserved communities does sound more descriptive Robin Gross:and accurate Christa Taylor 2:Same with volunteers who would support potential registries - it was posted on the ICANN site Michael Flemming:I think the costs ofa back end could be associated with application in this case. Michael Flemming:As the way these recommendations are written, I wouldn't doubt if they wnated to include that. Michael Flemming:Key thing to ask for is clarity. Trang Nguyen:ICANN did not play matchmaker, only provided the forum for those wishing to provide pro bono services and those looking for them to be listed. Certainly, the program can be evolved. Trang Nguyen:not directly Michael Flemming:3 more recommendations to go! Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Which "concerns" is the CCT referencing? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Thanks, I'll check the report for more detail. Greg Shatan 2:The Crying of Rec 49 Michael Flemming:Is this our only low? Michael Flemming:Agree with Jeff that as a prerequisite PDP to the subpro itself, all of oure recommendations would be high or higher. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Can't we persuade some law student somewhere to write a law review article that covers rec. 50? Michael Flemming:We should submit those as a part of the Public Comment, no? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Michael: I'd rather we got their response before public comment so our public comment is appropriately directed. Trang Nguyen:Public comment is currently slated to close on 27 April. Michael Flemming:Agreed. Michael Flemming:Steve has his hand up. Jeff Neuman:Thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thanks everyone, bye for now then... Annebeth Lange:Thanks and bye bye Christa Taylor 2:Have a good night Michael Flemming:Good day to all! Trang Nguyen:Thanks, everyone! Bye! Greg Shatan 2:Bye all

1 0

FW: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew March 27, 2017

March 27, 2017

-----Original Message----- From: mailman-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:mailman-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 2:04 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>; ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-owner(a)icann.org; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Subject: Re: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 03:00 UTC Hi, We have been rotating the calls among times so that the pain of bad times is shared. Otherwise those in the Pacific end up in the middle of the night for all calls. Apologies for the inconvenient time, but the group had agreed to rotating times. As someone who tries to attend all of the calls, you have my sympathies. Thanks avri On 27-Mar-17 14:23, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Co-Chairs > I did send a message to the mailing list . > It was rejected why? > I also need an explanation for the most painful window selected- Pls > reply with convincing arguments Regards Kavouss > > 2017-03-27 19:56 GMT+02:00 <ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-owner(a)icann.org > <mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-owner@icann.org>>: > > Your message was rejected > > > > ---------- Message transféré ---------- > From: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com > <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> > Cc: "ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > <mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" > <ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > <mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org > <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:56:24 +0200 > Subject: Re: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation > for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at > 03:00 UTC > Dear All > I do not understand why such an uncomfortable window > has been selected. > To satisfy Asia pacific, any time > after 05,00 UTC was also ok. > For US and other Latin American 05,00 > UTC is also suitable > All Group has had meeting at 05,00 UTC > That time is also not too bad for > European. > I therefore do not who has opted > for that tine ( 03,00UTC) for the > second time in less than two months. > Is it si selected to exclude > European Attending the call. > Pls Explain > Kavouss > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:19, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org > <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> *The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group >> has been scheduled for Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 3:00 UTC. * >> 20:00 PDT (Monday), 23:00 EDT (Monday), 04:00 London, 05:00 CEST >> for other places see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_hxk29x7&d=D… >> >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_hxk2 >> 9x7&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAv >> SFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=F0afiLEBfFO8-m1ia397Qi1l7me8toB >> dsKh-OZlTqs8&s=Tl-IGEiA5CtDNBux9uhyy0PRSTSos18rD3htSL1_04w&e= > >> >> >> ADOBE CONNECT Room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg >> <https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg> >> >> >> If you require a dial-out, please email me with your preferred >> contact number at gnso-secs(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> >> Let me know if you have any questions. >> >> >> >> >> Thank you. >> Kind regards, >> Michelle >> ____________________________________________________________________________ >> Participant passcode: NEW GTLD >> >> *Dial in numbers:* >> >> *Country* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Toll Numbers* >> >> >> >> *Freephone/ >> Toll Free Number* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ARGENTINA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-777-0519 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> >> >> ADELAIDE: >> >> >> >> 61-8-8121-4842 >> >> >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> >> >> BRISBANE: >> >> >> >> 61-7-3102-0944 >> >> >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> >> >> CANBERRA: >> >> >> >> 61-2-6100-1944 >> >> >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> >> >> MELBOURNE: >> >> >> >> 61-3-9010-7713 >> >> >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> >> >> PERTH: >> >> >> >> 61-8-9467-5223 >> >> >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> >> >> SYDNEY: >> >> >> >> 61-2-8205-8129 >> >> >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRIA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 43-1-92-81-113 >> >> >> >> 0800-005-259 >> >> BELGIUM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 32-2-400-9861 >> >> >> >> 0800-3-8795 >> >> BRAZIL >> >> >> >> SAO PAULO: >> >> >> >> 55-11-3958-0779 >> >> >> >> 0800-7610651 >> >> CHILE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1230-020-2863 >> >> CHINA >> >> >> >> CHINA A: >> >> >> >> 86-400-810-4789 >> >> >> >> 10800-712-1670 >> >> CHINA >> >> >> >> CHINA B: >> >> >> >> 86-400-810-4789 >> >> >> >> 10800-120-1670 >> >> COLOMBIA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 01800-9-156474 >> >> CROATIA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 080-08-06-309 >> >> CZECH REPUBLIC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 420-2-25-98-56-64 >> >> >> >> 800-700-177 >> >> DENMARK >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 45-7014-0284 >> >> >> >> 8088-8324 >> >> EGYPT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800000-9029 >> >> ESTONIA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 800-011-1093 >> >> FINLAND >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 358-9-5424-7162 >> >> >> >> 0-800-9-14610 >> >> FRANCE >> >> >> >> LYON: >> >> >> >> 33-4-26-69-12-85 >> >> >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> FRANCE >> >> >> >> MARSEILLE: >> >> >> >> 33-4-86-06-00-85 >> >> >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> FRANCE >> >> >> >> PARIS: >> >> >> >> 33-1-70-70-60-72 >> >> >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> GERMANY >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 49-69-2222-20362 >> >> >> >> 0800-664-4247 >> >> GREECE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 30-80-1-100-0687 >> >> >> >> 00800-12-7312 >> >> HONG KONG >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 852-3001-3863 >> >> >> >> 800-962-856 >> >> HUNGARY >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 36-1-700-8856 >> >> >> >> 06-800-12755 >> >> INDIA >> >> >> >> INDIA A: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 000-800-852-1268 >> >> INDIA >> >> >> >> INDIA B: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 000-800-001-6305 >> >> INDIA >> >> >> >> INDIA C: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1800-300-00491 >> >> INDONESIA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 001-803-011-3982 >> >> IRELAND >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 353-1-246-7646 >> >> >> >> 1800-992-368 >> >> ISRAEL >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1-80-9216162 >> >> ITALY >> >> >> >> MILAN: >> >> >> >> 39-02-3600-6007 >> >> >> >> 800-986-383 >> >> ITALY >> >> >> >> ROME: >> >> >> >> 39-06-8751-6018 >> >> >> >> 800-986-383 >> >> ITALY >> >> >> >> TORINO: >> >> >> >> 39-011-510-0118 >> >> >> >> 800-986-383 >> >> JAPAN >> >> >> >> OSAKA: >> >> >> >> 81-6-7878-2631 >> >> >> >> 0066-33-132439 >> >> JAPAN >> >> >> >> TOKYO: >> >> >> >> 81-3-6868-2631 >> >> >> >> 0066-33-132439 >> >> LATVIA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 8000-3185 >> >> LUXEMBOURG >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 352-27-000-1364 >> >> >> >> 8002-9246 >> >> MALAYSIA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1-800-81-3065 >> >> MEXICO >> >> >> >> GUADALAJARA (JAL): >> >> >> >> 52-33-3208-7310 >> >> >> >> 001-866-376-9696 >> >> MEXICO >> >> >> >> MEXICO CITY: >> >> >> >> 52-55-5062-9110 >> >> >> >> 001-866-376-9696 >> >> MEXICO >> >> >> >> MONTERREY: >> >> >> >> 52-81-2482-0610 >> >> >> >> 001-866-376-9696 >> >> NETHERLANDS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 31-20-718-8588 >> >> >> >> 0800-023-4378 >> >> NEW ZEALAND >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 64-9-970-4771 >> >> >> >> 0800-447-722 >> >> NORWAY >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 47-21-590-062 >> >> >> >> 800-15157 >> >> PANAMA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 011-001-800-5072065 >> >> PERU >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-53713 >> >> PHILIPPINES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 63-2-858-3716 >> >> >> >> 1800-111-42453 >> >> POLAND >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 00-800-1212572 >> >> PORTUGAL >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 351-2-10054705 >> >> >> >> 8008-14052 >> >> ROMANIA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 40-31-630-01-79 >> >> >> >> RUSSIA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 8-10-8002-0144011 >> >> SAUDI ARABIA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 800-8-110087 >> >> SINGAPORE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 65-6883-9230 >> >> >> >> 800-120-4663 >> >> SLOVAK REPUBLIC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 421-2-322-422-25 >> >> >> >> 0800-002066 >> >> SOUTH AFRICA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 080-09-80414 >> >> SOUTH KOREA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 82-2-6744-1083 >> >> >> >> 00798-14800-7352 >> >> SPAIN >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 34-91-414-25-33 >> >> >> >> 800-300-053 >> >> SWEDEN >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 46-8-566-19-348 >> >> >> >> 0200-884-622 >> >> SWITZERLAND >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 41-44-580-6398 >> >> >> >> 0800-120-032 >> >> TAIWAN >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 886-2-2795-7379 >> >> >> >> 00801-137-797 >> >> THAILAND >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 001-800-1206-66056 >> >> TURKEY >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 00-800-151-0516 >> >> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 8000-35702370 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> >> >> BIRMINGHAM: >> >> >> >> 44-121-210-9025 >> >> >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> >> >> GLASGOW: >> >> >> >> 44-141-202-3225 >> >> >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> >> >> LEEDS: >> >> >> >> 44-113-301-2125 >> >> >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> >> >> LONDON: >> >> >> >> 44-20-7108-6370 >> >> >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> >> >> MANCHESTER: >> >> >> >> 44-161-601-1425 >> >> >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> URUGUAY >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 000-413-598-3421 >> >> USA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1-517-345-9004 <tel:%28517%29%20345-9004> >> >> >> >> 866-692-5726 <tel:%28866%29%20692-5726> >> >> VENEZUELA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-1-00-3702 >> >> VIETNAM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 120-11751 >> >> >> >> <New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group .ics> > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiviru…

1 0