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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 06 April at 15:00 UTC for 120 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund April 6, 2020

April 6, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 06 April 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 120 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… * 2.8.1 Objections [All Sub-Sections Except GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice - Not Yet Completed], continue discussion on page 68, Affirmation xx with modification (rationale 1) * 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement, page 74 3. 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>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

3 3

NAME COLLISIONS TOPIC FOR discussion later in April
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne April 3, 2020

April 3, 2020

Dear WG Members, Study 1 of the Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) is linked below for those interested in some light weekend reading: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ncap-study-1-report-12feb20-en.… It contains a "Name Collision Primer" which may be helpful to those not previously involved with Work Track 4 work on this topic. (Sub Pro work is specifically discussed beginning on page 30 of this report.) Public comment closed March 31. One goal of the NCAP is to help guide the Board toward a standard for analysis of name collision risk applicable to evaluation in the next round. This comes about as a result of follow-up work on the ICANN Board resolution pasted below: Resolved (2017.11.02.30), the Board requests the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee to conduct a study in a thorough and inclusive manner that includes technical experts (such as members of IETF working groups, technical members of the GNSO, and other technologists), to present data, analysis and points of view and provide advice to the Board on a range of questions that include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) a proper definition for name collision and the underlying reasons why strings that manifest name collisions are so heavily used; (2) the role that negative answers currently returned from queries to the root for these strings play in the experience of the end user, including in the operation of existing end systems; (3) the harm to existing users that may occur if Collision Strings were to be delegated, including harm due to end systems no longer receiving a negative response and additional potential harm if the delegated registry accidentally or purposely exploited subsequent queries from these end systems, and any other types of harm; (4) possible courses of action that might mitigate harm; (5) factors that affect potential success of the courses of actions to mitigate harm; (6) potential residual risks of delegating Collision Strings even after taking actions to mitigate harm; (7) suggested criteria for determining whether an undelegated string should be considered a string that manifest name collisions, (i.e.) placed in the category of a Collision String; (8) suggested criteria for determining whether a Collision String should not be delegated, and suggested criteria for determining how remove an undelegated string from the list of Collision Strings; and (9) measures to protect against intentional or unintentional creation of situations, such as queries for undelegated strings, which might cause such strings to be placed in a Collision String category, and research into risk of possible negative effects, if any, of creation of such a collision string list. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D609CC.5E2575E0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image005.jpg@01D609CC.5E2575E0] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 02 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland April 2, 2020

April 2, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 02 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/8iyJBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 02 April 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 2, 2020

April 2, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 02 April at 2000 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/2020-04-02+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Work Plan: ACTION ITEM: Re: Name Collisions -- Circulate the NCAP Study 1 Report. 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression Implementation Guidance xx ACTION ITEM: Change to “The Working Group suggests that as work continues to incorporate human rights into ICANN’s processes in line with the recommendations of [CCWG -Accountability] Work Stream 2, it may want to consider elements of the New gTLD Program as they relate to applicant freedom of expression rights in all stages of the process, while also taking into account the need to balance applicant freedom of expression with other rights recognized in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook [as modified by this PDP] -- add text in brackets. ACTION ITEM: Re: “...New gTLD Program as they relate to applicant freedom of expression rights in all stages of the process” -- link to or clarify to which steps in the process this applies. ACTION ITEM: Re: Change “...the need to balance applicant freedom of expression with other rights recognized in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook” to “other [third-party] rights”. Add a footnote saying that this includes those whom the Independent Objector is representing. ACTION ITEM: Revise the sentence to make it clearer and briefer. 2.8.1 Objections [All Sub-Sections Except GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice] Affirmation xx (rationale 1) ACTION ITEM: Include text that the cooling off period upon the agreement of the parties. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review Work Plan and Process – note that next meeting on 06 April is a longer meeting (as needed) for 120 minutes -- WG agreed to longer meetings last month; we will stick to the schedule unless the WG decides to change it. -- Pre-Launch Activities sections will be sent as a batch for WG to review. WG members can use the form (see attached) if they have issues they cannot live with and provide the rationale. -- As a reminder, the GNSO Secretariat sends the conference details and links to the Notify list so that only WG members and not observers (who do not attend WG meetings) will receive them. When staff sends the agenda they do not include the conference details since the agenda goes to the full WG list (including observers). -- Since the WG has been making progress several topics have been moved earlier in the schedule, such as Name Collisions. -- Concerns raised about the timing of the Name Collision discussion and possible coordination with the NCAP. We can take into consideration the work that they are doing and they can comment on the Draft Final Report. ACTION ITEM: Re: Name Collisions -- Circulate the NCAP Study 1 Report. 3. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… a. 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression, page 60 Implementation Guidance xx Discussion: -- Question: What do we mean by, “...New gTLD Program as they relate to applicant freedom of expression rights in all stages of the process”? Answer: It is intended to refer to the entire process prior to application, then application, and all the way through delegation. Follow up question: can we link this to the steps in the process? -- Question: Does it also include Objection processes and will it include appeals as we institute those? -- The point is the Applicants can apply for what they like minus the handful of objections that are out there and no one should use the process to knock out an application that otherwise passes all objections, etc. just because they just don't like it.  -- Re: “...the need to balance applicant freedom of expression with other rights recognized in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook” -- specify what are the other rights? Change to “other [non-applicant] rights”. Would be clearer to say, ‘“third-party rights”. -- Could be dangerous to try to start specifying other rights. -- Sentence has many clauses and sub-clauses that make it difficult to understand and unclear. It needs to be revised. ACTION ITEM: Change to “The Working Group suggests that as work continues to incorporate human rights into ICANN’s processes in line with the recommendations of [CCWG -Accountability] Work Stream 2, it may want to consider elements of the New gTLD Program as they relate to applicant freedom of expression rights in all stages of the process, while also taking into account the need to balance applicant freedom of expression with other rights recognized in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook [as modified by this PDP] -- add text in brackets. ACTION ITEM: Re: “...New gTLD Program as they relate to applicant freedom of expression rights in all stages of the process” -- link to or clarify to which steps in the process this applies. ACTION ITEM: Re: Change “...the need to balance applicant freedom of expression with other rights recognized in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook” to “other [third-party] rights”. Add a footnote saying that this includes those whom the Independent Objector is representing. ACTION ITEM: Revise the sentence to make it clearer and briefer. b. 2.8.1 Objections [All Sub-Sections Except GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice - Not Yet Completed], page 66 Implementation Guideline R: “Once formal objections or disputes are accepted for review there will be a cooling off period to allow parties to resolve the dispute or objection before review by the panel is initiated.” Discussion: -- This Implementation Guideline doesn’t include details about the time period. We can either develop Implementation Guidance on the time period or direct the IRT to do so. -- This applies to any objections that are filed. -- This is feasible, because it was done for 2012, but we may need to define it. -- In 2012 there was no consistency and it may have been implemented after a response was filed. We can reject it, or affirm it, or affirm it but only by agreement of the parties. Also clarify if this is post-response and determine whether to make it a consistent implementation, including fixed period of time, for all types of objections. -- If there is a cooling off period can this be sorted out before any payments are made, such as to respond. ACTION ITEM: Include text that the cooling off period upon the agreement of the parties.

1 0

Update: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 02 April at 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 1, 2020

April 1, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 02 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Note the update with additional agenda item #2. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review Work Plan and Process – note that next meeting on 06 April is a longer meeting (as needed) for 120 minutes 3. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… * 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression, page 60 * 2.8.1 Objections [All Sub-Sections Except GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice - Not Yet Completed], page 66 4. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

With Correction: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 02 April at 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 02 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… * 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression, page 60 * 2.8.1 Objections [All Sub-Sections Except GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice - Not Yet Completed], page 66 3. 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>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 02 April at 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 31, 2020

March 31, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 03 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… * 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression, page 60 * 2.8.1 Objections [All Sub-Sections Except GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice - Not Yet Completed], page 66 3. 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>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 30 March 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter March 30, 2020

March 30, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 30 March 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/aSOJBw> (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 - 30 March 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 30, 2020

March 30, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 30 March at 1500 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/2020-03-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: 2.7.4 String Similarity Evaluation – See:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt… Recommendation xx: ACTION ITEM: Change text to “Applications will not automatically be placed in the same contention set because of a single letter difference with another application.” ACTION ITEM: Add a recommendation that the commitment will be made in a mandatory PIC if two strings could be singulars and plurals but the intent is different, and also make it applicable if the TLD is transferred; also ask GDD to comment. Also update the section where we say there are no mandatory PICs. ACTION ITEM: Add an action item of an affirmation on visual similarity. Section d Dependencies: ACTION ITEM: Add Accountability Mechanisms to section d on dependencies. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: 2.7.4 String Similarity Evaluation – See:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt… page 61 “Recommendation xx: The Working Group recommends updating the standards of both (a) confusing similarity to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name, and (b) similarity for purposes of determining string contention, to address singular and plural versions of the same word, noting that this was an area where there was insufficient clarity in the 2012 round. Specifically, the Working Group recommends:” etc. Re: “Using a dictionary to determine the singular and plural version of the string for the specific language or script.” Discussion: -- If we use a clarifying question to determine the intended use of a name, but is the enforcement if someone isn’t truthful. We should be noting that in a recommendation. -- Proposal for clarification: (b) similarity for purposes of determining string contention -> (b) similarity for purposes of determining string contention between current top-level domain applications. -- We don’t really mean that an existing TLD would be put into a contention set. It should say “applications will not automatically be placed in the same contention set because of a single letter difference with another application.” -- Could have a situation where it doesn’t matter what the intention was for an open TLD. -- Not sure the single character difference has enough clarity. Trying to point out that we are looking at the intent. -- Intention of the registry is only meaningful if supported (enforced) via restrictions (e.g. brand or community application). Open strings will be marketed by registrars - and they do not care about the "intentions" of the registry. -- Something might not be considered plural if it is a .brand because they have strict controls on how that would be used. Seem to have lost that in this example of .spring and .springs. -- We are building in that kind of control -- a PIC or another way -- if the two applications want to exist. -- Enforcement will be the key. -- One open domain and one restricted (community or PIC), is a WORST case scenario. The open one can be used to masquerade as the restricted/closed one.  -- Could add a recommendation for enforcement. -- Must be a mechanism to ensure that the intent is transferred if ownership of the TLD is transferred. -- If the TLD is sold, would new owner have the ability to change the "intent" and associated PIC? if yes - Is that an existing process or would something have to be developed? We've seen examples for .brand being sold to new operators who repurpose it for other means. -- The UDRP is allowed to look at content in making a decision, but not sure ICANN Compliance can enforce on content. -- We will put in a recommendation for a mandatory PIC that they will commit to not using it as a plural or singular of the other. If a registry is making a commitment then ICANN can enforce the commitment. -- Re: “Using a dictionary to determine the singular and plural version of the string for the specific language or script.” See comment from ICANN Org: “Regarding the suggestion to use a dictionary to determine the singular/plural form of a word, it should be noted that a word may be identical in many languages, but generate different plural forms in each of the languages. For example, ‘kitab’ is ‘book’ in Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and many other languages, but the plural form of the word is different in each of the languages. It should also be noted that in many languages, reduplication is used as a means to make words plural where the word is repeated to make its plural form instead of adding a suffix like ‘s’. Additionally, some of these plural forming reduplications also make morpho-phonological changes, which means that the surface form is not just the word repeated by itself but slightly different. Even if the assessment of plural is limited to non-reduplication, it should be noted that pluralization is not limited to just suffixation, but can also include infixes (e.g., in Arabic, KiTaB (sg.) à KuTB (pl.).” ACTION ITEM: Change text to “Applications will not automatically be placed in the same contention set because of a single letter difference with another application.” ACTION ITEM: Add a recommendation that the commitment will be made in a mandatory PIC if two strings could be singulars and plurals but the intent is different, and also make it applicable if the TLD is transferred; also ask GDD to comment. Also update the section where we say there are no mandatory PICs. ACTION ITEM: Add an action item of an affirmation on visual similarity. Re: “The Working Group considered a proposal put forward in public comment that homonyms should be included in the String Similarity review. From one perspective, homonyms may cause user confusion, for example in the 2012 round an application for .thai phonetically clashed with existing . ไทย (Thai IDN ccTLD).” Discussion: -- Talked about this extensively. -- Didn’t get enough support in the WG to get a recommendation on it. -- Seems like homonyms would be in the same contention set since they are the same visually and sound the same, but have different meanings. -- Definition of homonym From Dictionary.com: 0" a word pronounced the same as another but differing in meaning, whether spelled the same way or not, as heir and air". -- Question: Why do we care about homonyms? Answer: There were comments that were filed so we want to make sure we address them. -- Seems like we are getting into a quagmire that will be impossible to enforce uniformly. -- Question: What was the rule in 2012 on homonyms? Answer: They were not considered visually similar so they did not fail the string similarity evaluation. One could have filed a string confusion objection and then a panel could have determined if they were confusingly similar, but don’t think we had an example of that. This came up in the comments because we were talking about plurals and singulars. -- Seems like there isn’t the willingness to go into homonyms. Comparison of the way similarity was implemented for ccTLDs and for gTLDs: -- Similarities in the way this was carried out. -- Differed in that the CCs have a secondary review: If a TLD is found to be visually similar it would automatically general a panel that would look at it more closely via several factors. In the gTLD process there isn’t a secondary review, but we are building in an appeals process. -- Giovanni Seppia: I would suggest this group looks carefully at the scientific studies developed for assessing string similarity in a professional and sound way within the IDN ccTLD Fast Track. Again, it would be beneficial if the IDN ccTLD Fast Track lessons learnt in this area could be taken into account to ensure a consistent string similarity assessment throughout the TLD environment. String similarity panels must be made of true linguist experts that know how people's brain functions when looking at strings. This is one of the key lessons we learnt during the ten years of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track.  -- Could a gTLD appeals process look like the ccTLD secondary review? Seems like it might be cost-prohibitive to go through a second review or every gTLD. Incorporate the standards if an applicant wanted to appeal. -- Consider referencing the ccLTD standards in a footnote and cross-reference to the appeals section. ACTION ITEM: Add Accountability Mechanisms to Section d on dependencies.

1 0

Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne March 30, 2020

March 30, 2020

Dear WG, In light of the short time frame, I am proposing language re the standard for Community Evaluation panelist relying on independent research (proposed limitation from 2012 by Kristine Dorrain and Paul McGrady) as follows: "deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant, provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose such independent research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered." Just trying to get the ball rolling on this proposed compromise - noting that a lack of consensus results in a fallback to 2012 implementation. In addition, I think I have missed the proposed revisions to the Community Guidelines for scoring. Jeff, was this sent around again? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D60668.20F83070] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D60668.20F83070] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.

1 0