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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 05 December 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 2, 2019

Dec. 2, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 05 December 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Limited Appeals Mechanism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pw98QzloHsVaM22VjYy95G-QmHULKbB2gPTSdzQ… 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 02 December 2019
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 2, 2019

Dec. 2, 2019

Dear Anne, The discussion was in the context of this topic: “Additional Considerations (Mostly For Alternative 1)” so the assumption was that the request related to Alternative 1, but we note your point that the action could also be attributed to Alternative 2. Kind regards, Julie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 at 1:27 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 02 December 2019 Thank you. Regarding Action Item 3, I thought the flow chart would also be applicable to Alternative 2. Are we saying there will only be a flow chart for Alternative 1? Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 9:52 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 02 December 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 02 December 2019. 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/2019-12-02+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM 1: Add a third alternative. ACTION ITEM 2: Add another goal (#7): “Increase efficiencies in application evaluation by way of understanding the contention set?” ACTION ITEM 3: Create a flow chart with a fictional string to show how alternative 1 would work. ACTION ITEM 4: Update the list of goals. Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest: Susan Payne was reappointed IPC Secretary for another year. 2. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> What is the issue we are trying to address: -- The Working Group has discussed a number of potential issues with the mechanisms of last resort used in the 2012 New gTLD Round. These issues are captured in the Supplemental Initial Report. -- Although the Working Group ultimately believes that when there is string contention, an auction process should be used to select the Registry Operator invited to enter into a Registry Agreement with ICANN, the Working Group is still discussing what forms of private resolution should be allowed (if any), the specific type of auction to be used, and the timing of such an auction. Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish: -- The WG is largely supportive of existing Implementation Guideline F: Implementation Guideline F: If there is contention for strings, applicants may: i) resolve contention between them within a pre-established timeframe ii) if there is no mutual agreement, a claim to support a community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that application. If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention and; iii) the ICANN Board may be used to make a final decision, using advice from staff and expert panels. Other goals include: 1. Reduce the risk of “bidding wars” in which the winner ultimately overpays for the TLD. a. Tentative, related goal for discussion: encourage applicants to bid their true value for a TLD. 1. Reduce collusion, profiteering, and/or speculation, especially as it relates to financial transactions external to the program (Note, while this is not an explicit goal for the mechanisms of last resort, it has been discussed as a motivation for altering the auction mechanism). 2. Increase transparency. 3. Resolve contention more quickly. 4. Increase predictability. 5. Encourage new entrants into the field. a. Which could include, making it easier to implement “multipliers” for certain types of applicants, such as those eligible for Applicant Support. -- Note that some of the terminology may need to be further defined if the above goals are adopted. In order to ensure that recommendations align with goals, it is important for the Working Group to agree on specific objectives. Discussion: -- Do we still need iii)? An alternative may be, "The ICANN Board may use expert panels to make Community Priority Evaluation determinations." This may also be dependent on recommendations on the new appeals mechanism. -- ICANN Board says it does not make policy. Its decision would be subject to RFR and IRP - very messy so it may be better to stick with what we developed earlier. -- This isn’t about the Board making policy, but making it clear that it’s an auction process rather than the Board making a decision. -- There should be a reference instead to Auction of last resort. -- Agree they are good goals so suggest removing possible description What are we Proposing? -- The Working Group is leaning towards recommending a sealed-bid auction as the ultimate form of auction used as a mechanism to resolve string contention. When a sealed-bid auction is held where bids are submitted without knowing the bid of others in the auction (e.g., prior to evaluating any of the applications) it is also called a Vickrey Auction. A sealed-bid auction can also be used as a mechanism of last resort and at the end of the process. -- With a sealed-bid auction, each applicant submits a sealed bid, stating the amount that they are willing to pay for the TLD. The ultimate “winner” pays the amount submitted by the second-highest bidder.. -- Regardless of when the sealed bid auction is held, if there are one or more Community-based Applications, that/those application(s) would need to be processed first through Community Priority Evaluation before looking at the auction bids. Alternative 1 - Vickrey Auction (No Private Resolution) -- Addresses goals 1, 2, 4, and 6. -- The principle pro here is the seemingly near elimination of private resolution. However, the principle con is the substantial complications this approach introduces (see Additional Considerations, Mostly For Alternative 1 below). Other cons are that other forms of private resolution might be impacted (e.g., joint ventures, string change, etc.) in seeking to eliminate private resolution for financial benefit and that bids are submitted with no contextual information. Alternative 2 - Sealed-Bid Auction allowing Private Resolution -- It seems to be supportive of, or at least not impede, 1, 2, and 6, but in a less pronounced manner as it relates to Alternative 1; the maker of this Alternative has acknowledged that it does not fully address concerns around potential collusion and profiteering on application withdrawals. -- However, some benefits are likely derived by obtaining sealed bids (which can reduce the incentive for all parties to agree to private resolution, if an applicant already knows they have the highest bid). The other main pro here is simplicity - most other processes remain unaffected. Discussion: -- Re: Alternative 2: First bullet point and third bullet point seem incompatible. Third bullet point: “Applicants would still have an opportunity to resolve the contention set through other means such as private auction, a joint venture arrangement or to choose another string as was suggested for ‘brands’ of the same name.” -- Assuming you stayed in only those applicants who stayed in would be revealed on reveal day. So you could still have private resolution. -- For clarity, the third bullet could be swapped with the fourth bullet and add “post reveal day”. In third bullet point, after "opportunity", you would need to insert "after reveal day" or something to clarify that parties become known. -- Question: Wasn’t one of the proposals to outlaw private auctions? So not sure why we are still allowing private resolution. Answer: If we went with alternative 1 we would eliminate private resolution, but not for alternative 2. So that is one of the drawbacks with alternative 2. -- Thought alternative 2 was to allow participants to know how many contention sets there are. Add as a third alternative: Alternative three could remove some of the elements about private resolution. -- They may not resolve privately and should only have a limited period to resolve. If not resolved in a limited period, it should proceed to the sealed bid winner. I am not seeing the time limit in alternative 2 though. Is it there? -- Question: How would the timing work with a string contention objection process? -- How could private auctions be prevented? -- Objections should not be triggered until a winner (or a private resolution winner) is identified. -- Re: Alternative 2 there should be a limited time for private resolution. -- Helpful to put these alternatives out for public comment and indicate whether the WG has a preference. -- Re: Alternative 2 -- Question: For string confusion objections those would have to be heard right away. Additional Considerations: Public Comment: Comments from the public are solicited on all applications regardless of where they are placed in the queue. To do it otherwise would mean opening up separate public comment periods depending on whether there is a need to go to the second bidder, and that would be impossible to monitor. Discussion: -- Strongly support 1 public comment period, for the exact same length of time for all. -- Impractical to have multiple public comments. String Similarity Evaluation: Discussion: -- Don’t see how this fits with the notion of closed bids and timing. You have a scenario where you have some who know who they are bidding against and everyone else doesn’t. -- In the scenario where the result of a string similarity evaluation is that some would have insight into who is in the set -- this is an unfair result. -- Which is why getting every applicant to submit a bid at the point of application is something to consider, even though it may be cumbersome for many. -- What if this fact situation should default to sealed bid only? -- Why would they not be all announced at the same time? -- So we are proposing to treat some applicants differently from others? That does not seem to be in line with the Bylaws. -- Wouldn’t alternative 1 solve this issue? -- What about plurals? -- There was only one case in 2012 that was found to be similar (unicorn/unicom). -- Why string similarity evaluation after reveal day? Why not make it before reveal day? That is a possibility. -- is string similarity not subject to accountability mechanisms and appeals? would that not “reveal” it in some manner? -- Agree with that suggestion re string similarity evaluation occurring first and before reveal day. bids would have to be in before appeal. Objections: Objections on the highest bidder’s application must be filed within the objection period. With respect to objections to the other applications, ICANN would create a system for the filing of “an intent to file an objection.” Discussion: -- Question: What happens when someone indicates that they are filing a community objection and they are filing it against all of the applicants for a string. Answer: All applicants should have a chance to respond. Add text to relay your comment on "can indicate that an objection will apply to all applications for same string"?  -- Objections should not come into full proceedings unless and until there is a winner - it's a huge waste of time and money if it does proceed but private parties need to know what the value of the string may be. -- Some concern about not having to submit the objections on a standard timeline, although support not engaging fees or panels until the objection is necessary, based on bidder ordering . -- “time” may benefit some as they build their case. Or could the “intent to file” require some key points that will be included in the objection filing? -- Question: We are agreeing on the principle that the intent to object is a good idea, but when would that happen? Would one party have to state the type of objection and the grounds? Could it just be a party filing very general intent to objection concerning a risk associated with that application. Would there be a panel for an intent to object process? Answer: Proposal was that the objection would be “bare bones”. There would be no panel if it was just an intent to object to one application, but if for all applications (to the string) then one could request a panel. You file your objection against the applicant first in the queue and an intent to file against the others in the queue. Or, you could say I have the same objection to all of the applicants/string. -- Important for private parties in resolution to know that there is an intent to object (but that doesn’t pertain to alternative 1 as there is no private resolution). -- The objection should be submitted within a certain time period. -- The nature of the applicant is important. It's not just the existence of the string. It depends on who is operating it and what the purpose of the tld as stated in the application in Question 18 answers and services to be provided in answer to Question 23. There should be an intent to object process prior to determining the order of the queue with no panel convened. Other complications: Objections if there is more than one Community Application String Confusion Objection Results in the Creation of a New Contention Set or Adds to an Existing Contention Set Appeals/Accountability Mechanisms Applicant Support Program Discussion: -- Seems that these are all related to the attempt to gain efficiencies to know the order of the contention sets. If you don’t need to know the order then you could leave the program untouched. If you go back to the goals knowing the order of the contention sets goes to goals 3, 4, and 5. -- Add a goal: “Increase efficiencies in application evaluation by way of understanding the contention set?” -- Note that alternative 1 would eliminate the goal to allow contention resolution. “If there is contention for strings, applicants may: i) resolve contention between them within a pre-established timeframe” ________________________________ 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.

2 1

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 02 December 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Dec. 2, 2019

Dec. 2, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 02 December 2019 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page (<https://community.icann.org/x/2pYzBw>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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 2 December 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Nov. 28, 2019

Nov. 28, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 2 December 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 3. Limited Appeals Mechanism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pw98QzloHsVaM22VjYy95G-QmHULKbB2gPTSdzQ… 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, Emily

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary
by Alexander Schubert Nov. 26, 2019

Nov. 26, 2019

Mark,it is in the interest of the "community" if minorities are protected. Why are there disabled-access laws; when they only benefit a tiny portion of society? Because by treating disabled well we as society fare well. Same goes for restricted gTLDs.Brand gTLDs: Trademarks aid consumers in identifying a certain manufacturer. If I want a Porsche; then I want one made in Germany. Not in China. I want one that goes 200 miles/h; and that doesn't desintegrate at that speed. Consequently it is in the Interest of the Community if for example .apple is with APPLE computers - and I buy Apple, Inc products there; NOT knockoffs from China..edu and .gov are restricted - which is benefiting not just Universities or the U.S. Government; but the Internet Community as whole.As for your assertation regarding testing: do you have ANY supporting evidence for the notion that ICANN wanted to collect fees? And regarding "jammed up" qeue: wouldn't that rather support the OPPOSITE: allow those who have no plans of use to wait; which frees up capacity for those who want to startup fast? The real reason for both is founded in the 2007 PDP - which CLEARLY had a use requirement. During the PDP implementation we just couldn't agree on how to police "non-use". But at least for those who apply with a sunrise period it's simple: if you have a sunrise period in your application - you need to execute it. If you don't: no contract renewal. Why do we even have to discuss this? Don't promise a sunrise - then fail on delivery. It's A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. If someone violates a contract so blatantly - why would you grant a contract renewal? Alexander.berlinSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com Date: 11/26/19 11:32 (GMT-05:00) To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary Alex, Where does it say anywhere that the registry operator is operating the gTLD for the benefit of the entire internet community? Clearly this is not the case. Just look at Community applications – these are intended to serve a particular and very specific small segment of the entire internet community. Brand TLDs are another example. Yet another example is closed generics, which were not excluded in the AGB although they were later when people complained. At the end of the day registry operators are private actors who are driven by profit and other motivations. The reason ICANN pushed people through testing and delegation is so that the queue wasn’t jammed up and so that it could start collecting its registry fees. gTLDS are not natural resources that everyone has a right to and you are making a false analogy to public land. If the DNS really belongs to the internet community then this should apply to second level domains as well since they comprise the vast majority of the DNS. Taking your argument to its logical end, there should be a usage requirement for second level domains. You want to give up the ones you are not using? Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 10:11 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary *EXTERNAL TO GT* Vanda, I would like to invoke ICANN's core mission and the outcome of the 2007 PDP. New gTLDs are NOT "assets"; and nobody "owns" them. You have to nicely request being allowed to operate a new gTLD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY. You are NEVER awarded "ownership": it's a wet fantasy of the Brand Lobby. Which part of ICANN's bylaws, it's mission statement, the 2012 AGB or the RA support that outrageous notion? The 2007 PDP more than clearly made statements that constitute a "use requirement". Either we change those 2007 PDP provisions - or we honor them. Why do you think that you get your contract CANCELLED - just for not engaging in "testing" (adding the TLD to the root)? If your made-up assertions would be right: then after contracting there wouldn't be ANY obligations at all. We SEVERELY punish applicants who do not contract within 9 month (application withdrawal); we SEVERELY punish registries for not testing (contract cancelation after 9 month) - and we SHOULD severally punish if a registry doesn't follow through with its operation mode laid out in their application: if a registry has a Sunrise in their application - then they have to execute it. If there is no sunrise - then all is fine. I do really not understand how this is so complicated to understand. Imagine I go to the city council and ask to operate a piece of public land in the city center. And I lure them in by claiming that the operation (a mall or hotel) would enrich the city's attractiveness. The city awards me a (super cheap) 10 year lease contract of the land (based on my promises) - and I merely convert it into a big construction site (bulldoze it down within 1 month). Then for 10 years I would do NOTHING. Instead I wait for somebody to buy my contract. Or I ran out of money - and can't follow through with my plans. You as a citizen: would you want that the city extends that lease another 10 years? The DNS belongs to The Internet Community. You apply to run a piece of this essential infrastructure. You make promises (e.g. that you start up with a sunrise). If you do not follow through with your promises; then after a DECADE something should happen. If you can't commit to a Sunrise within a prescribed period of time - say so in your application. But don't promise - then not deliver. Thanks, Alexander.berlin Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> Date: 11/26/19 10:11 (GMT-05:00) To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary Dear Jeff, all Even quite involved in other groups with no much time to dedicate to this one, I am reading and here my points: I totally agree with the side NOT in FAVOR of the proposal. First think we can understand all the reasons anyone have to keep a not used TLD is a lot pretentious from our side. If the applicant was approved for whole process and had paid for it, if applicant use it there will be rules to be followed but if he decide to just to keep it, we ( ICANN) has no say about it. The TLD is now a asset belonging to such winner applicant. I also agree that too much restriction just reduce the chance of South hemisphere candidate to face the challenge. Thank you for all your work on this issue. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Monday, November 25, 2019 at 12:31 To: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary All, This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement. In trying to sum up where we are: Proposal: Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years). Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement. What is the problem we are trying to Solve? · From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.” · From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.” · From Christopher: “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings. · Supported by Jorge From those not in favor of the Proposal · Kristine: No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”; ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business restrictions.” · Marc: What does “use” mean?; This would not foster innovation; This would only ensure one business model; “There is no innate incontrovertible human right to be able to register any domain name in any gTLD and as Kristine pointed out, Alex’s proposal attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”; No evidence that corporations are trying to shut down a vertical · Maxim: What is the problem we are trying to solve?; There were a number of things that happened in 2012 round which impacted Registries plans for launch · Supported by Martin If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster(a)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary
by Alexander Schubert Nov. 26, 2019

Nov. 26, 2019

Christopher is right.You can squatt on Trademarks. Company names. Political Slogans. City-names. Religions. Parties. Even Presidents.You can cybersquatt on domains, twitter handles, gTLDs or Facebook group names.Cybersquatting is "taking ownership" of a digital identifier in order to either harm others or force them into a buyout. AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu Date: 11/26/19 11:06 (GMT-05:00) To: trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary Marc Trachtenberg:Limiting cybersquatting to trademarks is a peculiarly US consideration. I regard ANY accumulation by a Registry of whatever strings for speculative purposes as cybersquatting - or if you prefer it - by any other name.Regarding innovation, I consider that a gTLD Registry is providing a public service to Registrars and Registrants. CWOn 26 Nov 2019, at 16:55, <trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com> <trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com> wrote:Christopher, Can you please clarify your comment below as I am having difficulty understanding your point. Are you arguing that we should not try to enable innovation at the gTLD level and that innovation can only occur at the second (or third) level? With respect to cybersquatting, that occurs when someone registers a domain name in a bad faith attempt to profit from another’s trademark. As so many of you have pointed out, no one has any rights to a generic or nonsense term that is not used as an indicator of source (i.e., a trademark). So what cybersquatting are you referring to? Best regards, Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305trac(a)gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com <image001.jpg> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists(a)christopherwilkinson.euSent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 2:14 AMTo: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.orgSubject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary All, I do not accept the ’innovation' argument at the gTLD level. The main argument for innovation and intelligence on the Internet has been that it takes place at the periphery. Indeed it does. In this context that means innovation by the Registrant. As I have said before, the economic rent of a good name should accrue to the Registrant (which is also why I oppose premium pricing.) The principal issue here is not innovation, It is speculation. From cybersquatting the dictionary at the second level, we would be moving towards legitimatising cybersquatting the Gazetteers at the top level. No. CW On 25 Nov 2019, at 16:31, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: All, This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement. In trying to sum up where we are: Proposal:Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years). Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement. What is the problem we are trying to Solve?From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.”From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.”From Christopher: “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings.Supported by Jorge From those not in favor of the ProposalKristine: No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”; ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary
by Alexander Schubert Nov. 26, 2019

Nov. 26, 2019

Vanda,I would like to invoke ICANN's core mission and the outcome of the 2007 PDP.New gTLDs are NOT "assets"; and nobody "owns" them. You have to nicely request being allowed to operate a new gTLD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY. You are NEVER awarded "ownership": it's a wet fantasy of the Brand Lobby. Which part of ICANN's bylaws, it's mission statement, the 2012 AGB or the RA support that outrageous notion?The 2007 PDP more than clearly made statements that constitute a "use requirement". Either we change those 2007 PDP provisions - or we honor them.Why do you think that you get your contract CANCELLED - just for not engaging in "testing" (adding the TLD to the root)? If your made-up assertions would be right: then after contracting there wouldn't be ANY obligations at all. We SEVERELY punish applicants who do not contract within 9 month (application withdrawal); we SEVERELY punish registries for not testing (contract cancelation after 9 month) - and we SHOULD severally punish if a registry doesn't follow through with its operation mode laid out in their application: if a registry has a Sunrise in their application - then they have to execute it. If there is no sunrise - then all is fine. I do really not understand how this is so complicated to understand.Imagine I go to the city council and ask to operate a piece of public land in the city center. And I lure them in by claiming that the operation (a mall or hotel) would enrich the city's attractiveness. The city awards me a (super cheap) 10 year lease contract of the land (based on my promises) - and I merely convert it into a big construction site (bulldoze it down within 1 month). Then for 10 years I would do NOTHING. Instead I wait for somebody to buy my contract. Or I ran out of money - and can't follow through with my plans. You as a citizen: would you want that the city extends that lease another 10 years?The DNS belongs to The Internet Community. You apply to run a piece of this essential infrastructure. You make promises (e.g. that you start up with a sunrise). If you do not follow through with your promises; then after a DECADE something should happen.If you can't commit to a Sunrise within a prescribed period of time - say so in your application. But don't promise - then not deliver. Thanks,Alexander.berlinSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> Date: 11/26/19 10:11 (GMT-05:00) To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary  Dear Jeff, all Even quite involved in other groups with no much time to dedicate to this one, I am reading and here my points: I totally agree with the side NOT in FAVOR of the proposal. First think we can understand all the reasons anyone have to keep a not used TLD is a lot pretentious from our side. If the applicant was approved for whole process and had paid for it, if applicant use it there will be rules to be followed but if he decide to just to keep it, we ( ICANN) has no say about it. The TLD is now a asset belonging to such winner applicant. I also agree that too much restriction just reduce the chance of South hemisphere candidate to face the challenge. Thank you for all your work on this issue. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Monday, November 25, 2019 at 12:31 To: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary All, This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement. In trying to sum up where we are: Proposal: Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years). Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement. What is the problem we are trying to Solve? · From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.” · From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.” · From Christopher: “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings. · Supported by Jorge From those not in favor of the Proposal · Kristine: No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”; ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business restrictions.” · Marc: What does “use” mean?; This would not foster innovation; This would only ensure one business model; “There is no innate incontrovertible human right to be able to register any domain name in any gTLD and as Kristine pointed out, Alex’s proposal attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”; No evidence that corporations are trying to shut down a vertical · Maxim: What is the problem we are trying to solve?; There were a number of things that happened in 2012 round which impacted Registries plans for launch · Supported by Martin ·

3 2

Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary
by Jeff Neuman Nov. 26, 2019

Nov. 26, 2019

All, This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement. In trying to sum up where we are: Proposal: Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years). Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement. What is the problem we are trying to Solve? * From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.” * From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.” * From Christopher: “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings. * Supported by Jorge From those not in favor of the Proposal * Kristine: No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”; ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business restrictions.” * Marc: What does “use” mean?; This would not foster innovation; This would only ensure one business model; “There is no innate incontrovertible human right to be able to register any domain name in any gTLD and as Kristine pointed out, Alex’s proposal attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”; No evidence that corporations are trying to shut down a vertical * Maxim: What is the problem we are trying to solve?; There were a number of things that happened in 2012 round which impacted Registries plans for launch * Supported by Martin * Rubens: The fact that ICANN changed a number of things made it more difficult to launch the TLD in Latin America; this will discriminate against the Global South We need to hear from the rest of the group as to what their thoughts are. Also, if there is a real issue, we need to have evidence to show the problem. Otherwise we are developing a solution to something that many do not agree is a problem? What is the harm caused by not having this rule in place? Thanks. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 4:47 PM To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Correct. Apple has no inherent right for .Apple. That’s why they had to apply for it along with anyone else who wanted it. And if someone else was willing to pay more in a public or private auction that other company would be the RO for .apple and Apple could apply for something else in the next or subsequent rounds. Of course Apple has a right to stop infringing and abusive uses of .Apple but that is a different question. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 2:53 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Marc, So APPLE has no inherent right or need for .apple? Is it that what you are saying? They could apply for .appleinc for example, right? Thanks, Alexander From: trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com] Sent: Freitag, 22. November 2019 15:10 To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs He should be able to wait as long as he wants or needs to. What is the worst case scenario – there are only 999,998 TLDs instead of 1,000,000? Again, there is no inherent right (or need) to have every possible combination of letters and numbers be a TLD and be able to register domains in it. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:55 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs *EXTERNAL TO GT* Hi Rubens, I understand you. But how long more do you want to wait? 10 years? 25 years? If you can’t launch the string: someone else might be able. Create a white label registrar for example. There are many countries that do NOT have ICANN registrars. Latvia for example. Does that mean there should never be a .riga? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Freitag, 22. November 2019 12:26 To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Alexander, I happen to be from an organisation that applied to 2 gTLDs in 2012 and still have launched them. What I need to point out is that bring this requirement on registries would also need requirements on ICANN. At the time we applied, it was said that vertical integration would not require two different legal entities; this was added in an AGB version after applications have been submitted. At the time we applied, there was no indication that then current registrars with RAA 2009 wouldn't be able to sell 2012 gTLDs; when the RA was finalised, this suddenly appeared. And since we had only 2009 Registrars in our country, that meant no registrars. But as RAAs start expiring, we were hopeful that some registrars would become RAA 2013... what happened though is that all Brazilian registrars preferred dropping their accreditations instead of on boarding new, cumbersome requirements that were added to RAA mostly due to pressures from developed countries. So, ICANN Org failed us miserably in a lot of ways, and you are suggesting that even in that condition we would be obliged to launch expeditiously ? No, thanks. And if your intention is to widen the gap from "Global North" to "Global South", that's a sure way to do it. There is more to the world than Western Europe and North America. Rubens Em 20 de nov de 2019, à(s) 13:49:000, Alexander Schubert <alexander(a)schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> escreveu: Dear Jeff, As discussed on the call yesterday here a brief suggestion regarding a “use requirement”. First a summary of my suggestion: The new RA (Registry Agreement) should contain a clause that denies contract renewal if registries have not had a Sunrise registration phase (Spec-13 Brand Registries would be exempted from this clause). Here my rationale for this: Obviously the 2007 PDP demanded a use requirement. Hence currently registries face steep penalties for not contracting (application will be withdrawn) and not testing/entering the root (cancelation of the contract). Let’s be cognizant of the 3 gTLD categories that emerged in 2012: 1. Spec 13 gTLDs (Brands) 2. Geo gTLDs (mainly cities) 3. All others We can’t always find “one size fits all” solutions – and claim that in absence of a global solution we will not create ANY solution at all. That said: I can’t speak for the category 1. And as Martin Sutton said on the Monday GNSO call: if “use” was defined by “number of domains”: nothing more easy than registering a number of domains. So yes: for brand gTLDs it’s nifty to “define” a “use requirement” – maybe someone else can come up with a solution for Spec-13 registries. BUT: For categories 2 and 3 I think the solution is simple! We already steeply penalize if the prospective registry doesn’t contract or engage in testing. There are grace periods to do so (I think 9 month). We could use the same grace period for “startup” – which is opening the string up for registrations in Sunrise! At BARE minimum we should put into the new RA (Registry Agreement) that failure for categories 2 and 3 (non-Spec-13 registries) to startup (start sunrise) WILL be a reason to deny contract renewal! A DECADE of not starting up should be a clear sign of failure. This solution is NOT impacting Spec 13 applicants. We can discuss separately whether or not we wish to add a “use requirement” for them as well. This solution would also NOT impact 2012 round new gTLDs. Thanks, Alexander.berlin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

7 9

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 26 November 2019
by Emily Barabas Nov. 26, 2019

Nov. 26, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 26 November 2019. 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/2019-11-26+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: Action ACTION ITEM: WG members to add any additional comments to the working document (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBSh…) by COB Friday, after which the document will be frozen so that staff can update to reflect recent discussions. Notes 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest - There will be only one call this week due to the Thanksgiving holiday in the US. - Meeting invites for December calls have gone out. - No SOI Updates. 2. CCT-RT Recommendations - Recommendations 9 and 12 were covered on the previous call. - Recommendation 14 deals with the RA, and putting incentives into these agreements to proactively include measures to prevent systematic abuse. - We have discussed that the community should deal with this issue as a whole, rather than this group making recommendations specific to subsequent rounds on New gTLDs, which would not address any current problems with existing TLDs. - We have been discussing issues related to this recommendation, but not focusing on the financial incentives piece because we think that the broader community should discuss this across all gTLDs. - Question: Is this in our remit? - Answer: The part related to New gTLDs going forward is in our remit, but other gTLDs are not in our remit. - GAC would like to see all CCT-RT recommendations implemented before subsequent rounds proceed, therefore this group should provide an opinion on this issue. - Question: Is there a definition of “proactive”? - Answer: No, but the community might want to look into whether there are predictive measures that predict abuse. - Note that this recommendation did not only go to the PDP but is also directed at other groups. - Proposed path forward: We acknowledge the community efforts underway and believe that the community should be taking steps to address these recommendations for all gTLDs. - Recommendation 15 - primarily for the ICANN Board. In this recommendation we would say something similar. Note the work that is going on in the community. - We should include in our report the PDP’s perspective on these recommendations so that is clear that they have been considered. - Is our response to recommendation 14 a “cop out”? - It really can’t be an issue handled by SubPro alone. It needs to dealt with by the broader community, and that work is underway. - Recommendation 16 – recommends further study on DNS abuse. - This is also aligned with further work that is currently underway in the community. Further discussion in this group may not be needed. - Challenge: giving financial incentives to contracted parties takes money away from ICANN that could be used for new monitoring initiatives. The community should discuss this further. - Recommendation 17- ICANN should collect data and publicize the chain of parties responsible for gTLD domain name registrations. - This doesn’t seem to be within the scope of SubPro. - Registrars are supposed to publish information about their resellers. That’s in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. This relates to only one part of the recommendation. - This recommendation/topic be added to the EPDP/WHOIS discussions. - CCT-RT recommendations came out before the EPDP was initiated. - We should state that we understand the issue, that there is an element in the RAA, but the crux of the issue should be handled in the EPDP. - Recommendation 23 – aimed at looking at highly-regulated sectors (Category 1 TLDs). - The intent is to look at whether Category 1 TLD PICs have been effective in addressing what they were intended to address. - SubPro is on this list of recipients of the recommendation, but it is mainly a compliance issue looking at past activity. - This group needs to determine if the PICs that the GAC had required for Category 1 TLDs should remain. Should we recommend this for future sensitive strings? - If we keep these PICs, do we require collection of additional data going forward? We should discuss this again when we get back to the topic of PICs. - One member expressed support for keeping these PICs in the future and collecting additional data. - It may be difficult to identify in advance what these strings would be, so best not to box ourselves in with a definition of sensitive strings. - It should not necessarily be decided by governments after the fact. We should give applicants some sort of guidance if they are going to need to agree to additional PICs. - Suggestion – ask the GAC for input. - Response - Their input is important, but we should make a recommendation about this from SubPro’s perspective. We can ask for additional guidance in the public comment period. - Has the GAC provided a definition of “sensitive string”? - The GAC advice mentions highly-regulated sectors. The PICs focus on areas where there is licensing or governing law. But there is not a precise definition provided. - Suggestion: Provide a high-level definition, ask applicants to self-identify, and then have a panel of some kind as we did with geographic names in the 2012 round. - Could provide high-level criteria indicative of a sensitive string in the AGB. - The more criteria we can provide for evaluators the better to support implementation. - This discussion should be incorporated into our report sections on PICs and also on evaluations. - Note that some topics might be highly regulated in some jurisdictions and not others and this needs to be taken into account. - Recommendation 25 – to the extent that voluntary commitments are allowed in the future, applicants should state the intended goal and include this at the time of application, include end date if applicable, and provide a searchable database. - We have done a lot on this subject. We have talked about addressing issues to improve transparency including the opportunity to comment. We have talked about using PICs as a way to address objections etc. We have talked about including a rationale for PICs, and if there is an end date to indicate this and state why. - Concern: The recommendation says that PICs need to be stated at the time of application, but that eliminates the ability of them to be “problem solvers” for addressing concerns expressed in response to an application. We should press on that a bit and see if we agree. - Perhaps applicants should file at the time of application if they can, but that it should also be possible to state PICs later. - Looking at the CCT-RT report, if we address their concerns about transparency, ability to comment, etc, this may be more important than requiring commitments are submitted up-front. - We should acknowledge other parts of this recommendation. Searchable database: We could comment or pass this on to ICANN org. - Recommendation 29 – Set objectives/metrics for applications from the global south. - We have talked about enhancing outreach and applicant support. We have discussed setting metrics, but it is difficult to set objective measurements to determine if the program is a success. - SubPro leadership spoke with CCT-RT review team about this topic. It makes sense that they want to be able to measure impact. A quantitative approach is very difficult to take with this issue. - Is there a possible benchmark elsewhere we could use? - It’s also hard to put objective measurements on the term “global south”? - We have also discussed not limiting support to the “global south” but also making support available to other applicants who need support from other regions. - We can certainly suggest that certain data is collected: those who have reached out to ICANN, additional data may be available from GSE on the number of organizations they reach. We can use these as illustrative examples of the types of data that might be collected. - SubPro can think about data points that could be collected. ICANN should go to others with expertise to get additional advice on data that should be collected and interpretation of that data. - World Economic Forum report could be a point of reference. The report states that three quarters of the world’s population has access to one fifth of the world’s income. Suggestion that a successful outcome of the program is that one fifth of the applications come from the Global South. - It’s hard to compare individual access to technology with industry applications for TLDs. Concern raised about the one fifth suggestion. - On list, there was discussion about the fact that there are not registrars in the Latin American region, or if there are, there are fewer than in 2012. Does it help to have a bunch of registries in an area where there are no registrars? - Suggestion – review WT1 metrics discussion to move the conversation forward. - A much more extensive marketing and communications program will be important, and this is already in our recommendations. - Recommendations 30 and 31 – grouped because they are exclusively directed to ICANN Org, we will note that we are touching on these topics as well. - Note that recommendations 30 and 31 are directed in some capacity to the WG via the Board resolution action. The Board cites the PDP in discussing establishing a definition for the global south. - We are not just talking about the global south, we are also talking about the middle applicant. - Recommendation 32 – revisit Applicant Support Program. We have just discussed this. - Recommendation 33 – making sure that GAC Advice should be clearly enunciated, actionable, and accompanied by a clear rationale. . . ICANN should provide a template for GAC Advice related to specific TLDs. Timelines should be clarified for GAC Advice on specific TLDs. - We have addressed most if not all of these areas. - We need to make sure we cover and finish discussions on establishing timelines on which GAC Advice is expected. - We can’t dictate timing of GAC Advice but we can discuss when it would be most useful and when it can be provided so that is does not hold up applications. - The CCT believes that there should be a mechanism where individual members can object and that there should be a means to challenge assertions of fact by GAC members. - “Challenge assertions of fact by GAC members” is not entirely clear. We have talked about creating communication channels with GAC members who file Early Warnings. - We do talk about appeals after the fact. - It is not our role to address how the GAC works and the GAC Advice process in the bylaws. - How GAC does its business is not our business. We have gone about as far as we can go in terms of recommendations. - Regarding timeline of GAC Advice – we shouldn’t hold up the process of moving things forward if we are not sure if there is going to GAC Advice. When the GAC files Advice, it needs to be addressed at that time, recognizing that it might be harder for the Board to address the Advice after certain things have happened and applications have proceeded through certain steps. - Even though the GAC has been through this before and there have been some learnings, there has been a lot of turnover in the GAC, and there are a lot of new faces, but hopefully GAC support staff can make sure lessons learned from the last round are documented for new GAC members. - Recommendation 34 – Review of community-based applications and concerns addressed. - We have been addressing this all along and do not need to discuss it further on this call. - The CCT-RT considers a higher rate of success in community application scoring a greater success in the program. We might want to think about this and consider whether we want to speak to this. It is definitely data we should capture. - Comment: most successful community applicants were backed by wealthy organizations in the 2012 round. - Recommendation 35 – adopt new policies to address inconsistencies in string confusion. - We have addressed the plural/singular issue, appeal mechanism, other things that may be considered similar – exact translations, homonyms, and synonyms. We will continue to address this in our discussions. - GAC Advice has stated that before launching a new round, CCT-RT recommendations that are prerequisites and high-priority should be implemented. Many of the recommendations were meant to be discussed and not necessarily meant to go straight to implementation. If considering these recommendations is essentially implementation, we are doing pretty well. - This may be a question for the Board and not the PDP. Let’s not be paralyzed and complete our work and ultimately let the Board decide whether the necessary items have been tackled. - At the same time, we need to be able to say that we believe that we have completed our work with respect to the recommendations. We can certify this to the Council, who can in turn certify this to a Board. - Recommendations on DNS Abuse – were any adopted or are they still under consideration? - These recommendations are still in the pending bucket from the Board. - All we can do is state what we have addressed, what conclusions we have reached, and the rationale, and ultimately it will be for the Board and the GAC. ACTION ITEM: WG members to add any additional comments to the working document by COB Friday, after which the document will be frozen so that staff can update to reflect recent discussions. 3. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort: To be covered on the next call. 4. AOB - Next call is Tuesday 2 Dec at 15:00 UTC for 90 mins. - Members are encouraged to continue the discussion on the mailing list.

1 1

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Nov. 26, 2019

Nov. 26, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/aoQzBw> (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