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

Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 11 April 2016
by Julie Hedlund April 11, 2016

April 11, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 11 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email. Please note for review/comment that there are two Google Docs as follows (and referenced below): 1. New gTLD - 2007 Principles and Recommendations — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15_0TRWzFIaLgO3QlfYH_0ZtOlMKm7SEjsHif4Oi…. 2. Subject 1 Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future - Pros and Cons — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/111-IBO9zKMXPorvBxoot8uTdLPyjPesYCha6D0s…. These also are on the wiki at the WG Documents at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001970. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 11 April 2016 1. Any Other Business: Action Item: Jim Prendergast re: ICANN workshop on new gTLDs at the WSIS. Request for Steve Chan to check and report back. 2. Catalog of Advice and Statements from 2012 round of New gTLDs Jeff Neuman: Capture all of the different pieces and things we learned that we didn't foresee in the original process so as not to lose the statements filed. Example: Plurals issue -- groups not satisfied with how it was implemented. Request for GAC statements, but focus beyond the GAC, such as BC letter on plurals vs singular; statements on changing contacts midway, etc. Paul McGrady: Annotate the Applicant Guidebook. Provide links in the various sections. Jeff Neuman: Or group by subject matter. Alan Greenberg: Annotating the AGB may be the appropriate place. Action Items: 1) Get a Word version of the AGB and put into Google Docs; 2) Need volunteers from each group's representative (Advisory Committee, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituency, etc.); 3) Co-Chairs will propose a way forward on this. 3. Continuing the discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report Recommendation 12 Susan Payne -- yes still relevant. Liz Williams -- Should never be a prohibition on the opportunity to take legal or other action. Jim Neuman -- The point of the exercise is to make sure we have established a baseline and then when we have a procedure map it back to the concept. Recommendation 13 Liz Williams -- Question: Should there be an EOI whilst the PDP goes on? How do you assess demand? Did some work on potential demand. Carlton Samuels -- Was there ever a direct connection between round and demand? How was demand was established? Jeff Neuman: What is a definition of a round? Alan Greenberg: Think we need to stick with rounds for at least one more round. Unwise to eliminate at this time. Jeff Neuman: These are issues we need to look at. This is one of those concepts that the groups will look at and is not a given. Keep this bracketed until we've done more work and look into GAC advice. [Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.] Recommendation 14 No comments. Jeff Neuman: Fairly innocuous proposal. Recommendation 15 No comments. Recommendation 16 Jeff Neuman: The heart of the multistakeholder group model. Seems obvious to keep going. Recommendation 17 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure that this was done. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: As long as compliance is not done at arm's length from GDD it is going to be almost impossible to terminate the contracts. Alan Greenberg: Compliance reports direct to the CEO, not to GDD. Jeff Neuman: The group that works on Track 2 will work with Compliance to ensure that this concept is clear. [Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.] Recommendation 18 Jeff Neuman: I think that is in all the agreements now. I think that is a clear concept and not controversial. Recommendation 19 Jeff Neuman: Everyone should pay attention to this one. It has formed the basis for a number of rules. An exception was grant for the BRAND registries for the second part of it. It was the topic of a lot of discussions. The goal is not to reopen the debate here, but it is one the Track 2 group will discuss and whether the principle is still relevant. Susan Payne: This will inform part of the discussion as to whether there are different types of registries with different roles. Jeff Neuman: It can play into the discussion of whether there could be different classes of new gTLDs. Alan Greenberg: This was ultimately not followed and we will have to redo the wording. Jeff Neuman: I think the first part was followed (only ICANN accredited registrars with the exception of the promotional names). The second part of that (not descriminate among accredited registrars) some may argue was not followed in all circumstances. [Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.] Recommendation 20 — Replaced recommendation 11. Jeff Neuman: Gave rise to a community objection whether or not it was a community application. One of our tracks will look at objections and communities so we'll be looking at this concept or what could be done to ensure it is implemented in accordance with this concept. Action Item: Staff will update the Google Doc — DONE — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15_0TRWzFIaLgO3QlfYH_0ZtOlMKm7SEjsHif4Oi…. 4. Discussion on Subject 1 (Time Permitting): Pros and Cons — Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future? Action Item: Staff will create a Google Doc with the Pros and Cons — DONE — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/111-IBO9zKMXPorvBxoot8uTdLPyjPesYCha6D0s…. 5. Differentiation with TLDs -- Whether it is good or bad to have Categories Categories from 2012 Open registries Geographic Brand Intergovernmental organizations Community registry Brainstorm on types of categories and characteristics Validated registry -- not another brand but not open to everyone (qualification criteria that must be verified) Not-for-profit or non-profit gTLDs, NGOs Highly regulated Capture for next meeting -- pros and cons of differentiation and difficulty of drawing boundaries/judging them Liz Williams: @ Susan ... so that is just domain name regiistration policy. We really shouldn't be tying ourselves in knots about the REGISTRY label. We should only focue on whether an applicant has articulated their domain name registration policy...so much easier and must less problematic for evaluation panels AND for future changes to use of registry Liz Williams: @ jeff...yes and I'll be preparing for that by illustrating the negative effects (in this round and in previous rounds) of trying to force applicants to declare that they are "something" and then having to prove it for the evaluation process. total madness ensues.

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 11 April 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Review agenda Roll Call/SoIs Catalog of advice and statements from the 2012 round of New gTLDs Continued discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report Discussion on Subject 1 (Time Permitting): Should there in fact be new gTLDs? AOB Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 1

Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 April 2016
by Julie Hedlund April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 04 April. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript. The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar. Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 04 April 2016 1. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (attached). Action Item: Send the letter to the GNSO Council leadership via Paul McGrady, the GNSO Council liaison, after the meeting today. Once the Council leadership reviews and approves, it will be sent to Dr. Crocker and the Board. 2. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (please reference the attached excerpt): Decision making: Action Items: 1) Document in the notes actions to be taken at a next meeting (noting that a first reading is normally the result of discussion so may not be documentable ahead of time); 2) Keep a decision log on all decisions that have been made and the results. Principle A Jeff Neuman: Will be addressed later as an overarching principle. Principle B Alan Greenberg: Not sure this is needed anymore as it is moot.Vanda Scartezini: Could just state that TLDs can be in both ASCII and IDN formats. (General agreement in the discussion.) Principle C Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Suggested text: "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity." Principle D (Summary of discussion) — Make sure that the principles sync with the new Bylaws. Principle E Jeff Neuman: Clarify that the capability criteria are operational and financial?Alan Greenberg: Leave as is for now, recognizing that we'll probably need to add sub-paragraphs to provide additional detail. Principle F (Summary of discussion) — No action. Still applies. Principle G Ayden Ferdeline: Why only the "applicant's" freedom of expression?Carlton Samuels: Say more about the string evaluation process?Greg Shatan: Put this into the recommendations, rather than principles?Kavouss Arasteh: Change the "protected" to “provided" in front of "internationally recognized”.Steve Coates: Or change to: "that are recognized under international principles of law."Robin Gross: Objection to moving from principles to recommendations. Jeff Neuman: Should be there be a way or method in the recommendations to add things that are based on new circumstances or not anticipated? Steve Coates (Twitter): Consider implications to "rolling procedures." Recommendation 1 Steve Coates (Twitter): Recommendation 1 should not be negotiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz: It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board. Jeff Neuman: In addition to high-level principles there were things we wanted to be sure were included ("must"). Alan Greenberg & Greg Shatan: They may start as recommendations, but once approved by the Board they are policy. Greg Shatan: The taxonomy may be out of date/pre-go-live set up. Jeff Neuman: Should we list these as policies? Kavouss Arasteh: If you change to "policy" that may solve a lot of issues. Be very careful not to use "must" if we don't mean "must" -- minimize the use of must. Kurt Pritz: Use "must" and "shall" in the definition adopted by ICANN (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) Recommendation 2 Jeff Neuman: On this one there may be inherent questions -- what does "Reserve" mean? There was a subgroup in 2006-7 that worked on this definition, "what is a Reserved Name?" "Strings" here point to top-level domains. Move forward subject to definiting the terms? Recommendation 3 Jeff Neuman: This was used to create some of the objection criteria for the 2012 round. This will be discussed in one of the tracks, although not necessarily a rights-protection mechanism since this refers to strings at the top level. Robin Gross: Freedom of Expression concerns were left out of the implemention of Recommendation 3 (which only focused on trademark protection). Recommendation 4 Jeff Neuman: Would think this is non-contentious. Alan Greenberg: Change the nomenclature to "concepts" and then if there should be a taxonomy work through it later. Recommendation 5 Jeff Neuman: Define "Reserved Word" and provide more context, as suggested by Kavouss. Recommendation 6 Jeff Neuman: The group that deals with this work track should look at how this was defined. Work with it initially as a concept. Recommendation 7 Jeff Neuman: I am not sure the evaluation looked at the purpose that the applicant set out, just whether a registry could run as a registry. We will probably come back to this. Alan Greenberg: I am not sure it makes any sense. Steve Coates: Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical".Kavouss Arasteh: How is this demonstration made?Rubens Kuhl: Currently they demonstrate passing a pre-delegation test: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt. Jeff Neuman: Not done during the application process. May need to consider if we decide to accredit registry providers whether we do think a demonstration needs to be approved, in track 1 (process) track 5 (technical criteria/demonstration). Recommendation 8 Jeff Neuman: Never asked to demonstrate financial capabilities, but ICANN received statements and financial information. Rubens Kuhl: Only looked an financial with the angle of a commercial registry. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Jeff Neuman: Look at that in the relevant track. Recommendation 9 Jeff Neuman: Look at the ICANN Implementation Report, but for this one gets some comments in from the actual evaluators. Robin Gross: Do better on recommendation 9. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Rudi Vansnick: Agreed. Kavouss Arasteh: To whom is this addressed? What is the relation to "objective and measurable criteria" and "pre-published application process? Reword or say what we mean. Jeff Neuman: Agree that we can word this better that there should be criteria set out in advance so applicants know how they will be measured. Alan Greenberg: There may well be things that are non-objective but we should try to put in these that are non-discriminatory. Kavouss Arasteh: Are we asking ICANN to do this?Rubens Kuhl: Add "non-discriminatory"Jeff Neuman: That is a good addition. Or "except as otherwise set forth here?" Greg Shatan: Or "Where possible"? Recommendation 10 Jeff Neuman: This is one where there have been comments that there should be different base contracts? But the concept is that the applicant should know what contractual terms would apply to them. Reword that there is not only one base contract? We should talk about base contract(s) -- track 2 -- whether there should be a process to institute changes before a contract is signed. Steve Coates (Twitter): Could use improvement with additional clauses, and application of new clauses. Recommendation 11 — Replaced with 20. Recommendation 12 Jeff Neuman: We need to build in some what to have changes. Applicants need to know what dispute processes might be used against them. Robin Gross: GAC objections impact recommendation 12, not understanding what a government might object to.

9 12

For those of you who missed yesterday's GNSO Working Group Newcomer webinar
by Nathalie Peregrine April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Dear all, Yesterday another edition of the GNSO Working Group Newcomer webinar was held, chaired by Donna Austin, GNSO Council vice-chair. For those of you who couldn't make it please find the transcription and slide deck of the presentation attached to this email. Please also find the Adobe Connect recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5t711npn5b/<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5t711npn5b/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ad6eb32f94d9cb4…> The mp3 recording, as well as the aforementioned materials have been posted to the GNSO Master calendar here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr Thank you all! Kind regards Nathalie

1 0

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group 04 April 2016 22:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 04 April 2016 at 22:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-04apr16-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/IxmAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 04 April 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 04 April 2016 at 22:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:If you do wish to speak during the call, please either dial into the audio bridge and give the operator the password NEW gTLD, OR click on the telephone icon at the top of the AC room to activate your AC mics. Please remember to mute your phone and mics when not talking. Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Michelle, Hi steve, Hi all Michelle DeSmyter:Hello, welcome Kavouss! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Odd Audio .. someone needs to mute Steve Chan:Hi Kavouss, everyone! Welcome to the call. Kavouss Arasteh:Michelle, Kavouss Arasteh:I have not been dialed up yet Kavouss Arasteh:Couls someone ask the operator to dial my Number pls Michelle DeSmyter:Hello Kavouss - I just sent you a private chat Jeff Neuman:Hello all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi Jeff Steve Coates (Twitter):Just dialing in now. Yoshi Murakami(JPRS):Hi Jeff Neuman:Steve COates - You have a much better phone :) Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone!! Jeff Neuman:No its just my sloppy typing Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):LOL Frederic Guillemaut SafebRands:Hello all Phil Buckingham:hi everyone Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Hello Carlos Raul Gutierrez:Dont need a phone bridge appaerntly all is fine Carlos Raul Gutierrez: thank you Steve Mary Wong:Per question about Dr Crocker's letter, it was to ask the WG (and the CCT Review Team) to review the concerns raised by the ALAC and the GAC regarding effectiveness of the PICS safeguards (from the GAC's Category 1) Vanda Scartezini:i will remain just at Adobe. Jeff Neuman:Someone should mute Mary Wong:Please mute if you're not speaking, thank you! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):MUTE Carlton Samuels:Howdy all Rudi Vansnick:sorry had connection problems .. Vanda Scartezini:hi Rudi, Carlton, Cheryl... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Hi Rubens Kuhl:Echo echo echo Vanda Scartezini:ecco Carlton Samuels:Hi Vanda, CLO, Rudi Rudi Vansnick:a lot of well known people here ;) Carlton Samuels:Hi Alan Alan Greenberg:Howdy Vanda Scartezini:hi Alan Craig - fTLD Registry:Can you please make the font a litttle larger? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):second readings in Meetings is a good practice Steve Chan:@Craig, you should be able to adjust the font size on your end Craig - fTLD Registry:Yep, thanks! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and BTW that started in ccNSO FOI WG as a practice ;-) Martin Sutton BRG:Agree with Jeff - this helps with the time zones where some may not be able to join each call. Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 Alan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Also a decision LOG is helful Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):helpful Kavouss Arasteh:Alan+1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Alan Greenberg:First reading decision is normally the result of discussion and therefore not documentable ahead of time. Carlton Samuels:@CLO: +1 on decision logs Steve Coates (Twitter):I don't hear anything, Jeff. Kurt Pritz:What this list lacks is the Terms of Reference Kurt Pritz:There were four of them Carlos Raul Gutierrez:do we still need the word "should"? Kurt Pritz:1) Whether there should be new TLDs. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:I think IDNs are a fact of life now Kurt Pritz:2) What are the criteria for awarding them? Craig - fTLD Registry:Agree with Alan. Carlos Raul Gutierrez:agree with Alan Steve Coates (Twitter):I tend to agree with Alan. Kurt Pritz:3) What is the allocation process Rubens Kuhl:At that time both ccTLD IDN Fast Track and gTLDs were under consideration. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup agree Kurt Pritz:4) What should be the contractual terms Donna Austin, Neustar:If any of these Principles are considered no longer available, do we need to formally say why this is so? Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry, no longer applicable ... Kurt Pritz:The principles, recommendations and implementation guidelines are meant to answer these four over arching questions Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I would thnk a rationale is important es Donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes Alan Greenberg:I think we demonstrated realtively well that we were not able to homour Principle A in the first round. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Alan, that may be the case but the principle remains relevant. Vanda Scartezini:Anyway could just astate new top level domains can be in both ASCII and IDN formats Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Greg Shatan:Agree. Carlton Samuels:@Vanda: +1. Just state that as a principle Jon Nevett:Vanda +1 Vanda Scartezini:in a better english please Carlton Samuels:I would like to see a principle here that take out and make geographic and service provider diversity a major goal! Greg Shatan:I agree with Vanda that "C" is not well drafted, and should be revised for that reason. Rubens Kuhl:+1 to sync wording with new bylaws. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Greg Rubens Kuhl:I don't think there is anything in the principles that would prevent service-provider accreditation and/or aggregated evaluation. Alan Greenberg:I wasn't suggesting that we not do it. It was just an observation. Steve Coates (Twitter):Agree with you Jeff. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):For C, perhaps "One of the reasons for introducing new top-level domains is that there is demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII and IDN formats. Furthermore, the introduction of new top-level domains has the potential to promote: competition in the provision of registry services; consumer choice; market differentiation; and geographical and service-provider diversity. Kevin Kreuser:we should scrap principle B. cannot control what is applied for. C covers IDNs. Robin Gross:I'm not on audio, but this one (Principle G) was not or at least insufficiently implemented. Ayden Ferdeline:re: G, why only the "applicant's" freedm of expression rights? Carlton Samuels:Refer G: I think more should be said about the string evaluation process. There's more to it than freedom of expression! Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Just to draw the WG's attention to the GAC 2007 Principles on New gTLDs, which are advice to the Board. Not suggesting anything specific for this current discussion but I expect that GAC members will wish to raise some aspects of them at some point. I can circulate the link to the mail list. Rubens Kuhl:@Ayden, because other freedom of expression rights are covered by overall consensus policies. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Tom, does the GAC intend to revise their Principles in light of the 2012 round? Robin Gross:I disagree with removing principle g Carlos Raul Gutierrez (mobile):@robin it was suggested to move from principles to recommendations Carlos Raul Gutierrez (mobile):not to eliminate Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Donna, that has been alluded to in GAC discussions but the specifics of a process are yet to be discussed in detail. Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Tom Jon Nevett:agree with Robin Robin Gross:The recomendations and principles are supposed to work together. They aren't an either or proposition. Carlton Samuels:@Greg: I agree twith Greg to the extent that principles should be inviolate. I think it is important to scribe a principle on the string evalaution process because so much of outcome depends on this! Vanda Scartezini:being under principle further discussion will not change it while as recommendation can be follow or not and related to rights it is relevant to pay attention Carlos Raul Gutierrez (mobile):correct @Robin, but the whole list suffers from the expectations that something could go earl Greg Shatan:We should either make "G" a recommendation or move some of the recommendations up to principles. Carlos Raul Gutierrez (mobile):go wrong Rubens Kuhl:A is the least followed principle, with G second. B to F were followed. Kavouss Arasteh:Iam disconncted Kavouss Arasteh:I do not hear or unable to hear the reaction to my suggestions Michelle DeSmyter:yes Steve Coates (Twitter):I would change to "that are recognized under international principles of law." Robin Gross:Julie, I'm not on audio, but could you please include in the notes my objection to moving principle g out of principles? Thanks. Greg Shatan:Agree with Steve C. re phrasing. Craig - fTLD Registry:Well we know that didn;'t happen. Jon Nevett:Craig +307 Julie Hedlund:@ Steve Coates: I've captured that text. Julie Hedlund:@Robin Gross: I've noted your objection. Robin Gross:Appreciate it, Julie! Kavouss Arasteh:What is principle of law? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I think we should allow for fexability Steve Coates (Twitter):+1 to Jeff, we should consider implications to "rolling procedures" Rubens Kuhl:What general guidance do we have from the policy x implementation WG ? Kavouss Arasteh:Colleagues, let us retain Principle as thezy are and not start such conversion Steve Coates (Twitter):Agree with Greg. Recommendation 1 should not be negotiatiable. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):I agree that "should" would be better than "must" in the Recommendations. Kurt Pritz:It is ok that a recommendation include the word "must." "Recommendation" means Policy Recommendations that were later approved by the ICANN Board Kurt Pritz:The 19 points under "recommendations" are the heart of the New gTLD Policy Steve Coates (Twitter):Just a reminder to mute your line. Steve Chan:@Steve Coates, it is noted in the Final Issue Report that the impact of switching to a "rolling procedure" should be well understood Greg Shatan:Once "recommendations" are adopted, they're no longer recommendations; they're policy. Steve Coates (Twitter):Thx @Steve Chan Karen:I was just kicked out of the call. Any reason why? Robin Gross:And the way they are framed in the appendix A (GNSO Policy) are "recommendations". Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):So once Board-approved, perhaps "Mandates" instead of "Recommendations" Robin Gross:to the bylaws, that is. Mary Wong:@Karen, were you logged in under your own name before? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Fair point(s) Greg Rubens Kuhl:There are reserved words that would not create technical instability, like .EXAMPLE. Richard Padilla:Sorry for being late I'm here hi everyone Jeff Neuman:I just got dropped/ Kurt Pritz:https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt Kurt Pritz:Definition of Must, Shall etc that has been adopted by ICANN Greg Shatan:Definition of must: (mŭst)n." The unfermented or fermenting juice expressed from fruit, especially grapes." Richard Padilla:Can someone dvise what exactly what is meant by strings should that be fully defined Richard Padilla:sorry I'm meant should the term strings be fully defined sorry about my english lol Steve Coates (Twitter):Yes to "what is a reserved name." Greg Shatan:A string is the set of characters that make up a domain. Kurt Pritz:@ Richard: I agree. We should get rid of terms like "string" that are not commonly understood Greg Shatan:Kurt, next you'll suggest we get rid of acronyms!! Richard Padilla:@greg thanks Richard Padilla:@Kurt yes when I hear strings I start think of programming it is such a loose used term in computing Jon Nevett:Jeff, Isn't that on the second level? Rubens Kuhl:During application a string is not yet a TLD, so it could be either "string" or "proposed TLD". Ayden Ferdeline:re: recommendation 2, does this only apply to strings in the same language? Craig - fTLD Registry:ICANN fail - allowing plaurals. Steve Coates (Twitter):At least "confusingly similar' is generally recognized as a concept in trademark law, which is largely consistent internationally. Rubens Kuhl:@Ayden, this has been decided differently by objection panels. Some included language as criteria, some considered the overall meaning. Steve Coates (Twitter):Agree with Kavouss, let's tie that defintion to "Reserved" with a capital R, in its various forms. Ayden Ferdeline:thanks @rubens Carlton Samuels:@Kavouss +1 Carlton Samuels:I'm agreeing with the definitional notion! Rubens Kuhl:I think that some reserved names would only require exact match blocking, not similarity blocking. Carlton Samuels:I have to drop off now. School Bord meeting Steve Coates (Twitter):The former is TM/IP based, the latter are not. Robin Gross:so free expression concerns was left out of implementation of Rec 3 (which only focused on TM) Marc Trachtenberg:"Existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law" should go beyond tademark. The existing language argiably does, but in practice did not. Rubens Kuhl:.home, .corp and .mail Robin Gross:Julie, I'm not on audio, but can you please include my point above above about Rec 3 in the notes? Thanks! Harold Arcos:+1 Greg, Richard. Regarding on definition of terms. Point G and Recomm 1.- are joint and are key for many groups who works in HHRR for their countrys. Kurt Pritz:@ Greg - that is why I referred to the Terms of Reference at the ouset; each of the recommendations point to one of the terms of reference, not the principles Julie Hedlund:@Robin: Done! Robin Gross:Thanks, again! Rubens Kuhl:Robin, I think the Limited Public Interest Objection ended up carrying the active part of rec. 3. But it's debatable indeed. Steve Coates (Twitter):Yes to that. Richard Padilla:@Harold Thanks for that Steve Coates (Twitter):Agree on the language of "purpose" tied to "technical." Rubens Kuhl:Could be IDN Language support, could be registration volume... Rubens Kuhl:Currently, they demonstrante passing a pre-delegation test. Rubens Kuhl:ICANN site describing PDT: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/pdt Martin Sutton BRG:Agree with Rubens - it's the PDT Frederic Guillemaut SafebRands:when applying, you had to explain your technical choices. And clarification questions were asked on that matter suring the evaluation process. Rubens Kuhl:On Rec.8, the process ended up only looking at financials with the angle of a commercial registry, while brand registries and community registries could be financed very differently than thru registration revenues. We might choose to let financial be only a due diligence requirement for contract signing but not an application evaluation criteria. Frederic Guillemaut SafebRands:for some customers it was already too much to show Kavouss Arasteh:YES Rudi Vansnick:indirect financial information is normally found in the business plan the applicant has to present Frederic Guillemaut SafebRands:yes Rudi Vansnick:based on the business plan the financial capabilities are influencial depending on when the application is put into the root$ Rubens Kuhl:I think we moved more to be able handle financial and technical issues with registry transition mechanisms. Robin Gross:We must do better on Rec. 9 in the future. Too much was changed after the fact and it wasn't fair. Jay Westerdal:Financial information has not led to any failed registry so far? Rudi Vansnick:@Robin: +1 Rubens Kuhl:The only sure way to fail financial evaluation was to refuse to provide financial statements. Other than that, no. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Jay Westerdal:New companies formed just to be Registries have no books to exam Rudi Vansnick:@Jay: the applicant provides a business plan based on information at the moment of drafting the application, should an applicant forecast the fatc ICANN rolls out years after the application is entered ? Rubens Kuhl:BTW, ICANN made all applicants financial projections to fail by requering a new registrar accreditation in order to sell new gTLDs, so every projection contained in the applications were broken... Vanda Scartezini:" using" is really a bad word in this context . Kavouss Arasteh:TO WHOM nO. 9 IS ADDRESSED? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Vanda Vanda Scartezini:to ICANN I beleive Kavouss Arasteh:aRE WE ASKING icann TO DO THAT PUBLICATION USING.... Kavouss Arasteh:perfect twhat you said jeff Vanda Scartezini:@kavouss "using is really bad word as some of us agreed Rudi Vansnick:normally tha applicant guidebook should contain process Greg Shatan:Please mute if you are not speaking, and especially if you are typing.... Rubens Kuhl:"non-discriminatory" would be a nice addition to rec. 9. Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 Rubens Rudi Vansnick:"non-discriminatory" -> define the criteria too Harold Arcos:+1 Rubens Rubens Kuhl:Or, could be a "should" instead of a "must"... Kavouss Arasteh:YES Steve Coates (Twitter):Jeff - 4 miniute warning. Steve Chan:@Jeff, as Julie typed in the notes, you missed Recc 10 Robin Gross:GAC objections impact Rec. 12 - not understanding what a govt might object to Jay Westerdal:100% agree. Alan Greenberg:Sure it was.... Rubens Kuhl:This was violated. No other way to state what happened. Steve Coates (Twitter):10 could use some improvement, especially with additional clasuses, and application of new clauses in existing contracts and renewals. Jay Westerdal:Sounds illegal to change a contract afterwards Vanda Scartezini:each contract shall be available for different alernatives now that we know how different aspects of newTLDs can come out from applications Rudi Vansnick:have there been lawsuits due to the failing base contract Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):We do need to 'fix' this matter Kavouss Arasteh:nEXT CALL Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thank everyone.. Good progress Talk again next week then Bye for now Julie Hedlund:Next call is Monday, 11 April at 1400 UTC Julie Hedlund:1600! Julie Hedlund:Sorry! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):BYE Julie Hedlund:Yes! Steve Chan:1600 UTC :) Martin Sutton BRG:Thanksall Robin Gross:Thanks, Jeff and all! Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you all. Christopher Niemi:THanks Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone! Rudi Vansnick:bye Yoshi Murakami(JPRS):thank you Ayden Ferdeline:thank you all Richard Padilla:Later Frederic Guillemaut SafebRands:bye Rubens Kuhl:Thanks Jeff, Steve, staff and all! Vanda Scartezini:thank all Greg Shatan:Thanks all! Vanda Scartezini:specially julie....and all stafff

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] : New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
by Craig Schwartz April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Dear Colleagues, As we embark on this effort to help ICANN improve its process for the approval of new gTLDs, I encourage us to consider at least the following: - To the extent that something worked reasonably well, let’s not reinvent the wheel if it’s not necessary. This would include not spending a tremendous amount of time wordsmithing policy principles, recommendations, etc. unless it absolutely adds value to the next iteration of a New gTLD Program. - In my opinion, the process for the last round was in some respects over-engineered and having been part of ICANN staff at that time I know there was an effort to attempt to account for every conceivable wrinkle via some process (e.g., dispute resolution procedures, objections). Unfortunately this approach not only led to several significant delays, but also resulted in the Applicant Guidebook being modified numerous times before ICANN opened the application window. The process was supposed to be that all applicants would know and play by the same set of rules before applications were accepted and we all know how that turned out. Let’s not unnecessarily repeat this kind of approach. - Focus on the elements that were just plain bad and did a disservice to stakeholders in the process. There are probably a dozen or so pieces of the process that either did not work as intended (e.g., applicant support program, community applications, objections) and then some pieces that are just plain failures in my view (e.g., permitting plurals of strings, ICANN’s accountability mechanisms and particularly that of the Ombudsman with regard to disputes). For example, many stakeholders have called for the development of appeals mechanisms to challenge results of certain processes rather than what’s currently available through ICANN. This may be something from the group to consider. As a new gTLD registry operator, determining how much time to spend on “ICANN” vs. serving the needs of the communities fTLD represents is not a tough call. On the one hand, all registry operators have businesses to run and stakeholders to serve. On the other hand, and I think many of you share the same view, we feel committed to improving ICANN for the benefit of all stakeholders regardless of whether they choose to participate directly or watch from the sidelines. I’d rather see us spend our time and energy improving the process by focusing on what didn’t work and what makes sense to consider adding vs. going backwards and attempting to recreate much of the program from scratch. To all of you committed to this important work, thank you. Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cellular: +1 202 236 1154 Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: <https://twitter.com/fTLD_Registry> @fTLD_Registry Please visit us at <https://www.ftld.com/> www.ftld.com and <https://www.register.bank/> www.register.bank

1 0

- Proposed Agenda for 4 April 2016
by Steve Chan April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 4 April 2016 at 22:00 UTC. 1. Review agenda 2. Roll Call/SoIs 3. Discussion on response to Dr. Crocker (Draft letter to be distributed by Steve Coates) 4. Discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report (excerpt attached) 5. Discussion on Subject 1: Should there in fact be new gTLDs? 6. Discussion on Subject 2 (Time Permitting): TLD Types/Differentiation 7. AOB Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

4 7

Status change: Observer/ Member in GNSO Working Groups
by Nathalie Peregrine March 31, 2016

March 31, 2016

Dear all, A friendly reminder about the two available options open to participants wishing to be active in GNSO Working Groups: OBSERVER * Read-Only access to the Working Group Discussion list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org) * No access to conference call dial in details (provided on a private list, available only to members) * Access to conference call recording and transcripts MEMBER * Reading and posting rights to the Working Group Discussion list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org) * Read only access to conference call dial in details, provided on a private list (ntfy) available only to members * Statement of Interest<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=14713457> compulsory to finalize registration as member IF YOU WISH TO CHANGE YOUR STATUS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, PLEASE EMAIL : gnso-secs(a)icann.org Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support

1 0

Call for RSVPs: GNSO Working Group Newcomer Open House Session | 5 April 2016 at 20:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine March 30, 2016

March 30, 2016

Call for RSVPs | GNSO Working Group Newcomer Open House Session | 5 April at 20:00 UTC Please RSVP via <http://goo.gl/forms/DJIdwnIZEi> this form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1koLwNkVxkljGK49wgmdGFekHBqavejhVdeOs1cHYAC…>. Remote participation details will be sent on the 4 April 2016. The GNSO Working Group Newcomer Open House Session returns on 5 April 2016 and we are pleased to invite you to participate. These informal sessions provide an ideal opportunity for participants to ask questions about the GNSO Policy Development Process and the specifics of taking part in a Working Group. Of course, even though the open house sessions are intended for newcomers, anyone interested in brushing up their knowledge or looking for an opportunity to engage with others interested in GNSO policy development activities are welcome. In order to encourage interaction, we strongly recommend that you look through the list of Reading Materials at the bottom of this announcement. On the RSVP form, participants will be able to select items of interest chosen from three currently available categories: 1. Policy Development A-Z 2. Consensus Policy 3. Working Group Guidelines Join us to learn more about the GNSO and about how you can effectively participate in ICANN! Reading Materials: Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws> PDP Manual - http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf PDP Overview - http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/consensus-policy/pdp Consensus Policy: http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/consensus-policy/about GNSO Working Group Guidelines Summary - http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf GNSO Working Group Guidelines - http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf

1 0

Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 28 March 2016
by Julie Hedlund March 29, 2016

March 29, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the actions captured by staff from today’s meeting and let us know if you have comments, changes, or questions. Note that a transcript and MP3 also will be available. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 28 March 2016 1. Work Tracks 3, 4, 5 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections, Disputes Clarifying Questions: a. Kavouss Arasteh: Do we have a checklist of all those problems/difficulties with respect to similarity/singular v. plural so that someone could update it? Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It would be very valuable to produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning. In response to Paul McGrady's note -- there were initial evaluations and objections -- should user confusion in a trademark sense be part of an initial application/evaluation, or as part of an objection? If in the initital evaluation what factors would go into that evaluation? Action Item: Produce a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning. b. Alan Greenberg: Re: Level playing fields: How much emphasis should be made on this issue? Have we decided if this is problematic. Answer (Jeff Neuman) — This is an overall issue. Same with safeguards. No decisions have been made at this point. Action Items: Look at all the objections that were filed, how they turned out, consistency. Check to see if the CCT Review Team may be doing this. Look at the role of the independent objector. c. Kavouss Arasteh: Who is authorized to raise a question or objection based on the public interest? Should we have some type of rationale? Do we also accept political objections? Answer (Jeff Neuman): In 2012 anyone was entitled to file a public interest objection, but it did cost money. The grounds for the objection were in the Applicant Guidebook. There was a process to ensure that the claim had some merit. There was no formal objection ground for political objections, but the GAC or governments could file early warnings. The GAC could always provide advice during the process. Discussion Notes: Paul McGrady: Look very carefully at the GAC's role and how that played out in the first round. Ken Stubbs: Develop a process and methodologies for dealing with objections to avoid them dragging out. Greg Shatan: Re: consistency of outcomes -- we need to look at these things as processes and how this relates to the auction process. Jeff Neuman: Include in this track contention resolution aspects, such as auctions, indirect contentions, etc. Jay Westerdal: Some of the issues may take a year or two longer to resolve. Jeff Neuman: Not sure how we can have an impact on the previous round. Falls into how we stick to the principle that we are not advantaging/disadvantaging previous versus future applicants. Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names Clarifying Questions: Paul McGrady: How far are we allowed to go with respect to encouraging adoption of internationalized domain names? Can we recommend that ICANN lower the cost on IDNs? Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It might be that we could discuss issues -- but not exact pricing -- that in theory that you could have a recommendation that ICANN should have a subsidy, or that ICANN should encourage. Track 5: Technical & Operations Clarifying Questions: Alan Greenberg: We should be getting a report on whether the questions on the accreditation process met the needs or should they be changed. Answer (Jeff Neuman) — I think ICANN staff have said they want to participate in this PDP WG. They should be active members and listed on the wiki page. Discussion Notes: Mary Wong: Note that the WG could ask for answers from staff for specific questions. Alan Greenberg: I think we want something written from them, but much of this is implementation so it is not clear how deep we need to get into it. Jeff Neuman: It might be in the implementation report that they did. See: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16…. Also the comments on the report: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/. Avri Doria: We should make sure we look at relates to the original policy that the GNSO came out with that all registry requirements don't need to be the same. Jeff Neuman: I could see that as a good issue for track 5. Action Items: PDP WG support staff will take the action to add staff to the WG member list on the wiki. The PDP WG will direct specific questions to staff as needed. 3. Letter from Steve Crocker Discussion Notes: Jeff Neuman: I do think that the creation of yet another group to look at these questions would create a lot of overlap. I think these questions are captured in the issues we have laid out and if not we should make sure they are in there. We could respond to the Board by thanking them and that these are issues that are properly for the GNSO to consider. Alan Greenberg: We can say, "noted" and the items are in our work list. Steve Coates: General consensus is that this is a good letter. It seems that a short response is necessary and appropriate. Any questions with that approach? Alan Greenberg: And we will coordinate with the CCT Review Team. Jeff Neuman: Amr notes that these issues were brought up about the 2012 round in Marrakech. We should make it clear that our jurisdiction is only over subsequent procedures, not current TLDs. Alan Greenberg: There is no intent in the current ALAC advice to fix problems with the current round. Action Item: Staff will assist in drafting a brief response to the Board. 4. Liaisons from SOs/Acs Discussion Notes: It would be up to the SO and AC. They would not have special status in this WG, except for the GNSO Liaison. They may have liaison status in their groups. May be useful perhaps with the GAC, if they feel the need. 5. Next Meeting: Monday, 04 April at 2200 UTC.

5 6