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

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group 28 March 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter March 28, 2016

March 28, 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, 28 March 2016 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-28mar16-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, 28 March 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 28 March 2016. 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. Harold Arcos:Hi Jeff, everyone Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome Harold! Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Julie Kavouss Arasteh:Hi everybody Harold Arcos:Thanks Michelle, My apologies in advance because I have very slow bandwidth in my job. Jeff Neuman:Hello Theo Geurts:hello all Jeff Neuman:We will get started in a few minutes. Thanks to all for joining Julie Hedlund:Hi Kavouss and everyone! Klaus Stoll:Hi All Greg Shatan:Hello, all. Katrin Ohlmer| DOTZON:Hi ALl Khaled Koubaa:Hi everyone Julie Hedlund:@Avri: It is in the Adobe Connect room. Julie Hedlund:The agenda Michael Flemming:Good evening Khaled Koubaa:re-agenda : I think the letter is more important to begin with Steve Coates (Twitter):I'm on audio now. Apologies for running late. Julie Hedlund:@Avri: Kavouss has his hand up -- re: the agenda. Rubens Kuhl:Hearing echo Vanda Scartezini:sorry to be late. Freida Tallon:hello everyone Paul McGrady:Tracks+1 Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, your Portuguese pronunciation of .hoteis failed evaluation. Sorry. ;-) Phil Buckingham:Welcome Kavouss Avri Doria:i do recommend the recording for all who missed the first meeting. worth listening to the exlpanation of tracks 1 & 2. Rubens Kuhl:One area of overlap between evaluations and objections is string similarity. There were both string similarity evaluations (like .unicom / .unicorn, .hotels/.hoteis) and string confusion objections ( .com / .ecom, .kid / .kids). Steve Coates (Twitter):Good point, Rubens. Steve Chan:@Kavouss - the FInal Issue Report would have a non-exhaustive list of issues around string similarity. So that might be able to act as a starting point for the list you've asked about. Paul McGrady:Agree that both the substance and the procedure need to be fixed. Katrin Ohlmer| DOTZON:+1, Rubens. Also, the results for those two different mechanisms were not in-sync. Paul McGrady:+1Jeff Thanks! Phil Buckingham:Good point Alan . Greg Shatan:An application would seem to indicate an "intent to use," even if it doesn't constitute use at the time of the application. Rubens Kuhl:The risk already exists, since some string confusion objects on singular x plural already prevailed in the 2012-round. Vanda Scartezini:good suggestion ALAN Donna Austin, Neustar:I thought it was a principle raised in the discussion group. Avri Doria:we are still in clarification and have not decided anything Kevin Kreuser:What if those that hold singular want plural, or what if a brand wants the plural of its own name? Absolute bar, or exceptions permitted? Thinking out loud. Avri Doria:are we gettign lose to dicussing the solution space at the moment? Alan Greenberg:@Avri, yup Kevin Kreuser:@Avri, yes. Jeff Neuman:thanks avri Mary Wong:Note that the charter for the RPM PDP does not include evaluation/string confusion/objection topics. Khaled Koubaa:With all respect for all members we better go ahead with the list of subjects/issues and not spend the time in discussing only one Steve Coates (Twitter):Thx, Mary. Great point. Khaled Koubaa:This actually will be the role of each sub-group Greg Shatan:Thanks, Mary. That's interesting.... Vanda Scartezini:khaled, in alrge group like this one youa re right Mike Rodenbaugh:IGO Names also in SCO Rubens Kuhl:Kevin, one similar issue is IDN x ASCII. Some IDNs were blocked in 2012 like québec due to .quebec application. So those are also waiting for a policy allowing them to apply at a further procedure. Mary Wong:@SteveC, @Greg - it did not seem appropriate to carve out a single type of objection procedure from this PDP to go to the RPM one, even if the phrase "rights protection mechanism" can generally be applied to some of these processes. That's one reason why the RPM PDP charter is very explicit as to what is meant by "RPM" for purposes of that PDP. Greg Shatan:Thanks, Mary. I see the point. At least we know that we are dealing with all objection procedures in this group. Rubens Kuhl:@Mike, you are right that IGO Names were foreseen in SCO, but I believe none triggered that rule, even ECO x .eco which was a possible SCO. Steve Coates (Twitter):I agree with that, Mary. Let's figure out how to address that, and sync with the RPM PDP closely. ken stubbs:We need to find a more effective methodology for reducing the time frames for the objection processes Mike Rodenbaugh:@ Rubens, sorry I misspoke, IGO Names specifically address in in LRO, not SCO, and there was at least one LRO case Amr Elsadr:Yes..., the two objection mechanisms via the IO in the last AG were the limited public interest objection and the community objection. Akin-Awokoya Emmanuel:I would be interested in the data on the objections. And I think it would really help our projection and help us know what it is now Mary Wong:@Greg, @SteveC, yes, thanks. Having the liaison (as foreseen by the Charters for these two PDPs) betweeen the two WGs will help coordinate the discussions. Of course, if at the appropriate time either WG sees the need to refer a topic to the other, that's always a possibility (to be coordinated with the GNSO Council as manager of the PDP). Amr Elsadr:Both objection types had pretty specific criteria on why they could use the two objection mechamisms. Amr Elsadr:Terrible typing. Sorry. Gangesh Varma:Does the applicant guidebook prescribe the limited parameters for a public interest objection? Steve Coates (Twitter):Thanks, Mary. I think this ties in with the Crocker letter, and time permitting, we will discuss on this call. Amr Elsadr:@Gangesh: If I recall correctly, yes. Gangesh Varma:@Amr: Thanks. Since that is the case then we might want to distinguish ihis debate from the larger public interest/GPI discussions witihn icann. Amr Elsadr:AG downloadable here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb Amr Elsadr:@Gangesh: Very much agree. Kevin Kreuser:https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr Amr Elsadr:The objection mechamisms are details (as Jeff mentioned) in module 3 of the AG. Amr Elsadr:details = detailed. Rubens Kuhl:It's also of notice that the language of the Limited Public Interest Objections is very different from the Public Interest Committments in the registry agreement, so the term "Public Intest" is a bit overloaded in the 2012-round. LPIs were born out of the public order / morality idea, while PICs out of the public safety / security idea. Khaled Koubaa:@Jeff @Avria @Steve : we are getting lost in discussion outside the agenda. Is it possible to focus on the adopted agenda Avri Doria:indeed. was just thinking the same thing. we are going down the issues. Amr Elsadr:@Rubens: Absolutely right. It may be worthwhile to consider changing the names of the limited public interest objection and PICS to avoid confusion with PI issues within broader ICANN contexts. Kavouss Arasteh:Ken +1 Gangesh Varma:+1 Rubens Gangesh Varma:Agree with you Amr. Greg Shatan:Woo hoo. I clarified something. Greg Shatan:We have a general "timing" issue that we are repairing an airplane that is still flying. Paul McGrady:Good analogy Greg! Steve Coates (Twitter):We are R2D2, fixing the X-Wing, in flight. Avri Doria:shirft Avri Doria:i mean shrift Amr Elsadr:@Greg: Are we? I thought we were looking at the last plane to figure out how to build a better one this time around, as opposed to repairing the one that is already flying? I may be wrong. Steve Chan:@Jay, some aspects of the 2012 round are complete. For aspects that are not complete, it might be worth building in dependencies into the Work Plan. Gangesh Varma:Important aspect raised by Jay. We must be careful with possibility of retrospectively affecting/applying policy. Avri Doria:for those who do not kow the expression short shrift: Avri Doria:short shriftn. Summary, careless treatment; scant attention: Amr Elsadr:translation/transliteration is an RDS issue, correct. Is there anything specific to gTLd strings in that regard? Mary Wong:The GNSO receives a regular update from Sarmad Hussain, who leads ICANN's IDN Variant Program, at each ICANN meeting. If this WG has any particular topics or questions, they can be referred to Sarmad for further discussion/elaboration. Jim Prendergast:UASG is at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=47255444 Avri Doria:Mary, might be useful when get to those topics in detail during the track work. Steve Coates (Twitter):+1 Rubens Kuhl:Internationalized Domain Names also include IDN ccTLDs, BTW... Mary Wong:On translation and transliteration - while the GNSO's PDP on the specific charter questions it had is completed, the subsequent Final Report of the Expert Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data has just been referred by the ICANN Board to the GNSO Council for consideration as to any potential policy work it may need to do in that regard. The Council will likely discuss this issue in April. Jim Prendergast:IDNs did have a proritization in the draw Paul McGrady:Thanks Jeff! Rubens Kuhl:@Jim, and that prioritization worked against them, since they had no registrar channels... "be careful what you wish for" Amr Elsadr:@Rubens: If I recall correctly, the first IDN TLD was the Egyptian IDN ccTLD .مصر Phil Buckingham:IDN - yes to subsidies and give them priority ( again) Avri Doria:Note: while doing the bit of chairing at the top i forgot to mention: Avri Doria:Everyone should update their SOIs and should let the group know of any changes they have made. Steve Coates (Twitter):I think there is only 1 outstanding SOI, but Steve Chan can correct me. Steve Chan:@Steve Coates, confirmed, just a single missing SOI Katrin Ohlmer| DOTZON:Revisitng the process for letter of credits might be agood idea. Rubens Kuhl:This report already exists, new gTLD Implementation Report. Christa Taylor:+1 Alan Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 alan + Kavouss Rubens Kuhl:ICANN staff report (errousnely credited as community report): https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16… Alan Greenberg:That part of the AG was largely written by Staff, and then used by them, so we really need their input.. Steve Chan:@Jeff, the folks you mentioend are following along on the mailing list and staff coordinates on a regular basis to ensure they are informed on the progress of this group Rubens Kuhl:Link to comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/ Phil Buckingham:+ 1 kavouss - a report / feedback from the evaluators Christa Taylor:Its only 215 pages! Thanks for the link Alan Greenberg:That being said, much of this issue could really be considered implementation. Mary Wong:@Jeff, given the volume of emails and the number of mailing lists some of them are on, it would additionally be helpful - if the WG has specific questions - for us to reach out to the relevant staff members directly as well, to ensure timely and targeted responses. Steve Coates (Twitter):+1 Mary Avri Doria:hard to hear Kiran Malancharuvil 2:Please speak up but that's better Christa Taylor:Better now Cecilia Smith:better Amr Elsadr:@Steve: Volume a little low. Better now. Christa Taylor:yes Amr Elsadr:yes. thanks. Robin Gross:PICS are the AC's competing policy platform for gtld policy. Amr Elsadr:These questions also came up during the GNSO closing session in Marrakech (also at the request of the ALAC/GAC), but in the context of the current round. Vanda Scartezini:yes- a good letter. Avri Doria:+1 Jeff Paul McGrady:+1 Jeff. We can fix the next round without opining on specific fact patterns coming out of the last round. Amr Elsadr:Also agree with Jeff. Amr Elsadr:@Alan: Appreciate the clarification. Thanks. Vanda Scartezini:guess the points were more about GAC formal aprticipants Mary Wong:On intra-GNSO coordination, I think my earlier point was about this WG and the RPM PDP group appointing a liaison between them. Steve Coates (Twitter):Thx, Mary. Rubens Kuhl:We should note that there are already liasons between GNSO and ACs, and unless we find an specific scaling need to have more than one, I don't see the need for specific WGs to have them. Steve Coates (Twitter):Vanda, great point, and we would like to have GAC participation, directly. Mary Wong:There is a formal GAC-GNSO liaison that is appointed by selection of the GNSO Council. Amr Elsadr:@Rubens: Also, the GAC/GNSO consultative group has forseen the possiblity of having some sort of liaising between GNSO PDPs and the GAC, but the group hasn't gotten around to the specifics of that just yet. Amr Elsadr:@Julie: +1 Avri Doria:Except for the GNSO Liaison Avri Doria:who has other possible roles. Julie Hedlund:@Avri -- correct! ken stubbs:makes this process more inclusive & provides for enhanced communications Mary Wong:As Julie noted, it would be up to each SO/AC if they wished to appoint a specific person to report back to them. Amr Elsadr:The thinking for having liaisons with the GAC is because individual GAC members cannot represent their AC. In the event of a liaison with the GAC, there should be some sort of process within the GAC to ensure that the person appointed can represent the GAC effectively. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you everyone! Christa Taylor:Thanks! Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Kiran Malancharuvil 2:Thanks! Sara Bockey:thank you all Vanda Scartezini:good call. thank you !! Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone! Gangesh Varma:Thanks all Rubens Kuhl:Bye all, thanks! Alan Greenberg:Good call. Yoshi Murakami(JPRS):thank you Khaled Koubaa:thanks Greg Shatan:Bye all! Christopher Niemi:Thanks.

1 0

Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund March 28, 2016

March 28, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 28 March 2016 at 16:00 UTC. 1. Review the Agenda 2. Roll Call/Statements of Interest 3. Walk Through of Subjects/Issues 1. Address any further clarifying questions on Work Streams 1 and 2. 2. Work Streams 3, 4, and 5 4. If time permits — Letter from Steve Crocker to the PDP WG and CCT RT Re: ALAC and GAC concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) for sensitive new gTLDs (attached) 5. AOB Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

10 13

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC
by Kavouss Arasteh March 26, 2016

March 26, 2016

Dear all I still believe that work stream is is famous terms used by CCWG Accountability Folks Work Step is less confused Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Mar 2016, at 14:18, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Well said and my +1; Every effort to avoid increasing terminologies within ICANN should be intentionally pursued. New comers are really having a great deal of following terminologies before the substance. > > Cheers! > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >> On 26 Mar 2016 00:21, "Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> wrote: >> I have no opposition to using Work Stream. I think it makes sense to have consistent terminology across working groups, so have no opposition to using a term that is easily understood. >> >> >> >> The differentiation is that this will be the Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Streams, which I think is easily enough understood by most. >> >> >> >> Work Step or Work Lane don’t really resonate with me. >> >> >> >> Donna >> >> >> >> Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. >> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager >> >> Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz >> >> >> >> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. >> >> Follow Neustar: Facebook LinkedIn <image003.png> Twitter >> >> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady (Policy) via Gnso-newgtld-wg >> Sent: Friday, 25 March 2016 2:31 PM >> To: 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC >> >> >> >> I like Work Step just fine! Thanks Kavouss. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 02:07 PM >> To: Paul McGrady (Policy) >> Cc: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC >> >> >> >> Dear All >> >> I agree with Paul that we need to be mindful to avoid using any terms which could eventually mislead or confuse the community. >> >> I suggest alternative to " work stream" the terms" work step" >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On 25 Mar 2016, at 19:03, Paul McGrady (Policy) via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Julie & Everyone: >> >> >> >> I’m a bit concerned about our labeling. We are calling these “workstreams” which would make great sense if that term was not already enshrined in Transition work. I’m concerned that we could dilute the clarity that the term “Workstream 2” already has in the community and could lead to confusion as we do reporting to the Council on our work. >> >> >> >> Could we, at this early stage, rename these Perhaps Work Lane 1, 2, 3, etc? >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Paul (speaking in role as Council liaison) >> >> >> >> >> >> Paul McGrady >> >> policy(a)paulmcgrady.com >> >> +1-312-882-5020 >> >> GNSO Councilor for the IPC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund via Gnso-newgtld-wg >> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 12:44 PM >> To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda 28 March 1600 UTC >> >> >> >> Dear WG Members, >> >> >> >> Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 28 March 2016 at 16:00 UTC. >> >> >> >> 1. Review the Agenda >> >> 2. Roll Call/Statements of Interest >> >> 3. Walk Through of Subjects/Issues >> >> 1. Address any further clarifying questions on Work Streams 1 and 2. >> >> 2. Work Streams 3, 4, and 5 >> >> 4. If time permits — Letter from Steve Crocker to the PDP WG and CCT RT Re: ALAC and GAC concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) for sensitive new gTLDs (attached) >> >> 5. AOB >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Julie >> >> >> >> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

1 0

Fwd: Correspondence from Steve Crocker] PICs and Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs
by Rubens Kuhl March 22, 2016

March 22, 2016

FYI

1 0

Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 21 March 2016
by Julie Hedlund March 22, 2016

March 22, 2016

Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the notes/actions captured by staff from the meeting on 21 March and let us know if you have comments, changes, or questions. Note that an MP3 is available at http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-21mar16-en.mp3 and a transcript will be provided. As noted during the call the next meeting will be Monday, 28 March at 1600 UTC for 90 minutes. Please see the meeting notice that has been sent via separate email. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 21 March 2016 1. Discussion Regarding Community Perspective on PDP Progress Action Items: a. Notify/advise GNSO Council that there are community concerns about this PDP progressing too quickly (e.g., GAC, ALAC, CCT Review Team). b. Question re: Quick Look Mechanism — Staff confirmed that it was applied to all three of the most recent GNSO PDPs, including this one. See: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-quick-look-mechanism-19feb16-en.pdf. 2. Discussion Regarding Steps ahead (e.g., requesting input from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) Discussion Notes: Go out initially to the SOs/ACs on the overarching issues, but not getting into each of the separate work items/sub groups. Move forward on those after processing the overarching issues. Note that this could result in more comment periods, but should provide more focused responses. There were no stated objections to this approach during the call. 3. Walk Through of Subjects/Issues Work Stream 1 -- Process/Support/Outreach Clarifying Questions: a. Alan Greeberg: Was there ever a reconciliation of the money taken from the reserve? If there is a deficit does this need to be added to the applicant fees? Answers: Jeff Neuman believes that ICANN staff feels that it is still in that process. A presentation was given to the CCT Review Team. Action Item: Get the presentation that was provided to the CCT Review Team in Marrakech and ask for more data if necessary/desired. Per this action item see the materials from the Marrakech meeting at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58727546 and in particular the financials at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58727546&preview=/…. b. Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach: Clarification To Chairs: To what degree is this group supposed to provide "detailed" implementation guidelines rather than addresing a principle frameworks with suggestions for "things/issues" to change/implement. Example: Is job done by suggesting we need categories of strings with requirements fit for each categories ? Or are we supposed to suggested exact criteria for each category (GEOs/Brands/cultural/non for profit TLDs etc? Answer: (Jeff Neuman) — Previously we provided high-level principles, but not implementation details. Perhaps more guidance is needed, but it depends on how deeply we get into criteria. Since 2007 the GNSO developed policy & implementation guidelines. (Avri Doria) — There is a formal procedure for doing that implementation oversight work. (Mary Wong) — The Policy & Implementation Working Group recommended certain principles for policy making as well as a Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (among other recommendations) See the Final Report from that Working Group, containing all their recommendations as of June 2015: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun…. Work Stream 2: Legal/Regulatory Clarifying Questions: a. Khaled: With whom will the registry be signed and what is the jurisdiction/controlling law? And what is the mechanism for the applicant to decide? b. Rubens Kuhl: Can we invite ICANN Legal to join the PDP to help address these questions? Answer: (Jeff Neuman) — Yes, we can and it would be very beneficial to have ICANN Legal staff join. Karen Lenz and Christine Willet have also offered to help out and participate. Action Item: Before beginning the discussion on Work Stream 3 we address any further clarifying questions on Work Streams 1 and 2.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Proposed Agenda
by Jian-Chuan Chang March 22, 2016

March 22, 2016

Hi Julie, Thank you for the timely response. I think I can make most of the 2200UTC (6am Beijing time) meetings, while 1600UTC will be problematic. Regards Jian Chang Sr. Research Fellow KNETCo. Ltd. Tel: +86-10-8218-4187 Fax: +86-10-6250-6502Email: jczhang(a)knet.cn ----- 原邮件内容 ----- 发件人: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> 收件人: "Jian C. Chang" <jczhang(a)knet.cn>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>,"gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> 发送时间:Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:15:24 +0000 主题:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Proposed Agenda Dear Jian, Thank you very much for joining the PDP Working Group and for your question. The calls will be rotated to accommodate various time zones, although we understand that no time will likely be ideal for everyone. The calls will be held weekly on Mondays alternating between 2200 UTC and 1600 UTC for 90 minutes. Yesterday’s call was at 2200 UTC, so next Monday’s call will be at 1600 UTC. Please do let us know if we can assist you with any other questions. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From:<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Jian C. Chang via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Reply-To:"Jian C. Chang" <jczhang(a)knet.cn> Date:Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 5:04 AM To:Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Proposed Agenda Hi, I joined this WG in Marrakech. Just wonder whether the meeting time is fixed or rotated? As it will be 6am in Beijing time. In addition, how frequent will it be held? Regards Jian C. Chang KNET From: Steve Chan via Gnso-newgtld-wg Date: 2016-03-19 04:13 To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Proposed Agenda Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 21 March 2016 at 22:00 UTC.Roll Call/SoIsDiscussion Regarding Community Perspective on PDP ProgressDiscussion Regarding Steps Ahead (e.g., requesting input from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies)Walk Through of Subjects/IssuesAOB Best, 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

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan March 22, 2016

March 22, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 21 March 2016 at 22:00 UTC. 1. Roll Call/SoIs 2. Discussion Regarding Community Perspective on PDP Progress 3. Discussion Regarding Steps Ahead (e.g., requesting input from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies) 4. Walk Through of Subjects/Issues 5. AOB Best, 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

3 2

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group 21 March 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter March 22, 2016

March 22, 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, 21 March 2016 at 22:00 UTC. MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-21mar16-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, 21 March 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 21 March 2016 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. Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone!!! hope all arrived safe at home... Vanda Scartezini:will enter the call by phone. i will be mute here Gangesh Varma:Hello everyone. Will be on listening mode. any inputs will be through chatbox. Jeff Neuman:Hello all Yoshi Murakami(JPRS):Hi everyone. Vanda Scartezini:Avri it is ahrd to listen to you! Vanda Scartezini:hard Avri Doria:in what way? corinne cath:you sound soft and far away corinne cath:hello to all Khaled Koubaa:Hi everyone Avri Doria:well i am soft and far away. but have reaised my volume a bit. Vanda Scartezini:I could not hear you Avri Vanda Scartezini:I am in the phone bridge Vanda Scartezini:thank you Avri Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):there you go Avri Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):you let the conference call people say your name clear and loud! Michelle DeSmyter:Thank you Avri, that is noted Harold Arcos:Hi everyone, Jeff Neuman:congrats Greg Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):yes Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):loud and clear Jeff Phil Buckingham:Good evening . Sorry I am a little late. Carlton Samuels:Howdy all Mary Wong:@Jeff, the Council is currently preparing a draft response to the GAC Communique via a small group of Council volunteers. It is likely to be on the Council's agenda for the 14 April meeting. Rubens Kuhl:Since posting on the council list is limited, please ask the GNSO Secretariat to forward it, or just ask me or Carlos Raul to do it. Rubens Kuhl:Alan, audio is seriously impaired... corinne cath:anybody else getting that noise? Khaled Koubaa:we are not hearing you Khaled Koubaa:ah now ok Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):me! Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):;) Jeff Neuman:We have the GAC Secretariat as a member Carlton Samuels:For the record the timing issue - between CCT RT and this WG is noted. I will leave Carlos to update members of the working position of the CCT RT Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Other GAC participants can be expected in the near future. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Tom! Jeff Neuman:We look forward to that. Carlton Samuels:@Carlos: Confirming the CCT RT position as outlined by Carlos. We committed to developing Early Warning Communiques to ensure we work in tandem Julie Hedlund:@Jeff: I don't have that answer. Sorry! Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):@Carlton: Txs Carlton! Good to have 2 CCT members on the group calls Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):yes Richard Padilla:Hello everyone sorry for being late had a problem connecting Richard Padilla:Hi Carlton, I'm back in T&T for now so in the same time zone Mary Wong:Follow up to Tom's comment - the Quick Look Mechanism was applied to all three of the most recent GNSO PDPs, including this one. Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):@Mary txs Steve Coates (Twitter):Thx, Mary. Klaus Stoll:Good idea! Klaus Stoll:Several rounds are justified given the complex topic Rubens Kuhl:Although more focused on the new gTLD program implementation, rather than policy, a good number of SGs and Cs posted comments about it at http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15/ , and some policy issues were mentioned. Carlton Samuels:Hi Richard. Happy to see you here. Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach:Agree on approach - this DOES need structuere Richard Padilla:@Carlton, learning what the final purpose and processes to be born from this PDP Rubens Kuhl:ALAC, BC, IPC and RySG are on record for that public comment period. Julie Hedlund:I have taken the slides off sync so everyone can control them for themselves. Alan Greenberg:we do now have control Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison)::) Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):no charges for that use of "rounds" @Jeff :) Steve Coates (Twitter):I keep correcting myself..."subsequent procedures." Vanda Scartezini:my concerns are under one or two topica, so I am ok. Rubens Kuhl:"New Thingies" Donna Austin, Neustar:I think you mean 'new.thingies' Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):the name sounds very respectable. lets leave it at that, but please don´t try to reduce it to "CWG PDP ngTLD SubP´s..........." Avri Doria:or next.thingies Rubens Kuhl:So, .thingies will be more contested in the next process than .app. Frederic Guillemaut SafeBrands:now they have a ral GDD team. Frederic Guillemaut SafeBrands:real team, with human beings. Vanda Scartezini: I beleive these pre qualification services available would be interesting . majority of applicants could not go further without some kind of external support and have them pre qualidfied will be more fair with the applicants that are new within this process. Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach:well those some 50 RSPs that passed last are I guess sort of pre-qualified already, arent they? Rubens Kuhl:Jannik, yes for some types of workloads. IDN support varied, for instance. Vanda Scartezini:now I believe they are Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach:Quality varies but none were forced to change RSP (or have I missed something?) Vanda Scartezini:but have a stamp - qualified will be good for new comers to select among them who will support their application Phil Buckingham:+ 1 jannik . yet cant do a accreditation programs for the financials. Technicals yes . Vanda Scartezini:sure, technical issues is the relvant - lots of new applicants needs to rely on backoffice services for techy issues Alan Greenberg:Also implication on reserve. (was money spent from it ever paid back?) Rubens Kuhl:Jannik, one applicant proposed running the registry himself and later changed to using an RSP. I will try locating the exact TLD. Rubens Kuhl:But that was one in almost 2,000. Phil Buckingham:A mixture - fixed and variable fee level Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach:I know quite a few have changed Provider (before delegation) have not heard of anyone being forced...but never mind - believe we have more important issues to work on ;-) Rubens Kuhl:Most of those who changed would have passed IE anyway, but changed to save on costs. Rubens Kuhl:Sales channels might be more of a challenge for developing countries than getting to sign the contract and operate the TLD. Vanda Scartezini:+ 1 rubens. lots of problem in this side. Jeff Neuman:lots of heavy breathing going on Vanda Scartezini:when alan talks noise is high Rubens Kuhl:It seems Darth Vader is a member of the WG. Richard Padilla:+1 Rubens lol Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach:Clarification To Chairs: To what degree is this group supposed to provide "detailed" implementation guidelines rather than addresing a principle frameworks with suggestions for "things/issues" to change/implement. Example: Is job done by suggesting we need categories of strings with requirements fit for each categories ? Or are we supposed to suggested exact criteria for each category (GEOs/Brands/cultural/non for profit TLDs etc? corinne cath:audio gone Rubens Kuhl:Audio works for me. Steve Coates (Twitter):I can hear fine. Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):you cant heqr me??? Martin Sutton:works ok Greg Shatan:Audio fine here on audio bridge Alan Greenberg:Adobe audi still ok Jeff Neuman:now we can corinne cath:you are back now - but its off and on Carlton Samuels:Yes I can hear Richard Padilla:yes Carlos I canhear you Phil Buckingham: + carlos - was budgeted at 500 originally Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):@eleeza may be the right person to ask for the excellent presetnation Xvber gave on applications fees in Marrakech to the CCT Review team. Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):sorry for the typos (big fat fingers) Alan Greenberg:SOMEONE will have to specify the details.... Rubens Kuhl:Link for the Xavier presentation: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58727546/New%20gTLD%20Prog… Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):Obrigado Rubens Eleeza Agopian:Thanks @Carlos. The presentation Xavier gave was on day 1 of the CCTRT's meeting in Marrakech. The AC recording can be found on this page. I will find the presentation itself and make sure staff shares with the PDP WG. Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach:to Chairs: Would advice we stick to "ideas" for content of changes at a high level...and not the exact procedures etc. Otherwise we will never be finished (and maybe staff with more time will be better at this...(did I say that?) Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):@eleeza txs Eleeza Agopian:oops. Missed the link! https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58727546 Jeff Neuman:thanks for the link! Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach:to Jeff: Thx makes perfect sense - and understand why...but still as you say "dangerous " to expect too much detail from this group..(in my unexperienced view) Alan Greenberg:The challenge is to ensure that what we do NOT specify is in deed IMPLEMENTATION and not Policy. Mary Wong:@Jannik, you may be interested to know that recently a GNSO Working Group (the Policy & Implementation Working Group) recommended certain principles for policy making as well as a Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (among other recommendations) that were adopted by the GNSO Council and that presumably will serve as a general framework for PDP and implementation work as a result. Mary Wong:(and Alan and Avri, among others, were members of that Working Group :) Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach:thx Mary Phil Buckingham:Mary thks for the update - do you have a link to these principles Mary Wong:@Phil, here is the Final Report from that Working Group, containing all their recommendations as of June 2015: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun… Phil Buckingham:Mary thks - excellent Frederic Guillemaut SafeBrands: we have that for registrars (2013, 2009 versions) Rubens Kuhl:I would add "Data Escrow" to registrant protections. Phil Buckingham:Jeff - yes true- re banks/ LOC especially re Japanese applicants Mary Wong:Public Comment Forum for recently released report on DNS abuse (per Jeff's request): https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-safeguards-dns-abuse-2016-03… Mary Wong:And this is the draft report I believe Jeff mentioned in this regard: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/dns-abuse/draft-safeguards-against-dn…. The overall work in addition is meant to feed into the work of the CCT Review Team. Rubens Kuhl:Minor detail on registry/registrar separation: the requirement for being different legal entities, opposed to separate accounting, surfaced in the middle of the process in an AGB revision. We can talk more about it when this is discussed in WS2. Steve Chan:To add to Mary's comment, there is a page dedicated to the DNS Abuse Review: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/dns-abuse Mary Wong:@Jeff, yes - the Call for Volunteers was just published today, and that WG Charter was approved by the GNSO Council on 9 March. Mary Wong:The anticipated first WG meeting for RPMs is mid-April, and yes, that Charter explicltly calls for the avoidance of duplication as well as the appointment of a liaison between the two PDPs. Khaled Koubaa:https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-21-en Vanda Scartezini:brand applicants may be seeing differently registry/registrar separation. Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison)::) Steve Chan:Language from the RPM PDP Charter Adoption: The GNSO Council directs, consistent with the Charter, that a liaison between this PDP Working Group and that for the PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures be appointed as soon as both PDP Working Groups are convened, in order to assure consistent communication and coordination between the two Working Groups, including ensuring that any issues identified by either Working Group relating to existing or potential RPMs that are not covered by the scope of the respective Charters are referred to the appropriate Working Group by the GNSO Council in a timely manner. Carlos Raul (CCT-Review Liaison):a US dollar from Jeff inot the jar Mary Wong:To sign up for the RPM PDP, you can send in this form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1CdgDZpScmMpomzjc1jmPesHqa8TqZVx2oRpK5fscci…. You can sign up as either a Member or Observer only. Khaled Koubaa:another issue Mary Wong:@Jeff, the Board adopted those IGO-INGO recs that are NOT inconsistent with GAC Advice, they are (as you said) working on reconciling the remaining recs that are inconsistent. Greg Shatan:The GAC recs that were inconsistent with GNSO recs were adopted "temporarily" about two years ago.... Mary Wong:@Greg, yes - the interim protections adopted by the Board for these remain in place until there is a full resolution. Greg Shatan:Looks like the interim protections will be in place for the entire current round of gTLDs.,,, I know people who have had marriages shorter than those interim protections.... Rubens Kuhl:ICANN Legal has flip-flopped in the agreement jurisdiction issue for the last years. We would need to bring Legal to the PDP to sort out this question... are we allowed to do that ? Greg Shatan:I would not assume that the applicant gets to choose the jurisdiction... Greg Shatan:Who is scooping ice? Greg Shatan:We should be "liberal in what we receive" in terms of information from ICANN staff. Greg Shatan:But not without skepticism.... Phil Buckingham: CQ . Re principles , over arching AGB Each applicant should be evaluated on financial , technical and operational capability to be a Registry. Would this still apply Greg Shatan:Phil, that would prohibit my cat from applying. Again. :-( Kevin M. Kreuser:I can provide some (non-privileged) insights re ICANN legal Vanda Scartezini:tnak you for this clear process at this meeting. I will need to leave my office now. Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury):Thank you everyone. Excellent walk-through Jeff. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Kevin! Vanda Scartezini:see you next week Carlton Samuels:Thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone good call ...talk on the 28th then... bye Jeff Neuman:Thanks all Christopher Niemi:Thanks Guillaume Pahud:thanks all Martin Sutton:thanks. Phil Buckingham:Jeff excellent Rudi Vansnick:thanks bye Frederic Guillemaut SafeBrands:Byes Richard Padilla 2:uthanks all Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone! Greg Shatan:Bye all! Harold Arcos:thanks bye Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Thanks Karen Day:bye all Rubens Kuhl:Thanks @ll! David Ackerman:thanks bye

1 0

Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 10 March 2016
by Julie Hedlund March 10, 2016

March 10, 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, 10 March 2016 1. Welcome and Introductions Action Items: None. 2. New gTLD Program – History (please see attached document F2F History): Action Items: Staff will put Proof of Concept Report on the wiki: https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf. Staff will look for relevant MP3s. 3. Discussion on Work Organization / Work Plan (please see attached document Proposed Work Organization): Action items: The PDP WG members should look at the Work Organization/Work Plan and see whether or not the mapping of subjects makes sense. Jeff, Avri, Steve will coordinate with Jonathan to revise the Work Organization/Work Plan. The Chairs will keep the formal and informal contacts with the CCT Working Group. The PDP WG should seek participation from the GAC and ensure communication. 4. Next Steps: Next meeting is Monday, 21 March at 2200 UTC. A meeting notification has been sent to the list and a reminder will be sent.

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures face to face session on 10 March 2016 at 0900 UTC in the Diamant conference room. 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. New gTLD Program History (please see attached document F2F History) 3. Discussion on Work Organization / Work Plan (please see attached document Proposed Work Organization) 4. Action Items / Next Steps 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

1 0