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

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/bYqjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 15 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 15 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-15+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): Kathy Kleiman is now on the faculty of American University Law School. 2. Review of summary document: (continued): a. Applicant Freedom of Expression (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz…) – start at Input on Implementation Guidelines – General, top of page 10; -- From last week: It seemed that most commenters is that we should continue the policy that was approved in 2008 by the ICANN Board, but that we needed to try in implementation guidance more specific with respect to how that consideration should take place. -- It’s one thing to say that Freedom of Expression should be considered, but another to put that into practice. Give more concrete guidance in the AGB wherever possible. 1) Input on Implementation Guidelines - General -- ICANN Org: Be as specific as possible. -- Provide practical examples to evaluators. -- Balance with freedom of expression with all users. -- Not sure we have agreement to change from the 2008 policy approved by the ICANN Board. -- Providing consistency and clarity is a step forward. -- There are examples where we consider the use or intended use of a string in these types of evaluations. -- Questions: What were the original rules? What were the problems in the 2012 round? Answer: There were no rules that you couldn’t apply for a particular string, but based on evaluation of string contention. Found that there were no clear guidelines and up to the independent objector to use his/her analysis, and evaluators based it on their own beliefs. Most of the comments were that to the extent possible we need to be more clear and provide more guidance. 2) Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO -- From Kathy Kleiman: Then we must expressly reference the Morality and Public Order findings and standards in referencing the new Applicant Freedom of Expression. I don't see material reference anywhere in our materials here. It all has to be balanced -- But there was evolution between the original references and what went into the AGB. We could reference the AGB. -- Should change the high-level agreement to include references to Morality and Public Order findings. Protecting applicants’ Freedom of Expression rights should be balanced with other recognized rights. -- Should be considered when deliberating on the Objection section. ACTION: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. 3) Suggested criteria to ensure that denial of an application does not infringe on FX rights: -- Should be considered when deliberating on the Objection section. -- Question: ICANN org's comment before the start of 2.3.4. suggests that some of the assumptions about evaluation were incorrect and criteria was applied. do we know what the criteria was that was applied? b. Universal Acceptance, page 11 Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence Suggestions for additional work on this topic: -- Section 1.2.4 of the AGB talks about ”Notice concerning Technical Acceptance Issues with New gTLDs” -- Not even primarily and issue of registrar acceptance but much more needs to be done to resolve this issue. Came up midstream in the last round, as in name collisions. -- Seek clarification on ALAC comment: New Idea: ALAC - Registries and Registrars, if they are owned by the same entity, should be Universal Acceptance (UA) ready as part of their application. This means that their systems should be ready for IDN registrations, ready handle IDN and non-IDN New gTLDs consistently on nameservers and other machines and able to manage any Email Address Internationalization (EAI), i.e. <nativelanguage>@<idn>.<idn>, as part of the contact information and be able to send and receive emails from these type of addresses. In addition, Registries and Registrars should take affirmative actions to ensure that their suppliers are also UA ready. -- What they were saying is if you are offering registrations in the Chinese language, you should be able to get and have email that is in that language about your registration -- such as support questions, web site tools, third party suppliers of services, etc. -- Should the WG in its recommendations be urging some specific steps to address the problems? Answer: Will rewrite the high-level agreement text. -- Good to get an update from the USAG/ICANN on the state of UA and in particular on their progress. Include a link to the USAG work in the Final Report. -- This isn’t about TLDs not working, but third party applications working or not. ICANN has addressed the IDN issues from 2012, but some third parties have not. -- What more can the SubPro WG do that the USAG is not already doing. There is a new idea from the ALAC with respect to registries and registrars that we need to decide whether to include. -- So maybe one solution is stronger language from ICANN elaborating on the potential problems IDN applicants could face with usage of their domains. Clearly ICANN knows it’s a problem. Thy have spent millions on UASG efforts. But the last communication was not good for new applicants and players in the gTLD space.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Please specify & Clarify is My Privacy at Risk?
by Vaibhav Aggarwal, Catalyst & Group CEO July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear Priscillia, I appreciate your response. But this is too little and too late. If there was a Vulnerability, why were we not informed earlier as a customer / User. Secondly, I will need to understand what is the extent of this vulnerability. By Saying “Low risk Vulnerability” it is clearly showing that you are not willing to elucidate and want to either brush it under the carpet or ignore or underplay the risk. This is a mandatory disclosure you need to do as it is my privacy at stake. This is Super Important. Regards, -VA > On Jul 10, 2019, at 2:44 AM, Priscilla McCarthy <priscilla.barolo(a)zoom.us> wrote: > > Hi there Vaibhav, > Thank you for your email. These are low-risk vulnerabilities that apply only to Mac users, and we have drafted a blog post discussing them. We are updating our service tonight and this coming weekend. When you see prompted updates, you should update your Zoom app to ensure your security. Here is more information: https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2019/07/08/response-to-video-on-concern/ <https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2019/07/08/response-to-video-on-concern/> > Thank you! > <https://zoom.us/> > Priscilla Barolo > Manager, Communications > Zoom Video Communications > Call 650-438-9456 <tel:650-438-9456> | Click zoom.us <https://zoom.us/> | Zoom 650-438-9456 <http://zoom.us/j/650-438-9456> > <http://www.facebook.com/zoomvideocommunications> > <http://www.twitter.com/zoom_us> > <http://www.linkedin.com/company/zoom-video-communications-inc-/> > <https://zoom.us/referrals> > > > > <https://smart.zoom.us/v2/a/zoomtopia19/5d2503c401ca44fa0d942282-OjqXg/https…> > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:20 PM Vaibhav Aggarwal <va(a)thevaibhav.com <mailto:va@thevaibhav.com>> wrote: > Dear Eric, > > I am in receipt of this following email content : > > Hey - remember when ICANN switched everyone from Adobe over to Zoom as a way of enhancing information security and data privacy? > > "A vulnerability in the Mac Zoom Client allows any malicious website to enable your camera without your permission... This vulnerability allows any website to forcibly join a user to a Zoom call, with their video camera activated, without the user's permission. On top of this, this vulnerability would have allowed any webpage to DOS (Denial of Service) a Mac by repeatedly joining a user to an invalid call. Additionally, if you’ve ever installed the Zoom client and then uninstalled it, you still have a localhost web server on your machine that will happily re-install the Zoom client for you, without requiring any user interaction on your behalf besides visiting a webpage. This re-install ‘feature’ continues to work to this day." > > Read more here: https://medium.com/@jonathan.leitschuh/zoom-zero-day-4-million-webcams-mayb… <https://medium.com/@jonathan.leitschuh/zoom-zero-day-4-million-webcams-mayb…> > > Please Clarify if my privacy at risk. And the steps taken to protect my privacy. > > Regards, > > Vaibhav Aggarwal > New Delhi, India > vaibhavaggarwal.com <http://vaibhavaggarwal.com/> > twitter.com/thevaibhag <http://twitter.com/thevaibhag> > youtube.com/+vaibhavaggarwalindia <http://youtube.com/+vaibhavaggarwalindia>

5 7

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Application Fees, page 3 * Variable Fees, page 4 (time permitting) 3. AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] Re: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] August 2019 | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group
by lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu July 15, 2019

July 15, 2019

> ) > > Hmmm .... > > I had understood that : > > (a) the Co-Leads had recognised that this is the Peak holiday period in Europe if not elsewhere; > > (b) other Participants had expressed reservations as to voluntary availability for scheduled PDP calls twice a week (with +WT5 once a week aswell.) > > (c) What’s the Rush? As far as I can see, NONE of the CCT recommendations have been addressed, let alone implemented. A pre-condition. > > Why? > > CW > > >> On 15 Jul 2019, at 16:39, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> wrote: >> >> **We are sending in advance to get dates on everyone’s calendar. >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please find attached the ics attachments for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group in August 2019. Please download them to your inbox calendars. The details of the calls are as follows: >> Thursday, 01 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Tuesday, 06 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Thursday, 08 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> Monday, 12 August 2019 at 15:00 UTC >> Thursday, 15 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> Monday, 19 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> Thursday, 22 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Tuesday, 27 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC >> Thursday, 29 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC >> >> Email invitations for each call will be sent out closer to the date of the meeting. >> As a reminder the next meeting will take place on Monday, 15 July at 15:00 UTC, invite has been sent. >> >> Thank you. >> Kind regards, >> >> Terri >> >> <New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group .ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [1].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [2].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [3].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [4].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [5].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [6].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [7].ics><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group [10].ics>_______________________________________________ >> Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_…>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > >

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued): * Applicant Freedom of Expression (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz…) – start at Input on Implementation Guidelines – General, top of page 10; * Universal Acceptance (time permitting), page 11 3. AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 11 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM re: CCT-RT Recommendations and ALAC Statement -- Questions for Justine Chew: 1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere? 2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team) 3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2. 4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) -- Global Public Interest (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yz…) – start at Verified TLDs, Page 6 Verified TLDs: -- Updated the sections on mandatory and voluntary PICs to include divergence from the Public Interest Community and the NCSG. -- The word “likelihood” should be fixed. Edit and check with IPC re: IPC comment and the word “likelihood”. Typo in the original comment. -- As as it's been applied a verified TLD is one that verifies the potential registrants meets registry standards prior to registering a domain. So for instance, the registry operator might require registrants to be appropriately credentialed to practice where they do business. And that's where that implied trust comes in, I think, so that end users can trust that domains in that TLD are going to be authentic. CCT-RT Recommendations: -- For absolute clarity, is the ALAC position that the RPM PDP must be completed in its entirety (ie, Phase 1 and Phase 2) prior to next round commencing? -- As a reminder, this WG has a tracking sheet for all of the CCT-RT recommendations aimed at SubPro: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBSh…. And it has been updated to take into account what the Board has passed through to SubPro. -- John Laprise - to answer Jeff's question, could you add to your email earlier today to the SubPro list re ALAC position the document in which this position is recorded? ------------------------ ALAC statement: From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 22:20 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: 'ALAC Members' <ALAC-members(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro Hi everyone, Just a useful reminder of ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at ICANN65: ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT and RPM recommendations are fully implemented. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. NARALO ALAC Representative ALAC Vice Chair-Policy ---------------------- -- Can staff please send me [Justine] an AI on the questions being posed with respect to John Laprise's comment? Thanks. Questions: 1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere? 2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team) 3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2. 4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2. --- @jeff, in respect of your #4 my immediate answer is what you term as a “precedent”; is not precedent in the actual sense of the word, but ALAC positions are not immune to change with developments over time. -- Thanks Justine - This is why seeing the rationale and not just the final position/resolution/outcome is important. -- Jeff, your question #4 seems to assume that, if there is a difference in position between Comment 1 and 2, that somehow this indicates that ALAC has disregarded or “devalued” “precedent.” I don’t think that’s a fair assumption. -- Given that we have only one very high-level articulation of a high-level agreement and many divergent points under outstanding items;, it's not clear to me what our overall objective is in this section. Are we hoping to distill from outstanding items more points as high-level agreements? -- Thanks, Jeff - looking for commonalites makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. -- One thing to consider is that the policy goal may not be achievable, insofar as we are not able to work out some explicit implementation matrix (ie, X weighs heavier than Y) -- @Greg- and therein lies the problem. Reaching agreement on a definition has not yet been achieved at the level of international law, so us achieving that here is a big ask. Freedom of Expression: -- High-level agreement -- Support: May not be accurate. May need a more neutral phrase. Need to provide specific implementation guidance. Need to better define what is meant by “applicant freedom of expression”. Broader term than freedom of speech. -- Difficult for the WG to develop a definition since it hasn’t yet been done. -- High level agreement is that there are freedom of expression rights. -- Start with Implementation Guidelines section on the next call.

3 3

ALAC position on newgTLD subpro
by John Laprise July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

Hi everyone, Just a useful reminder of ALAC's position as asserted to ICANN GDD at ICANN65: ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT and RPM recommendations are fully implemented. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. NARALO ALAC Representative ALAC Vice Chair-Policy

2 2

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 11 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 11 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/LaSjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Julie One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).” My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point. I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program. They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects. ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Update from ICANN65 Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question. 3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrou… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>) Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?prev… -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it?

6 16