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

EBERO / SLAM Data Status and next steps
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

All, On 23 August 2019, high-level statistics were shared from ICANN org's SLA Monitoring program (attached). These statistics provided the monthly number of 1) DNS failures 2) RDDS failures and 3) DNS and RDDS failures that reached the EBERO threshold. On 26 August 2019, Donna Austin shared a RySG document which included data previously shared by ICANN org at the Madrid DNS Symposium / GDD Summit (attached). This data provided more detail on group 3 above in particular, including elements like: * The cause for why the EBERO threshold was reached (i.e., DNS/DNSSEC or RDDS) * A further, more specific breakdown within each of the two categories that indicate why the EBERO threshold was reached (e.g., IPv6 transport error, broken chain of trust in DNSSEC, etc.) Within our Working Group there has been some discussion about what impact this data may have. For example, we discussed whether past failures should have any impact on future application evaluations or RSP pre-approval for future rounds? The Working Group, however, is trending towards agreeing that evaluation and thus RSP pre-approval (which is likely to leverage the same or substantially the same evaluation criteria) should be forward looking and not be impacted by past performance. The Working Group is also trending towards requiring the pre-approval prior to each evaluation round and that the approval will be good for the duration of the then-current round. A second area in which this data could have an impact is whether or not existing Registry Service Providers should be grandfathered into any future pre-approval processes? Based on the Working Group's deliberations and public comment received, the answer appears to be no. Most of the comments seem to point to requiring all RSPs (whether new or existing) to go through the same processes in future rounds. Therefore, based on where the Working Group is heading, the Co-Chairs do no believe that we are in need of additional historical data for purposes of finalizing its work on the RSP Pre-approval program. We recognize that registry service provider performance has been a topic of discussion for matters other than the pre-approval program. We understand that there has been discussion about whether the relatively high number of registry services failures indicates that RSP might need to improve how they operate to ensure the security and stability of the DNS. While this WG is forward looking and not intending to impose new commitments for existing RSPs, lessons may be learned to improve the evaluation process for future applicants/RSPs. Based on the above, the WG believes it does need more context from GDD to understand the data it has been provided, since not all SLA failures are equally harmful. Therefore in looking at the failures, for example, the WG needs clarity on whether they refer to service availability or Round Trip Time (RTT). The WG also wants to try and examine if there was any harm caused by the downtime, which is benefitted in part by understanding the timing of the failure (e.g., prior to Sunrise, during Sunrise, before General Availability, after GA). * For the failures that did NOT reach the EBERO threshold, the WG would like summary data of which of the SLRs was missed. * For the failures that DID reach the EBERO threshold, a detailed breakdown (e.g., similar specificity that was shared at the Madrid DNS Symposium / GDD Summit), which includes the timing of the failure. * This information may help identify weaknesses in the evaluation criteria, registry system testing, and/or contractual requirements captured in the Registry Agreement. The leadership intends to send the request for additional context next week, but we would like to know if there are any comments from the Working Group. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Best regards, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr SubPro PDP Co-Chairs ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 17 2. Community Applications – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, page 2 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Resolving Objection Proceedings with Mandatory PICs
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 2, 2019

Oct. 2, 2019

Regarding the last call and the possible high level agreement on resolving Objection proceedings with mandatory PICs, it's important to note that there is no private right of action to enforce a PIC. The current PIC Dispute Resolution procedure - PICDRP (see attached) provides for various steps to be taken in resolving the PIC complaint and if unresolved, ICANN at its SOLE discrestion, can invoke a a Staning Panel or undertake a compliance investigation. So the points I am raising here are: (1) Proceeding on the report of a PIC violation rests in the sole discretion of ICANN (2) The expense of the Compliance investigation and/or Standing Panel is an expense of ICANN. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to consider adopting a private right of action (rather than forcing the expense on ICANN) in connection with the enforcement of mandatory PICs adopted for purposes of resolving an Objection proceeding. In fact, the PICDRP originally contained a provision allowing the enforcement issue to be taken to a third party provider. However, that draft did not survive. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image006.png@01D5747C.E1E07CD0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image007.jpg@01D5747C.E1E07CD0] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.

10 16

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 01 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 01 October 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/2019-10-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: String Confusion Objections: Do you support the proposal that there should be grounds for a String Confusion Objection if an applied-for string is an exact translation of existing string that is in a highly regulated sector, and the applied-for string would not employ the same safeguards as the existing string? ACTION ITEM 1: Re: NABP comments -- New TLDs that mimic existing verified TLDs in highly regulated sectors but that lack the same safeguards stand to create confusion and place consumers at risk of fraud and abuse. The WG should consider whether there was a high-level agreement relating to this proposal and the CCT-RT recommendation concerning incentives: “Create incentives and/or eliminate current disincentives that encourage gTLD registries to meet user expectations regarding...restrictions as to who can register a domain name in certain gTLDs based upon implied messages of trust conveyed by the name of its gTLDs (particularly in sensitive or regulated industries). Legal Rights Objections: Should the standard for the Legal Rights Objection remain the same as in the 2012 round? Re: INTA: Amend the standard of proof to: whether the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant takes (or will once used) unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark; or creates (or will once used) actual confusion with the objector's mark or a high likelihood of such confusion. Develop additional factors that would guide applicants and LRO panels on concepts of bad faith including, but not limited to the history of the applicant and the individuals behind the applicant, and whether underlying trademark rights acquired by the applicant were filed solely with respect to supporting the business of the application. ACTION ITEM 2: Set up a small drafting team to rewrite the section along the lines suggested by INTA. Re: IPC Comment -- The standard should be relaxed and holders of registered marks which also constitute "generic" names should be able to prevent awards to third party applicants if those third party applicants intend to use the TLD in similar goods/services as the Objector. ACTION ITEM 3: Could this be another factor under current section 3.5.2 of the AGB? Paul, Greg, Anne to work on draft language to consider how bad faith can be integrated, as well as the other aspect of INTA's comment. Accountability Mechanisms: New substantive appeal mechanism specific to the New gTLD Program -- Preliminary recommendation to establish such a mechanism: -- Re: ICANN.Org comment -- ICANN Org: Concerns - ICANN org would like to understand how this proposed “New Appeals Mechanism” differs from the ICANN Reconsideration Request process. WG may want to clearly articulate the difference in the appeals mechanism and reconsideration request: Reconsideration is: “Requestor may submit a request for reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction ("Reconsideration Request") to the extent that the Requestor has been adversely affected by: (i) One or more Board or Staff actions or inactions that contradict ICANN's Mission, Commitments, Core Values and/or established ICANN policy(ies)....” ACTION ITEM 4: Co-Chairs/Staff to review the Bylaws to determine if a Reconsideration Request only applies to Board or staff actions. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): Elaine Pruis updated her SOI. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K… String Confusion Objections: Do you support the proposal that there should be grounds for a String Confusion Objection if an applied-for string is an exact translation of existing string that is in a highly regulated sector, and the applied-for string would not employ the same safeguards as the existing string? ACTION ITEM: Re: NABP comments -- New TLDs that mimic existing verified TLDs in highly regulated sectors but that lack the same safeguards stand to create confusion and place consumers at risk of fraud and abuse. WG should consider whether there is a high-level agreement coming out of the NABP comments relating to the CCT-RT recommendation on incentives. -- Seems like a good idea in the wrong place (shouldn’t be in string Confusion Objections). -- Might be complicated. -- Good if we could have some examples. -- Look at in the context of the CCT-RT recommendation: CCT-RT Recommendation 12. Create incentives and/or eliminate current disincentives that encourage gTLD registries to meet user expectations regarding: (1) the relationship of content of a gTLD to its name; (2) restrictions as to who can register a domain name in certain gTLDs based upon implied messages of trust conveyed by the name of its gTLDs (particularly in sensitive or regulated industries) and (3) the safety and security of users’ personal and sensitive information (including health and financial information). These incentives could relate to applicants who choose to make public interest commitments in their applications that relate to these expectations. Ensure that applicants for any subsequent rounds are aware of these public expectations by inserting information about the results of the ICANN surveys in the Applicant Guide Books -- Would the NABP proposal be considered an incentive? -- WG should consider whether there is a high-level agreement coming out of the NABP comments relating to the CCT-RT recommendation on incentives. Re: The Thai Network Information Center Foundation: New Idea - Homonyms should be explicitly included in the similarity to existing top-level domain consideration of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook to prevent future confusions and costly disputes. -- Add note that this came up in the string similarity discussions (DONE). Legal Rights Objections: Should the standard for the Legal Rights Objection remain the same as in the 2012 round? -- Existing Standard: whether the applicant’s potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe (described below) the objector’s existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym. -- Original standard used by the dispute resolution providers was the likelihood of confusion standard, which is the worldwide standard for trademark issues. -- Could have additional reasons for opposing on legal rights objections, but without abandoning the likelihood of confusion standard. -- Also need to look at a bad faith standard. -- AGB says likely to infringe which is very different than likelihood of confusion. -- Section 3.5.2 of the AGB is helpful, but the problem is with GNSO Recommendation 3, which isn’t clear. We need to fix the GNSO recommendation. ACTION ITEM: Re: INTA: Amend the standard of proof to: whether the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant takes (or will once used) unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark; or creates (or will once used) actual confusion with the objector's mark or a high likelihood of such confusion. Develop additional factors that would guide applicants and LRO panels on concepts of bad faith including, but not limited to the history of the applicant and the individuals behind the applicant, and whether underlying trademark rights acquired by the applicant were filed solely with respect to supporting the business of the application. -- Set up a small drafting team to rewrite the section of the AGB along the lines suggested by INTA. Re: IPC Comment -- The standard should be relaxed and holders of registered marks which also constitute "generic" names should be able to prevent awards to third party applicants if those third party applicants intend to use the TLD in similar goods/services as the Objector. -- The bad faith standard is certainly not a loosening of the existing standard unlikelihood of confusion. It would be an additional standard, or a factor in the likelihood of confusion analysis. -- Need to decide if gets its own grounds for a legal rights objection - stands independently. ACTION ITEM: Could this be another factor under current section 3.5.2 of the AGB? Paul, Greg, Anne to work on draft language to consider how bad faith can be integrated, as well as the other aspect of INTA's comment. b. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 15 New substantive appeal mechanism specific to the New gTLD Program -- Preliminary recommendation to establish such a mechanism: -- ALAC, BRG, INTA, IPC, Council of Europe, CCT-RT Recommendations: Agreement. -- Helpful language in the RySG comment: Support the introduction of a limited substantive appeals process for certain types of disputes that arise from a failure to adhere to criteria in the Applicant Guidebook, for example but not limited to, where: An evaluator misapplies the Guidebook or omits Guidebook criteria; or A panel relies on incorrect information or standard to decide an objection. -- Re: ICANN.Org comment -- ICANN Org: Concerns - ICANN org would like to understand how this proposed “New Appeals Mechanism” differs from the ICANN Reconsideration Request process. WG may want to clearly articulate the difference in the appeals mechanism and reconsideration request: Reconsideration is: “Requestor may submit a request for reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction ("Reconsideration Request") to the extent that the Requestor has been adversely affected by: (i) One or more Board or Staff actions or inactions that contradict ICANN's Mission, Commitments, Core Values and/or established ICANN policy(ies)....” -- We don't have a really clear dividing line between you know what what WHERE DOES APPEAL apply and where does Request for Reconsideration apply. -- Appeal should be to a third-party decision, not to a Board or staff action. ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs/Staff to review the Bylaws to determine if a Reconsideration Request only applies to Board or staff actions. What are the types of actions or inactions that should be subject to this new limited appeals process? -- What about review of conflicts? That's not technically considered a substantive decision, but that certainly is something that should be reviewable on an appeal. -- The accountability mechanism should be only for a narrow set of circumstances.

1 0

Please remember to register for ICANN66 prep week webinars
by Nathalie Peregrine Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

Dear all, Please remember to register for ICANN66 prep week webinars! Announcement can be found here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-09-16-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> To attend any of the below webinars, please register here [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_prepweeksi…> by 11 October to receive joining instructions. You may also submit questions during the registration process. All registered attendees will receive participation details days before the webinar dates. ICANN66 Prep Week Webinars Schedule Monday, 14 October 2019 16:00 UTC | Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Update: What to Expect at ICANN66 Tuesday, 15 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: DNS Abuse 23:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Contractual Compliance Update Wednesday, 16 October 2019 16:00 UTC | ICANN66 Plenary Session: Evolution of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model 23:00 UTC | Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Update Thursday, 17 October 2019 12:00 UTC | Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Update 16:00 UTC | Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update All webinars be in English. Materials from the Pre-ICANN66 Policy Update will also be available in French. Recordings and materials will be posted here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/montreal66-prep-week>. Prep Week was established to help streamline the pre-meeting experience, as well as increase awareness of plenary topics, foster deeper conversations and enhance briefings and readout sessions. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar [features.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_cal…>

1 0

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Tuesday 01 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 1, 2019

Oct. 1, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 01 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/kooCBw> (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, Terri

1 0

Rosh Hashanah
by Vanda Scartezini Sept. 27, 2019

Sept. 27, 2019

Dear friends To all this is an important festivity my best wishes for an year of peace, joy, health and success with all you love! Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resolving Objection Proceedings with Mandatory PICs
by Pruis, Elaine Sept. 27, 2019

Sept. 27, 2019

Thanks for asking. As a new participant I’ve been wondering that myself… If we’re considering not just the applicant guidebook but the final effective implementation, are we including things like ICANN Advisories as well? Elaine From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:36 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resolving Objection Proceedings with Mandatory PICs My understanding is that the Baseline that we are working to is not the Applicant Guidebook but the final effective implementation including Board actions, so Voluntary PICS, (which predated Mandatory PICS) are there unless we have agreement to change them. JEFF/CHERYL: Can you confirm exactly what our baseline is? Alan At 26/09/2019 06:39 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: All, Mandatory PICS are unchanging. You can't resolve an Objection with a Mandatory PIC. It would require a Voluntary PIC -- which has become a misnomer, and a complete garbage can of everything applicants wanted to throw into the kitchen sink. There are longstanding objections to "voluntary PICs" from the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Public Interest Community (as we discussed many times). There is no high-level agreement on including them -- and they were not part of the Round 1 rules. We agreed in last week's call that you could *amend the application* to settle an Objection. That puts the private Objection settlement out for fuller and fairer review -- which is fair. Changes to public portion of applications would be subject to public comment -- and hopefully notification to all who have filed comments and therefore are likely interested in following changes to that application. Publication and public notice on significant changes to applications (with public comment) to settle an Objection was done in Round 1. But there was no question that there is a high level Disagreement to settling disputes with changes to PICs -- because mandatory PICs are fixed and unchanging. This high level Disagreement was raised in every Objections call until last night. Surely we are not saying that if you miss one discussion in the dead of night, you have waived all previous objections? I'm assuming GAC objections were the topic at issue here -- and can settled with changes to the application itself. Many, many changes to public portions of applications were made in response to the GAC in Round 1. Best, Kathy Kathryn Kleiman, American University Washington College of Law On 9/26/2019 6:13 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: [[]] Regarding the last call and the possible high level agreement on resolving Objection proceedings with mandatory PICs, it’s important to note that there is no private right of action to enforce a PIC. The current PIC Dispute Resolution procedure – PICDRP (see attached) provides for various steps to be taken in resolving the PIC complaint and if unresolved, ICANN at its SOLE discrestion, can invoke a a Staning Panel or undertake a compliance investigation. So the points I am raising here are: (1) Proceeding on the report of a PIC violation rests in the sole discretion of ICANN (2) The expense of the Compliance investigation and/or Standing Panel is an expense of ICANN. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to consider adopting a private right of action (rather than forcing the expense on ICANN) in connection with the enforcement of mandatory PICs adopted for purposes of resolving an Objection proceeding. In fact, the PICDRP originally contained a provision allowing the enforcement issue to be taken to a third party provider. However, that draft did not survive. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [[]] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [[]] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) 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 - Tuesday, 01 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Tuesday, 01 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, continue discussion, start on page 13, String Confusion Objections 2. Accountability Mechanisms -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, page 15 3. Community Applications – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxS…, (time permitting) page 2 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Name Collision Topic [New Subject Line]
by Jeff Neuman Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Thanks Anne and Rubens for this discussion. I think in moving forward, we may have to tackle the name collision issue with the following in mind: 1. We will need to reflect the work we have done in Work Track 4 as well as the comments we received and the discussions/materials we have received to date. This includes the JAS Final report. 2. We should note the Board Resolution which resulted ultimately in the approval of the work described in Phase 1 of the NCAP Study as reported in the Scope of Work published by the NCAP: * Scope: (https://community.icann.org/display/NCAP/NCAP+Working+Documents?preview=/79…) * Board Resolution: https://features.icann.org/name-collision-analysis-project-%E2%80%93-first-… 3. We should note that there MAY be other phases of the NCAP study and describe those phases. See https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79437474/NCAP%20Proposal%2…. But we also have to recognize that that is not a given. There may or may not ever be a Phase 2 or 3 study. 4. In the event that there are other studies, there are recommendations that this Working Group has with respect to things we would like to see studied (eg., a do not apply list, an evaluation testing procedure, etc.). 5. In the event that there are no future studies, we will need to see what our group has consensus on (if anything). 6. If there is no consensus on anything, then we will need to report on that and ultimately what happened in the last round would be recommended. Note: We will also need to see if anything comes from the letter sent from the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board on the dependencies for the next round and if that does have an impact on our recommendations. Please let me know if you have any issues with my summary. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:22 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board on Potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. The notion that Work Track 4 already covered all the know evidence of harm is not accurate. If the Board were willing to rest on what Work Track 4 had, it would never have initiated the NCAP as an OCTO project. Board never considered WT4 output, since it will only be sent to the Board in the final report. And due to lack of consensus, most discussions in WT4 will never reach Board at all, so saying that it was considered is too far fetched. Rubens ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

2 2