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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Report to be published without Minority Views?
by Kathy Kleiman May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

Hi All,I'd like to echo Anne's questions about both Minority Views and Minority Reports. It would seem very appropriate and timely for them to be going out in the next version. In many ways, it makes the report stronger. We discussed, debated and ultimately agreed on many issues (with tx to Jeff and Cheryl's leadership). All the more important (and valuable) to share those issues in which we continue to disagree. It's part of the transparency and accountability of our process and part and parcel of our work together -- and the success of our presentation. So let me echo Anne's question (slightly rephrased): Does the Consensus Call come before the Final Report is published or after? How will minority views appear in the version that is soon to be published? Best and hope everyone is well, Kathy On 4/30/2020 5:42 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Hi Jeff and Cheryl Does the Consensus Call come before the Final Report is published or after? Are you saying that no Minority Views can appear in the version that is published? (I may be confused as to Steve’s comment in the chat about Minority Statements.) Thank you, Anne ANNE E. AIKMAN-SCALESE Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [1] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ Links: ------ [1] http://lrrc.com/

2 1

FW: [Ext] Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs
by Emily Barabas May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

Please see below. From: Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> Date: Monday, 4 May 2020 at 12:06 To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "GACSTAFF (gac-staff(a)icann.org) (gac-staff(a)icann.org)" <gac-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs [cc’ing GNSO support staff to kindly forward to the SubPro PDP WG mailing list] Dear Cheryl and Jeff, I hope this email finds you well. As noted during ICANN67, following the focus on priority topics to the GAC on Subsequent Rounds of new gTLDs being discussed within the SubPro PDP WG, GAC members were asked to provide input on PDP WG draft recommendations available to date (attached – as of March 27th 2020) and answered three specific questions on each of the following topics: 1. GAC Advice and GAC Early Warnings 2. Public Commitments (PICs) 3. Applicant Support Program 4. Community Applications 5. Closed Generics Please note this input is not GAC consensus advice as specified in the compilation document but individual input from GAC Members and Observers on current draft final recommendations. For your reference, please find attached: * The compilation document with input received from 23 GAC members and observers on the five topics mentioned above, via three specific questions on each topic; * The GAC written consultation document originally submitted to GAC members for your reference, which includes: o Prior GAC positions; o Draft final recommendations from the SubPro PDP; o Questions to GAC members on each topic The GAC welcomes any further engagement with SubPro PDP WG Leadership on the input provided, and on ongoing recommendations being drafted. Many thanks for your continuous cooperation and engagement with the GAC. Kind Regards, --Manal

1 0

Subject: Revisions to sections on GAC Advice - Current Status?
by mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW May 3, 2020

May 3, 2020

Dear Paul: Th Community has no interest in fomenting antagonism between GNSO and the GAC. To do so, reflects a serious lack of understanding and experience of the process whereby ICANN was created in its present form. If anything, the Transition resulted in reinforcing GAC's potential influence in the ICANN Community. Accordingly, I could not support the amendments that you are proposing in this regard. Regards Christopher From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, May 01, 2020 2:57 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com >; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au ) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au >; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Revisions to sections on GAC Advice - Current Status? Hi All, I have not been able to connect with Greg on this as hoped. Even so, I submit the following change which I believes deals with concerns some have raised that we cannot tie the ICANN Board’s hands but at the same time want to create a sense of urgency-leading-to-predictability in relationship to when the GAC gives advice: [ In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the detrimental effect of such timing when considering such GAC Consensus Advice which should result in a strong presumption against the Board adopting such late GAC Consensus Advice.] I hope this balance is acceptable to the WG. This is an area of failure for the community in the last round and I think it would be really unfortunate if we set ourselves up for failure again by not addressing it in the new AGB. Jeff/Cheryl, will one of you please confirm receipt and that this will be on our agenda for discussion in the appropriate WG call? Thanks! Best, Paul

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
by Jamie Baxter May 3, 2020

May 3, 2020

Hey Paul & Anne I think both your edits are improvements. Ideally I would like to see something that limits the independent research activity to “verifying statements or claims made in the application” and not just to “verify the community status of the applicant.” The later seems to introduce opportunity for advocacy. I would also like considered a requirement by the evaluators to produce an equal or resounding body of research when countering claims or statements made in an application. This avoids single sourced or fringe views from impeding the larger community interests, and it helps ensure balance and perspective are considered in the decisions. Thanks Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:01 PM To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, Jamie Baxter <Jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D61A6A.7D647740] Paul, I think you could use this language in the AGB, but I would change the last sentence to “When conducting such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.” I think “especially aware” is tough to measure and “evidence which a party should have included in its filings” is impossible to judge. I am mindful of the fact that these determinations will now be subject to appeal and that we are laying groundwork for an appeal with this language, e.g. appeal on the grounds that the panelist acted as an advocate in conducting independent research. Do you intend to set up grounds for appeal with your proposal? Should we be avoiding those grounds and stick to the substance of the community priority decision as demonstrated via objective evidence/research rather than setting up grounds based on a charge of improper conduct on the part of the evaluator? Thank you, Anne From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:10 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com) <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Anne. I think your language is a good start to a compromise. The concern is both knowing what the panelist is looking at and relying on as well as making sure that panelists don’t slip into an advocacy role s/he believes that a particular party is not being very well represented. Even the best of us are vulnerable to confirmation bias from time to time. How about: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists must be especially aware not assume an advocacy role, such as searching for evidence which a party should have already included in its filings.” Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Best, Paul To opt in to Taft's daily updates on COVID-19, please subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For news and advice on coronavirus-related implications, please review our Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> anytime. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:34 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>) <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Subject: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Paul, You wanted to start a small group on this topic, but we have not heard from you as to a counter-proposal. Jamie and Kathy are copied. Thank you, Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 7:52 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>) <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Subject: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Dear WG, In light of the short time frame, I am proposing language re the standard for Community Evaluation panelist relying on independent research (proposed limitation from 2012 by Kristine Dorrain and Paul McGrady) as follows: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant, provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose such independent research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered.” Just trying to get the ball rolling on this proposed compromise – noting that a lack of consensus results in a fallback to 2012 implementation. In addition, I think I have missed the proposed revisions to the Community Guidelines for scoring. Jeff, was this sent around again? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D61A6A.7D647740] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61A6A.7D647740] 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. ________________________________ 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.

3 4

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 04 May at 15:00 UTC for 120 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund May 2, 2020

May 2, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 04 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 120 minutes. Proposed Agenda: Note that for agenda item 2 below, for the purposes of stimulating discussion on the Private Resolution/Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort topics, the WG Co-Chairs have taken what we believe to be the majority positions and converted them into the attached proposal. We understand that the substance remains under discussion, but after taking into account all of the comments, and the many deliberations of the Working Group, this proposal will hopefully represent something that WG members can all live with. 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… -- 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions), page 1 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

4 3

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Revisions to sections on GAC Advice -- PLEASE DO NOT GAG THE GAC
by Alexander Schubert May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

Dear group, Because not everybody here is necessarily “fluent” in regards to the topic we are talking about, here an ICANN link to GAC advice: newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice The way we are building “consensus” in this group here seems to be (I over-simplify): if there is no opposition but some support then we have consensus. So if folks do not understand the implications of the proposed suggestion, they won’t have objections: which implies consensus. So in my mind and in all fairness, folks should be able to gauge what the real life impact of the suggested policy would be. For example in the last round GAC advised to not allow “generic string based” closed gTLDs to move forward. As a result the applicants had to choose between terminating the application or revert to open registries. Nobody really assumed that kind of “predatory behavior” (my personal view and choice of words) by industry leaders. The issue of closed generics was being discussed during the policy development that lead to the 2012 AGB – but in my mind lobbyists successfully avoided clear guidance in the AGB. In the end GAC had to step up – when in reality this should have been clarified by the GNSO and before the finalization of the AGB. So in this respect we might simply listen to GAC already now – instead having to wait for them stepping in after the applications have been submitted. If any such situation (e.g. abuse of closed generics) would occur again – then the currently suggested policy would essentially gag GAC, or rather gag the Board to fix it. In that respect I would like to voice objection to such language. We know what GAC has advised – and we chose to ignore it: * “Protect geo names” (we did not: no additional protections have been implemented) * “Do not allow generic industry keyword term based closed new gTLDs” (at least in the last round, and the circumstances that lead to such advise haven’t changed at all in my mind) The failure is not with GAC – the failure is us not factoring in their advice. Actually: we tried, but in my mind a certain grouping here made sure that consensus was denied. Time after time again. My take: Either we factor GAC’s advise in (we seemingly try to avoid that) – or we live with the possibility that GAC will issue similar advise yet again. It’s just an “advise” – not a death penalty. Please do not gag the GAC by restraining the board. It’s about as helpful as welding shut the security valve of a pressure cooker. With so many who seem to heartedly oppose the GAC I think it’s just fair if there is also a voice that supports GAC – and is thankful for their guidance. Thank you GAC for preventing the worst. Sorry that we ignored all your advice. And no way that your voice will be silenced: directly or indirectly. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, May 01, 2020 2:57 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Revisions to sections on GAC Advice - Current Status? Hi All, I have not been able to connect with Greg on this as hoped. Even so, I submit the following change which I believes deals with concerns some have raised that we cannot tie the ICANN Board’s hands but at the same time want to create a sense of urgency-leading-to-predictability in relationship to when the GAC gives advice: [ In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the detrimental effect of such timing when considering such GAC Consensus Advice which should result in a strong presumption against the Board adopting such late GAC Consensus Advice.] I hope this balance is acceptable to the WG. This is an area of failure for the community in the last round and I think it would be really unfortunate if we set ourselves up for failure again by not addressing it in the new AGB. Jeff/Cheryl, will one of you please confirm receipt and that this will be on our agenda for discussion in the appropriate WG call? Thanks! Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe> subscribe here. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> Resource Toolkit. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:37 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au> ) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au> >; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> ; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> > Subject: Re: Revisions to sections on GAC Advice - Current Status? Sorry to have missed last night's witching hour call and sorry this is not done. You can blame me, not Paul. i will look at the last bit of language in play this evening and hammer something out with Paul. On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:03 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > wrote: Jeff and Cheryl (and Paul McGrady), Jeff, you said that if there were any proposed changes to the GAC Advice language, we should get those in by May 1. However, the last time the WG looked at this, Paul had inserted a number of redline changes into the document. So which version are you expecting us to use when you ask for proposals to be made no later than May 1? And are these alternate proposals supposed to come in the form of redlines to the WG document in the same manner that Paul used? I had understood that Paul was doing some redrafting of his numerous edits. Or was there another small group that was supposed to be convened on this point? I don’t see any way we can cancel the discussion on the language covering GAC Advice, even though you suggested at the top of the last call that we might. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> 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.

2 1

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Thursday, 30 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 30 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/rS2JBw> (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 Andrea

1 0

Slides from Matt Larson, ICANN OCTO
by Julie Hedlund April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

Dear Working Group members, During today’s WG meeting Matt Larson of ICANN’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer, mentioned a recent presentation he had given at the ECO Webinar on 30 April 2020 entitled, “Analysis of the Effects of COVID-19-Related Lockdowns on IMRS Traffic”. He has determined that he can share that presentation with this WG. It is attached for your reference. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 30 April at 2000 UTC. 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/2020-04-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Rationale for Affirmation xx (Rationale 3): ACTION ITEM: Change language to reference the NCAP report to ICANN Org’s report. Implementation Guidance (Rationale 5): ACTION ITEM: Consider whether rather than an “Do Not Apply” list this might be a recommendation for development of criteria. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… 2.7.8 Name Collisions, page 91 Update from Jim Galvin, SSAC/NCAP Co-Chair: NCAP Status -- Matt Thomas offered apologies that he cannot join. -- Patrik Faltstrom also offered apologies. -- Matt Larson from ICANN OCTO is also attending. Three Studies: Study 1: -- Trying to gather up everything that we would have to work with on Name Collisions since the 2012 round. -- .corp, .home, and .mail on hold. -- Controlled interruption procedure and collect data. -- Project became an OCTO project. -- .corp, .home. and .mail are not in scope for SubPro PDP WG. -- Study 1 offers a perspective on Study 2 and Study 3. -- What will have to happen is that the final report will go out for public comment ending at the end of June/early July; the Board will have to make a decision on Studies 2 and 3. NCAP Discussion Group: -- The NCAP Discussion Group is an SSAC group that has to address 10 questions across 2 Board resolutions. -- That work will continue regardless of the Board’s decision on Studies 2 and 3. -- It is now looking specifically at the Board’s questions and what we know to answer the questions and what we think we need, which will feed into the DG’s statement of work for a future project. -- Will provide guidance for the Board to determine if a string can be delegated or is a collision string. -- Timeline is the timeline that the NCAP set out for itself. Procurement process at ICANN took longer than we expected -- the administrative side. -- Starting Study 2 now to take advantage of the time we have. -- The Board in March 2020 ask ICANN Org to complete Study 1 -- we’ve done that with a contractor; we’ll have the report to the Board by 30 June, but that will be tight. -- Contractor has delivered a draft final version of the report -- we have a deadline of 06 May to resolve feedback from the Discussion Group. -- Even though the Board asked ICANN Org to do Study 1 it was originally designed by the SSAC. -- Study 2 will proceed even if not funded by ICANN; SSAC, through NCAP, has a responsibility to answer the Board’s questions. It may not proceed as originally designed. Question: What is the relationship of the NCAP Discussion Group, the SSAC, and the NCAP Admin Committee? Answer: -- Originally the Board had focused on the SSAC, and the SSAC had done a proposal. -- There was some discussion of how to manage the project. -- The idea was that there should be a project sponsor/manager and OCTO became the home. -- All of the analysis and technical work will be done by the Discussion Group, which is open and transparent. -- Contractors are managed by OCTO. -- Created an Admin Committee that allows the SSAC to have oversight of what is going on. It is Rod Rasmussen, SSAC Chair, and Julie Hammer, SSAC Vice Chair , Merike Kaeo, Matt Larson, and the three NCAP Co-Chairs, Jim Galvin, Matthew Thomas, and Patrik Faltstrom. Recommendation xx (Rationale 2): ICANN must have ready prior to the opening of the Application Submission Period a mechanism to evaluate the risk of name collisions in the New gTLD evaluation process as well as during the transition to delegation phase. Affirmation xx (Rationale 3): The Working Group affirms continued use of the New gTLD Collision Occurrence Management framework unless and until the ICANN Board adopts a new mitigation framework. This includes not changing the controlled interruption duration and the required readiness for human-life threatening conditions for currently delegated gTLDs and future new gTLDs. Discussion: -- Implication is that the new round could occur before there is a new framework as long as the existing framework remains in place. -- Question: Is this the majority view? How are we accounting for the concerns about waiting for the NCAP/SSAC work. Answer: This is the majority view. Implementation Guidance (Rationale 5): To the extent possible, ICANN should seek to identify high-risk strings in advance of opening the Application Submission Period, which should constitute a “Do Not Apply” list. ICANN should also seek to identify aggravated strings in advance, which would be expected to require a specific name collision mitigation framework. However, all applied-for strings should be subject to a DNS Stability evaluation to determine whether they represent a high, aggravated, or low risk of name collision. Discussion: -- Hope that a version of this comes out of NCAP. -- Don’t think NCAP can create a list of strings, but could be a set of questions with particular criteria with data that the Board can use to evaluate. Having criteria would be better than creating a list. -- SSAC’s position -- SSAC does not want to be in a position to say whether not a string should be delegated. The SSAC believes that there are security and stability issues that have not been thoroughly studied or understood with respect to Name Collisions - need to know what they are before you proceed to delegate. -- If we finish the policy work it might help all sides finish the work. -- On the “Do Not Apply” list -- Jim Galvin noted that the NCAP could develop criteria, but not a list. Could still have this as Implementation Guidance, or change it to the criteria to create a “Do Not Apply” list. -- In 2012 there was no list, but in principle you had data you could look at and make assessments. If you use similar criteria -- today we have the extra issue of whether or not the data can be influenced. -- Whether there could be a list is dependent on the criteria. -- Worry about someone who knows the criteria and then sets up the data to their benefit and the detriment of others. -- Matt Larson will send his slides on recent queries to the root server relating to people working at home recently -- .home, .corp, and .local. -- The IETF has a special use list of names, that includes .local. There is no rule that says that ICANN can’t delegate .local. -- This report will recommend that no one will be able to apply for a name on the special use list. ACTION ITEM: Consider whether rather than an “Do Not Apply” list this might be a recommendation for criteria. c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. Discussion: -- Minority statements would be submitted after the formal consensus call. The request for minority statements would apply to everything in the report of course, not just this section.  -- Don’t have any language that from the SSAC standpoint Study 2 will proceed. -- Wondering why we would still be referring to an old draft of Study 1. -- Need to add that even if ICANN doesn’t fund Study 2 based on the questions posed to the SSAC Study 2 will proceed. --- Make the change that it’s not the NCAP report but ICANN Org’s report. -- There is analysis work to be done in order for the SSAC to produce answers to the Board. One part will continue in NCAP regardless of anything else that goes on. That analysis will occur based on two things: 1) what we already know about Name Collisions -- work in 2012 and Study 1; 2) there is an option that SSAC had originally proposed where there is now additional raw data that it wanted to look at again as part of the analysis work that the NCAP will do. Two parts for Study 2 -- respond to the Board’s question with what we have available; dependent on funding is the gathering of new raw data. ACTION ITEM: Change language to reference the NCAP report to ICANN Org’s report.

1 0

Final Report to be published without Minority Views?
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne April 30, 2020

April 30, 2020

Hi Jeff and Cheryl Does the Consensus Call come before the Final Report is published or after? Are you saying that no Minority Views can appear in the version that is published? (I may be confused as to Steve's comment in the chat about Minority Statements.) Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D61EFD.81943020] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61EFD.81943020] 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.

1 0