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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 26 September 2019
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 26 September 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/2019-09-26+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Objections: Should there be some sort of early warning for governments? See: carried out in accordance with the Bylaws and GAC’s internal procedures: “Does the presumption that a “string will not proceed” limit ICANN’s ability to facilitate a solution that both accepts GAC Advice but also allows for the delegation of a string if the underlying concerns that gave rise to the objection were addressed? Does that presumption unfairly prejudice other legitimate interests?” ACTION ITEM 1: Put on the list for comment: Rather than a specific time period, the WG could consider some principle or period (e.g., concurrent with the application comment period). Independent Objector: Should all funding for the IO come from ICANN? ACTION ITEM 2: Co-Leads will send potential examples for review/comment on extraordinary circumstances. Keep limitation that the IO can only file Limited Public Interest and Community Objections? -- Re: ALAC Comments: consider lifting the 2-ground limit on the IO’s ability to file objections. ACTION ITEM 3: WG to reconsider. Should multiple IOs be appointed? How should they divide their work? ACTION ITEM 4: Put this as a question out to the WG. What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. - and - What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. -- Community applicants weren’t allowed to make modifications to their applications. For subsequent procedures, it seems that the WG is leaning to allowing amendments as long as the are published for public comment. ACTION ITEM 5: Try to capture as a high-level agreement. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No update provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, continue discussion, start on page 8 Should there be some sort of early warning for governments? See: carried out in accordance with the Bylaws and GAC’s internal procedures: “Does the presumption that a “string will not proceed” limit ICANN’s ability to facilitate a solution that both accepts GAC Advice but also allows for the delegation of a string if the underlying concerns that gave rise to the objection were addressed? Does that presumption unfairly prejudice other legitimate interests?” ACTION: Put on the list for comment: Rather than a specific time period, the WG could consider some principle or period (e.g., concurrent with the application comment period). Independent Objector: Question: Should all funding for the IO come from ICANN? : -- Beyond the scope of the independent objector. --- Seems like the majority of groups support funding of the independent objector. -- Should there be a limit to the number of objections? Majority of comments said, “no”. -- Per the AGB in section 1.1.2.4: The GAC Early Warning is a notice only. It is not a formal objection, nor does it directly lead to a process that can result in rejection of the application. -- If an Independent Objector files an objection, how is it determined? In the 2012 round the IO had more time to file. There was nothing formal in the guidebook. ACTION: Co-Leads will send potential examples for review/comment on extraordinary circumstances. Keep limitation that the IO can only file Limited Public Interest and Community Objections? -- ALAC: consider lifting the 2- ground limit on the IO’s ability to file objections. ACTION ITEM: WG to reconsider. Should multiple IOs be appointed? How should they divide their work? ACTION ITEM: Put this as a question out to the WG. -- Support for an alternative where there are conflicts. Should the same entity be allowed to apply for a TLD as community and also file a Community Objection for the same string? -- Objection to a community evaluation means it just goes into the pool. It doesn’t die. What can be done to lower the fees and make them more predictable while at the same time ensuring that the evaluations are both fair and comprehensive? -- Question: Consolidation of "common" objections to reduce resolution cost   Should non-profits be able to to defend themselves at "no cost"?  Answer: Program should be self funding. -- "No cost" doesn't exist, because someone still has to pay the DRSPs. Only if DRSPs to do it on a pro-bono basis.  What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. -- Doesn’t have an impact on the CPE, but applicant has to be in queue to be considered. - and - What is your view of the proposal to allow those filing a Community Objection to specify Public Interest Commitments (PICs) they want to apply to the string, and if the objector prevails, these PICs become mandatory for any applicant that wins the contention set. -- Community applicants weren’t allowed to make modifications to their applications. For subsequent procedures, it seems that the WG is leaning to allowing amendments as long as the are published for public comment. ACTION ITEM: Try to capture as a high-level agreement.

1 0

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 26, 2019

Sept. 26, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/e4TkBg> (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

GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board on Potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures.
by Steve Chan Sept. 25, 2019

Sept. 25, 2019

Dear WG Members, Jeff and Cheryl circulated a draft version of a letter from the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board regarding potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and SubPro. Attached, please find the final version as sent to the ICANN Board. Best, Steve From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:36 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] GNSO Council Response to ICANN Board on Potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. Dear all, Please find attached the letter sent to Cherine Chalaby, Chair of ICANN Board on the topic of Potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. This will be posted on the GNSO Correspondence webpage. [gnso.icann.org] shortly. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri --- Terri Agnew Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: terri.agnew(a)icann.org Skype ID: terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar [features.icann.org]

4 11

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 23 September 2019
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 23, 2019

Sept. 23, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 23 September 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/2019-09-23+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Objections -- re: GAC Advice Option listed in Initial Report: GAC Advice must include clearly articulated rationale, including the national or international law upon which it is based. ACTION ITEM 1: Re: BRG/RySG: New Idea - Supports this option but suggests the language is modified to "GAC Advice must include clearly articulated rationale, including the (i) national or international law; and (ii) merits-based public policy reasons, upon which it is based". Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. ACTION ITEM 2: Re: INTA: New Idea - Require that GAC Advice nominate and provide contact details for an authorized GAC contact who is knowledgeable about the grounds for the objection and authorized to discuss solutions with a view to trying to reach a resolution. Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. Option listed in Initial Report: Future GAC Advice, and Board action thereupon, for categories of gTLDs should be issued prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. Any GAC Advice issued after the application period has begun must apply to individual strings only, based on the merits and details of the application, not on groups or classes of applications. ACTION ITEM 3: Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. ACTION ITEM 4: Look in the Bylaws with respect to GAC Advice. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary documents: -- General Question: Where will we see the summary of agreements? Staff and Co-Chairs are working on a draft. -- Consider capturing agreements with actions, but these would need to be specifically called out, ideally by leadership, so that they can be accurate captured. a. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-K…, continue discussion, start on page 5 Opportunity to amend an application or add Public Interest Commitments in response to concerns raised in an objection (see High-Level Agreement E above). -- Noting opposition by NCSG to PICs. -- Changes to applications went out for public comment, but voluntary PICs don’t make sense. Concerned about changes being presented in PICs, when they aren’t. -- What is the distinction between a change to an application versus one that is made in response to an objection? It is an agreement between ICANN and the applicant. There is still a role for ICANN in compliance with what the applicant said what they would do. -- If part of the agreement is in a PIC then ICANN has the ability to outsource that compliance to a third party. -- The CPE is not an objection process, it’s an evaluation. There is no CPE objection process. We should not confuse Community Objections with Community Priority Evaluations. Community Objections come from affected community members, the CPE aims if a community applicant fulfills the community criteria. -- There can be opposition to community applications, although that is not an objection. -- Community Priority Evaluation rules and principles were not solidified before the application window closed in 2012. Don’t want the rules and principles to shift after the window closes. -- Let’s keep the Opposition / Objection separate. The Opposition component of CPE we will tackle when we discuss CPE (2 topics from now).  For today, lets focus ONLY on Community-based objections. -- Objections filed by under Community Objections should be time-limited just as with other objections - String Confusion, Legal Rights, Limited Public Interest. CPE should not be used to "submit" opposition akin to an objection. -- The assumption after reading the AGB was once a community applicant gets through objection and public comments that would be the basis for CPE, but that didn’t happen and allowed community opposition to come in weeks before the application window closed. Additional comments on possible remediation measures in response to objections. -- ALAC comment: the WG policies will go to an Implementation Review Team. This is different from the recommendation for a Standing IRT, which is to address issues that arise after implementation. Were some objections in the 2012 round filed with the specific intent to delay the processing of applications for a particular string? How can this issue be addressed?: -- Re: NSCG: Agreement - Working Group should build safeguards into the objection process that protect against potential gaming and other manipulations of the process. There is agreement to build in such safeguards. -- Re: NTA: New Idea - Suggests quick look mechanisms, processes which would allow for summary judgments and costs awards in clear cut non-cases, as well as clear application guidelines for applicants and clear conflicts of interest measures. Seems to be general agreement to this. Can we say who would be the third party to handle the quick look? For PICDRPs ICANN Org does it. For the limited public interest objection in the 2012 round it was a third party. -- From the AGB regarding the Limited Public Interest: The quick look is the Panel’s first task, after its appointment by the DRSP and is a review on the merits of the objection. The dismissal of an objection that is manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse of the right to object would be an Expert Determination, rendered in accordance with Article 21 of the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure.  Should ICANN continue to fund all objections filed by the ALAC? -- Re: Council of Europe: New Idea - Clarify ALAC’s task in the Bylaws. Can note this but can’t recommend changes to the Bylaws. -- Need to clarify how the ALAC has standing to object. It’s more than standing. They were not given the privileges of the independent objector. For clarification, are there any limits to the number of objections can file, if not there should be. Some comments supported that there should be limits. -- Last time they had 3 objections to 1 string. ALAC filed 3 objections against .health. We have a stringent process within ALAC to get to filing an objection. -- Limits should be qualitative, not quantitative. There already is a high bar for the ALAC to file objections. -- If you added a Global Public Interest standard, if the Board defines one, not sure why it would apply only to ALAC. The ALAC already applies the GPI standard. GAC Advice: Option listed in Initial Report: GAC Advice must include clearly articulated rationale, including the national or international law upon which it is based. -- Everyone except for the GAC agreed -- relying solely on the Bylaws for GAC advice. -- Re: BRG/RySG: New Idea - Supports this option but suggests the language is modified to "GAC Advice must include clearly articulated rationale, including the (i) national or international law; and (ii) merits-based public policy reasons, upon which it is based". ACTION: Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. -- Re: INTA: New Idea - Require that GAC Advice nominate and provide contact details for an authorized GAC contact who is knowledgeable about the grounds for the objection and authorized to discuss solutions with a view to trying to reach a resolution. ACTION: Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. -- Presumably we cannot tell the GAC to change it's processes but we can make recommendations?  --  Language should say OR rather than "and" between the "(i) and the (ii).   -- Perhaps it being a SHOULD instead of MUST ? Don't think GAC Advice has to be based on law so language would be "and/or" between (i) and (ii)) Option listed in Initial Report: Future GAC Advice, and Board action thereupon, for categories of gTLDs should be issued prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. Any GAC Advice issued after the application period has begun must apply to individual strings only, based on the merits and details of the application, not on groups or classes of applications. -- Comments are in agreement. ACTION: Review to determine if WG agrees to add to high-level agreements. -- ACTION: Look to the Bylaws with respect to GAC Advice.

2 1

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Monday, 23 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 23, 2019

Sept. 23, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 23 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/eYTkBg> (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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 23, 2019

Sept. 23, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 26 September 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 8 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

FW: SLA Monitoring (SLAM) Statistics
by Jim Prendergast Sept. 23, 2019

Sept. 23, 2019

It appears that my previous message was never circulated via the list as I had an incorrect email. This is take 2. While the topic did not come up on the aforementioned call, it is still important information for the WG to have as it considers other parts of the program including pre-approval programs. thanks From: Jim Prendergast Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 5:34 PM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Subject: RE: SLA Monitoring (SLAM) Statistics As just referenced on the call (in my best impression of Mickey Mouse voice) see my note below as well as the additions here as I’ve had more time to look at the slides. We really need the raw data and some narrative. If this will be covered on the call on Tuesday – I move that we table that discussion until we have this information and have had a chance to review and digest. Sending it out late tomorrow before a holiday weekend for many of the regular participants simply would not provide enough prep time. As I looked at the slide more a few thoughts * Even the areas that are outside the ‘significant spikes’ are interesting as they represent non-trivial levels of failure. * The DNS had 10+ failures in 23 of 58 quarters (~40%). And scale on the RDDS graph is such that the lowest line is 200 failures per quarter and the line is above that for all but two quarters over nearly 5 years. * And, of course, all of this data is less informative because it’s an aggregated industry view. The reader can’t tell which RSP is involved for any of these failures. If I was shopping for an ICANN “pre-approved” vendor – I would certainly want access to that data to ensure I factored that into my decision making * Slide 2 is missing May 2019, which could or could not be significant, given the performance of June and July. Thanks From: Jim Prendergast Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 11:19 PM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Subject: RE: SLA Monitoring (SLAM) Statistics Yes. Add my thanks for this as well. And I agree with Donna on the need for more detail. I think having the raw data behind the slides would be beneficial as when I look at the chart on slide 4, the timeline seems to be out of sorts, especially as we get to 2019. It would also be useful to know if there is any explanation behind the spikes in DNS failures earlier this year and RDDS in 2018. The DNS failures are really something else. More in June and July than in the entire cumulative history of the program. Thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 7:16 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] SLA Monitoring (SLAM) Statistics Steve, thanks for providing this update. The information provided is not as ‘complete’ as that provided to the group in 2017. I’ve attached a document from an RySG Discussion Group that I believe was provided to this group early last year that summarises the level of detail that was available at that time—I think more detail would be helpful for the purposes of this group. Generalisations are not helpful either— It’s also disappointing that only ‘anecdotal’ information is available about PDT, which I personally don’t find particularly helpful to our discussion because the source doesn’t include any insight from those that were subject to PDT. For this information to be meaningful, more detailed statistics and analysis is necessary. Donna From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:26 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] SLA Monitoring (SLAM) Statistics Dear WG Members, During the course of discussions, particularly as it relates to RSP pre-approval and most recently, registrant protections, WG members have asked for updated statistics on the Service Level Agreement (SLA) Monitoring program within ICANN. Attached, please find the latest report. A few contextual notes that may help your digestion of this information: * The statistics are on a per TLD basis for each month. * In some months, there are spikes in the number of DNS and RDDS failures. Usually, these spikes are a caused by a failure in an RSP that serves a large number of TLDs. * On the 4ht slide, you will see several failures that reached EBERO thresholds but in the vast majority of cases, the failures did not trigger an EBERO event. As has been shared previously, this is likely because ICANN Org worked with the registry to resolve the event and/or there were minimal domains under management. In addition, members asked for information around Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT), which I believe is now an element of the broader Registry System Testing (RST). Please see the below response from GDD: “Additionally, on the PDT/RST side - ICANN org has neither compiled nor published summary data regarding Pre-Delegation Test results from the 2012 round. Testing data was tracked and managed by IIS, the pre-delegation testing vendor. Such testing data, was not provided to ICANN org as part of the service delivery efforts. However, based on ICANN org management of the Pre-Delegation testing processing since 2012, we can share anecdotal information based on the collective recollection of org and vendor staff. These anecdotal results includes: 1. Most TLDs received follow-up questions regarding their PDT testing submission (similar to initial evaluation Clarifying Questions) 2. Approximately one quarter of TLDs tested required extended testing beyond the standard 2 to 3 week testing cycle. Some of these tests extended up to 12 weeks. 3. Based on the flexibility of extended testing and the assistance provided by the PDT vendor to TLD operators, fewer than 10 TLDs required a second full PDT testing cycle.“ Hopefully you all find this information helpful. If you have questions or concerns, especially for GDD, please let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 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…>

5 6

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 19 August 2019
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 21, 2019

Sept. 21, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 19 August 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/2019-08-19+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Reserved Names: ACTION ITEM: Liaise with the RPM PDP WG to understand their discussions on reserved names and any overlap. Registrant Protections: ACTION ITEM re: ALAC General Comments on registrant protections: Ask ALAC to give examples of where applicants failed to meet the registrant protection standards that were allowed to proceed. Notes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary document – See: 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…> a. Reserved Names (continued discussion, start at page 7) Ability to reserve an unlimited number of second level domain names and release those names at the RO’s discretion through ICANN-accredited registrars. -- A number of comments oppose any limit on these reservations. -- Some support for some form of limit. -- Concerns if names are being released from reservation after Sunrise. -- RrSG – Concern/New Idea: Counter to the allocation of domain names via the registrar. When names are released they should be allocated thorough the registrar. Sunrise process for second-level domain names removed from a reserved names list and released by a registry operator. -- Support a sunrise period for subsequent releases. -- Process only required if commercially feasible. -- INTA/Valideus: Second sunrise may not be feasible, but support measures to allow trademark owners, with trademark recorded in TMCH, to have right of first refusal. -- RySG: Does not support Discussion: -- For geoTLDs important to be able to reserve names independent from any limits. -- Right of first refusal extend right beyond TM owners in real world. -- RPMs PDP WG discussed the 100 names that registries can reserve. Also discussed QLP and ALP. ACTION: Liaison with the RPM PDP WG to understand their discussions on reserved names and any overlap. SAC090: Advisory on Stability of the Domain Namespace: -- Names on the special use list. .onion was added recently. Questions from the SSAC: -- If the IETF updates the special use list, how do the groups communicate with each other? -- What if there is a round ongoing and there are strings that match something that the IETF is recommending to be reserved? IETF liaison to the Board could be required to notify ICANN if a applied-for string is a match for a word the IETF is seeking to reserve. -- How should ICANN discover and respond to future collisions between private names and proposed new ICANN-recognized gTLDs. Discussion: -- RFC6761 – how and why to have a special use domain: Do not operate like top-level domain registries. Generally for different purposes, such as testing, or private applications. The intent was that these would not enter the root at all. They are not supposed to resolve. -- Are these questions really for this PDP WG? Seems to be one level up. -- .onion was a good example – only resolves if you are using their app. -- Are these names temporary, or once they are assigned they are assigned permanently? Most are permanent. Need to know more about their criteria. What is the policy question here? Note that these are not TLDs. -- IETF would not be looking to use a name that already exists as a TLD. -- .home, .corp, .mail addressed through NCAP. b. Registrant Protections (page 9) High-Level Agreements: -- Generally support or not oppose maintaining existing registrant protections, including EBERO etc. -- Generally support providing TLDs exemption from spec 9 and spec 13 from EBERO requirements. -- Supported improving the background screening process. General Comments about registrant protections: -- ALAC: Might be special circumstances that require adjusting the evaluation process. Do a better job of applying standards. ACTION ITEM: Give examples of where applicants failed to meet the registrant protection standards that were allowed to proceed. -- Any exemptions to RPMs should be address by the RPM PDP WG. General Comments on EBERO: -- Not appropriate for some models of registries. -- Requiring both the EBERO and COI is unnecessarily burdensome. -- Relationship between an EBERO and COI should be clarified. EBERO exemption for single registrant TLs (including under Spec 13): -- ICANN Org: WG should clarify whether the EBERO exemption applies only to single registrant TLDS, or all ROs with Spec 13. -- Exemption from EBERO should include exemption from COI and apply to registries with exemption from Spec 9. -- SSAC: Exempting any TLD from EBERO should be considered carefully. Proposal to extend the background screening exemption currently given to publicly traded companies to include exemption for officers, etc. -- Some support and some oppose. Split in the comments. Suggest no support to change the status quo. Proposal to make background screenings more accommodating. Some support. Timing of background screening. -- ICANN Org: Given the large number of change requests on Q11 from 2012 round, consideration should be given to whether background screening should be performed during Initial Evaluation or at Contracting. Proposed additional questions for background screening: -- Some support and some oppose. Address online. Discussion: -- What happens when the COI runs out or if the registry fails after the COI is returned? These are important questions but not sure they can be addressed by this WG. -- Spec 9, Registry Code of Conduct -- there is a provision to get an exemption from the code of conduct (part of Spec 9) – only being used by the registry operator or its affiliates. Here, for those entities being granted that exception they also should be granted exemption from Spec 13. -- Sounds like it make sense to do the background check once and on the right people.

2 1

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 23 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 20, 2019

Sept. 20, 2019

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 23 September 2019 at 14:00 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 5 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

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 19 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Sept. 19, 2019

Sept. 19, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 19 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/doTkBg> (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