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

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 24 October 2016
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 24 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-24oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Exu4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 24 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 24 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Michelle DeSmyter:Member page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Karen Day:Can barely hear Avri. Christa Taylor:Same here! Steve Chan:Closer to 4 hrs Emily Barabas:For those who will be attending the meeting, there will be lunch just before the session served in the room Jon Nevett:Which day and time again? Susan Payne:thursday 3rd. about 13.45 from recollection Steve Chan:Right Susan, Thursday, November 3 - 13:45 - 18:30 Jon Nevett:Thanks Steve -- could we get a calendar invite? Christa Taylor:In case it helps, https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_… Kurt Pritz:I believe the opening discussion, status and introductions should be very short. The meeting should be a working meeting and not bringing non-participants up to date. We can distribute materials beforehand so people can come up to speed. Steve Chan:Thanks Christa. @Jon, we don't send calendar invites for the f2f sessions. I would recommend utilizing Sched to help manage youre schedule at ICANN57. Jeff Neuman:@Kurt - That's the plan Jon Nevett:ok Rubens Kuhl:I support the idea, Avri. Karen Day:Think that would be good Jeff Neuman:Yes, but we should keep it short Christa Taylor:Also think it would be beneficial Kurt Pritz:Five minutes Christa Taylor:I am here but not on voice Christa Taylor:Once we have the meeting we should be able to direct the conversation to the concerns Kurt Pritz:On question 2: should we include registrants or users? Sara Bockey:Question 2 should read: From RSP Accreditation to Third-Party Certifier – What is the most effective method to meet the needs of RSP, Registry and Registrar? Kurt Pritz:A stable, resilient internet? Lower registration costs? Christa Taylor:Perhaps insight into this will come out of the question Donna Austin, Neustar:I think it should also include applicants as this is one of the problems we're trying to solve. Jeff Neuman:@Kurt - I am not sure that either of those will be directly related to registrants, but yes to applicants Christa Taylor:I definately think applicants should be included Jeff Neuman:We can hear you Michael Phil Buckingham:Avri . I have no dial out. . Michael - we can hear you . Phil Buckingham:Q - do we need more reserved names re the IANA transition Rubens Kuhl:Like PTI ? Annebeth Lange:Question 2, WT2: Since it is differences between RNWG and what was the result in the AGB - especially for geographical names - there is a need to see those two documents in connection Phil Buckingham:Exactly , Rubens Rubens Kuhl:I think only the ICANN community thinks of PTI as the org managing IANA functions... ;-) Jeff Neuman:Annabeth, yes that is one of the differences....also have IGOs. Red Cross, IOC, etc. Jeff Neuman:We also have 2 characters, single character IDNs, etc. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Jeff Annebeth Lange:I agree completely with Susan on that. Phil Buckingham:Q re COI / LOC - we would appreciate feedback from applicant's experiences/ problems Annebeth Lange:On the discussion on 2-letters on first level, that was the only thing we so far has agreed on in the cross-community WG on country & territory names Phil Buckingham:a wish ! Jeff Neuman:@annabeth - We do not yet have a report from the CCWG on country and territory names. Is one going to be forthcoming? Annebeth Lange:Yes, we plan to give you a report in Hyderabad Susan Payne:would it be possible to get a copy of the proposed questions in advance of the meeting - or could you point me to where they are posted please. Some of us may want to gather input from colleagues who may not be there Susan Payne:sorry - was a general comment not specifically WT£ Susan Payne:WT3 Susan Payne:Thanks! Annebeth Lange:We still have discussion on this, and Bart is summing up the last discussions to be presented in Hyderabad. As you know, you have two co-chairs from GNSO, who can give you details. Steve Chan:@Jeff, the CWG-UCTN is aiming to wrap up an Interim Report (aka Initial Report) around the end of this year. Steve Chan:A progress report of sorts is being prepared for ICANN57 discussions. Robin Gross:Thanks, Avri. Happy to join the team! :-) Annebeth Lange:Heather and Carlos Annebeth Lange:I will try to be at the meeting in Hyderabad on Thursday, arriving in the morning Annebeth Lange:I have to leave, see you in Hyderabad avri doria:thanks Jeff Neuman:@Rubens : For #1, do we mean the evaluation process as opposed to application process? Kurt Pritz:If you are going to ask an open-ended question such as #1: you should create some rules about participating in order to manage the discussion, i.e., present you idea and why the change should be made - we will compile all the suggestions for discussion by the group. Christa Taylor:+1 to Kurt's point Phil Buckingham:Absolutely Donna . Jeff Neuman:Good point @kurt Jeff Neuman:yes Jeff Neuman:@Avri - Yes Phil Buckingham:Donna, think categories is key , high priority - everything flow from this ? Steve Chan:Staff can maintain a parking lot" Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good idea Jeff Neuman:Thanks! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Great safe travels all see some of you soon Bye for now Christa Taylor:Thanks! Kiran Malancharuvil:Thank you Alexander Schubert:bye Robin Gross:Thanks, bye! Kavouss Arasteh:Is there any restriction to attend your meeting in Hyderabad Phil Buckingham:thanks

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 24 October 2016
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 24, 2016

Oct. 24, 2016

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 24 October. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 24 October 2016 Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures face-to-face meeting at ICANN57: Thursday, 03 November 13:45-18:30. See: https://icann572016.sched.org/event/8cxk/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-procedure…. Proposed ICANN57 Agenda – Draft is attached, but subject to revision. 1. Welcome and introductions 2. Current Status (Overarching issues/CC1) 3. Work Track based discussions 1. Overarching issues/CC1: · Work Track 3 -- rounds vs. first-come, first-served process. Everything else we had public discussion in Helsinki. Don't need to go over the overall topics again. Can stick to a status update, but won't go down any of the issues. · Ask liaisons to CCT-RT, RPMs, to provide a brief update. Add as a new number 3 in the agenda. · Work Track based discussions. Asked each WT to provide some teaser questions for community input. 2. Work Track (WT) based discussions WT1: [reading from the draft agenda] · Question 1: Help spur the conversation on the Applicant Support Program. Still looking for input. Question 2: Update based on input from Donna Austin. Question 2 should read: “From RSP Accreditation to Third-Party Certifier – What is the most effective method to meet the needs of RSPs, Registries and Registrars?” · Also include applicants as this is one of the problems we're trying to solve and consider how they might be affected. Don't include if there isn't a specific concern. WT2: [reading from the draft agenda] · Question: Do we need more reserved names re the IANA transition? Such as PTI? · Question 2, WT2: Since it is different between RNWG and what was the result in the AGB - especially for geographical names - there is a need to see those two documents in connection. · Question: on our last call we were talking about top level and second level, for this question I think need to be clear what level we are talking about. · We also have 2 characters, single character IDNs, etc. Also have IGOs. Red Cross, IOC, etc. · Questions re: COI / LOC - we would appreciate feedback from applicant's experiences/ problems. · CWG-UCTN is aiming to wrap up an Interim Report (aka Initial Report) around the end of this year. A progress report of sorts is being prepared for ICANN57 discussions. WT3: 1) Rounds vs. Continuous (first come, first served). Impact on string contention. 2) Do we need an Independent Objector in future? WT4: [reading from the draft agenda] · Currently in consultations with JAS and other Stakeholder Groups. · Change Question #1 -- not application submission process, but the application evaluation process. General question: In the unlikely circumstance that we don't have a very talkative audience does anyone have some backup questions? · If you are going to ask an open-ended question such as #1: you should create some rules about participating in order to manage the discussion, i.e., present you idea and why the change should be made - we will compile all the suggestions for discussion by the group. · Registry agreement categories -- in the overall issues, have more discussion in Hyderabad? Handle in the appropriate track (WT2)? Yes.

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 24 October 2016
by Steve Chan Oct. 21, 2016

Oct. 21, 2016

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 24 October 2016 at 2000 UTC for 60 minutes. This meeting will be devoted to planning for the WG’s face-to-face session at ICANN57 and is therefore considered optional by the WG’s co-chairs. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. ICANN57 planning 4. AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 17 October 2016
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 17 October. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 17 October 2016 Action Item: Need a volunteer for a Work Track 3 Sub Team co-chair. Discussion Notes: 1. Update from WT Leaders Work Track 1 Sub Team: · Sara Bockey: The next Work Track 1 meeting is on 18 October. Additions have been made to the pros and cons on the accreditation program. The Work Track Sub Team is looking at pros and cons of the applicant support program. Christa and I are looking to meet with someone from that program. Then we will at look at the applicant guidebook. · Avri Doria: I reached out to Rafik, have you? · Sara Bockey: No we have not reached out yet. · Avri Doria: I think Dennis Change was on the staff side and I think Rafik was one of the working group chairs. Work Track 2 Sub Team: Michael Flemming: Reserved names and LOCs. We've looked at the single category base registry agreement. I also contacted the BRG and the Registries, but have not had a discussion yet. We will see the other groups we need to look to, also. In addition, we ooked at the terms and conditions in applying to new gTLDs. Work Track 3 Sub Team: · Karen Day: We are looking for a new co-chair. Our first co-chair has had to step down due to other conflicts. We had a meeting last Tuesday and we dove into limited public interest objections. It was a very lightly utilized objection in the last round. Our next item would be legal rights objections. We are reaching out to anyone involved in the public interest objections. We meet again Tuesday week. · Avri Doria: We would very much like someone to join in this effort as a co-chair. It really is a lot of work, but much better if we have more than one co-chair. · Jeff Neuman: We don't have anyone here from Work Track 4. We will be meeting next week. 2. WG Update/ICANN57 planning · Jeff Neuman: There is a 4-hour session at ICANN57. We will try to make it extremely interactive. The leaders of the Work Tracks have been charged with finding questions that would be interesting to the larger community. There is the concept of rounds. Trying to get feedback from some of the proposals we've received. Each Work Track leader has been asked to come up with teaser proposals. This will be open to the meeting at large. We hope this meeting will be well attended. We are having a meeting on 24 October to talk about Hyderabad planning. It is not mandatory to show up. We are not going to have a call on Monday, the 31st. Many people will be traveling to Hyderabad at the time. · Sara Bockey: One topic is what went wrong with the last round on the applicant support program and second is accreditation. · Michael Flemming: Category for ... also for reserved names at the second level and top level. And continuing operations such as EBERO and whether that is necessary. · Karen Day: The two subjects that I would like to get feedback on: The issue of are we do this again in rounds or in an ongoing first-come, first-served process. This impacts a lot of Work Track 3. The second thing is that we would like to get input on is do we need an independent objector? · Avri Doria: I do want to remind people that the meeting in Hyderabad on Thursday will be open to participants, observers, and anyone else who is there. We will be suspending the rules. Can we have a quick show of hands of those who plan to be in Hyderabad? · Michael Flemming: o For Reserved Names, what is a reserved name and what are the reserved names per the RA? Do any changes need to be made to the reserved names to reflect the changes in recent processes that allow for the release of such reserved names? o In the 2012 round, a Continuing Operations Instrument was required to be submitted in the form of a Letter of Credit to fund an Emergency Back End Registry Operator. That requirement proved to be difficult for a number of registries to meet. What other options are there to fund the EBERO functions? Also, some registries, such as Brand TLDs, consider that a Continuing Operations Instrument is not required due to the nature of their TLD. This spans into the background of EBERO requirements, as well, but would the Continuing Operations Instrument be required for TLDs that would qualify for an exemption to the Code of Conduct for the RA? · Michael Flemming: The above are the 3 topics Work Track 2 is looking at exploring for ICANN57. 3. Continued Discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1. See: https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw. · Jeff Neuman: I will be reading the comments that were submitted, or at least summarizing them. Then doing to number 3, which is on rounds or how to introduce the next application window. [Reading from CC1 Review Tool document.] · Avri Doria: Any questions? · Jeff Neuman: If I interpret GAC content only, if the community did not qualify, then it went to the next contention mechanism, such as to an auction. They are still discussing whether it was appropriate to go to an auction if the applicant didn't have the financial resources. · Tom Dale (GAC Secretariat): I think that is basically correct. Regards to community application experience, there is some research that will be submitted at Hyderabad and I hope the GAC will be able to make that available either during or after Hyderabad. · Martin Sutton: The questions were posed to SO/ACs but many registries are not members of the RySG or other groups, particularly dot Brands, should these questions be sent directly to registry operators? · Jeff Neuman: This group would love to see that paper once it is completed. 2e.R2 · Jeff Neuman: [Reading from CC1 Review Tool document.] Martin -- this was only for community comments. This is not the only time we'll be talking about these topics. If you could assist us in getting comments from more brands, the more feedback the better. There was a round in 2005 that dealt with only sponsored gTLDs. So each of the applicants tried to apply as a sponsored community-based TLDs. Some of them were not what people thought a community-based TLD should be. If we have a brand-only round there is a fear that some applicants would try to fit themselves in. · Avri Doria: If I could add a personal point. It is that there is gaming and a counter claim that the accusations of gaming go beyond a workaround of the rule and that the accusations becomes another form of gaming. We need to define how we think of something as a work around to the rule. This is a really important discussion to have. · Jeff Neuman: Martin -- a question of why some brands are asking for a separate agreement and how you would define that category. That would help the discussion. · Martin Sutton: Agree it could be possible to define restrictions to avoid gaming, particularly for dot Brands and could provide opportunities for ICANN to move ahead with smaller, distinct application rounds to maintain momentum before continuous cycles. · Cecilia Smith: agreed 3a.R1, 3a.R2 and 3a. R3: [Reading responses from the CC1 document.] · Jeff Neuman: If you have a predictable window the problem wouldn't go away. An alternate proposal would be an application window, then evaluations could start in Q3 and have a separate application window. You could have a continuous acceptance of applications, but it would not eliminate the problem of contention sets. I would also note that the CCT-RT is considering this issue of rounds and one action item is to figure out what progress they have made on this issue. · Avri Doria: A personal comment on this: If we started with this sort of procedure would we likely be a unwinding of the pent-up demand? Basically, my question is if we were to start at the beginning would we still see a rush of 10,000 for that first one if people knew they could apply for the next one? My question. if we start from day 1 with this alternate procedure, will that even out the pent up demand or will we still have a first rush of 10k applications? Is there any way to determine this? · Jeff Neuman: It will be great to hear from others on this call. What would be some of the benefits or challenges if we did first come, first served? · Karen Day: I will throw out my perspective. I think that people are worrying a bit too much for worrying about getting access to the same thing. My preference is first come, first served, and that would eliminate a lot of problems from the first round. · Klaus Stoll: In general I think continuous rounds sound most attractive. Maybe the 3 months on, 3 months off would give us some peace and quiet to evaluate applications. · Jeff Neuman: That would help for resources. The GAC said should there be a mechanism that if there is an application for a string should others be notified and for the use of the string. What does everyone think of alerting the world and giving others the opportunity to apply for that same string? · Michael Flemming: I am not sure if applicants if people applied for a TLD that they would want to invite contention via a notification. I am assuming this is a gazette for trademarks. If you are thinking about those terms it would be difficult to devise grounds to oppose. · Jeff Neuman: I think your comments were about a gazette for trademarks -- once the mark has gone through its evaluation the mark is published and others can oppose it on certain grounds. This would be akin to both publishing but not just to object but also apply for it. I think it is interesting and something to consider. We should write it up and go through the pros and cons. I think I might want to stop here because of connectivity issues. · Avri Doria: I think it is a good place. We will stop there and continue at our next meeting. We will probably go through this after Hyderabad. For our Monday, 24 October meeting we should probably plan for how to continue. Once we have finished going through these then the leadership and staff can go through a first cut of a draft report to start to approach a consensus.

1 0

Mp3, AC Chat & Attendance for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Michelle DeSmyter Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 17 October 2016 at 3:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-17oct16-en.mp3[mailer.…> <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/4xS4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 17 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 17 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Michelle DeSmyter:Member page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Raymond Zylstra - Neustar:heya Raymond Zylstra - Neustar:time zone is great for me Raymond Zylstra - Neustar:2pm Jeff Neuman:We will start in 2 mins Jeff Neuman:Hello Avri Jeff Neuman:You are real quiet Jeff Neuman:Can u increase mic Jeff Neuman:yes avri doria:thanks Jeff Neuman:Ready when you are Christopher Niemi:Updated SOI: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… Berry Cobb:WT1 is on 18 Oct @ 15 UTC Jeff Neuman:Dennis Chang Jeff Neuman:ICANN staff Sara Bockey:That would be great! Jeff Neuman:BRG = Brand Registry Group Jeff Neuman:But its fun too ;0 Michael Flemming:Light hands make light work! Michael Flemming:Its also very exciting! Michael Flemming:Loud and clear! Quoc Pham:I am from WT4 :) Emily Barabas:next sub team 4 meeting Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC Steve Chan:The session at ICANN57 runs from 13:45-18:30 local time and you can find details here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sched.org_… Sara Bockey:here is the text for the proposed topics: Sara Bockey:What went wrong with the Applicant Support Program in the 2012 round and is there still a need for such a program? Sara Bockey:Some have stated that a Pre-Approval or Accreditation process would be beneficial for registries and registry service providers. Is this an accurate assessment? If so, how should such a process be set up? Michael Flemming:Sorry for being so fast. Here are the topics we are looking at as teaser topics. Justine Chew:Attending remotely Emily Barabas:Doodle poll on ICANN57 attendance: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doodle.com_poll_rhbpwdh… Karen Day:I think it being Sunday evening in the US coupled with the middle of the night in europe our attendance is very light today Emily Barabas:it's not too late to add your response! avri doria:5 am in Central Europe and S. Africa (where i am) Michael Flemming:1. Is a single agreement still suitable for the needs of subsequent procedures? Noting that the 2012 round saw the introduction of TLDs with needs that differ from the standard ICANN model, the idea of different agreements suited to a specific category has seen increased demand. Do we need to consider allowing for category based agreements and what is the justification for such? If yes, in what ways could we consider a "category based agreement"? Or, how should the single base agreement address the various needs of different categories? Michael Flemming:Not in relation to this topics Michael Flemming:topic* Michael Flemming:2. For Reserved Names, what is a reserved name and what are the reserved names per the RA? Do any changes need to be made to the reserved names to reflect the changes in recent processes that allow for the release of such reserved names? Michael Flemming:3. In the 2012 round a Continuing Operations Instrument was required to be submitted in the form of a Letter of Credit to fund an Emergency Back End Registry Operator. That requirement proved to be difficult for a number of registries to meet. What other options are there to fund the EBERO functions? Also, some registries, such as Brand TLDs, consider that a Continuing Operations Instruntment is not required due to the nature of their TLD. This spans into the background of EBERO requirements, as well, but would the Continuing Operations Instrument be required for TLDs that would qualify for an exemption to the Code of Conduct for the RA? Michael Flemming:The above are the 3 topics WT2 is looking at exploring for ICANN57. Martin Sutton:The questions were posed to SO/ACs but many registries are not members of the RySG or other groups, particularly dotBrands, should these questions be sent directly to registry operators? Martin Sutton:more general question. Martin Sutton:Agree it could be possible to define restrictions to avoid gaming, particularly for dotBrands Martin Sutton:and could provide opportunities for ICANN to move ahead with smaller, distinct application rounds to maintain momentum before continuous cycles. Martin Sutton:sure Cecilia Smith:agreed Jeff Neuman:Is everyone losing Avri Justine Chew:I can hear Avri very well Martin Sutton:no avri doria:i can hear you but you can't hear me Karen Day:I heard avri, but not jeff Mary Wong:Some of us lost Avri briefly (or broken up) but all seems to be working now Michael Flemming:I can Mary Wong:Yes Martin Sutton:yes Justine Chew:I can still hear you, Avri Mary Wong:We can hear you Christopher Niemi:I hear Avri Quoc Pham:yes i can hear you Karen Day:I hear Avri Sara Bockey:Avri - you are faint and breaking up on my end Karen Day:Jeff is breaking up Justine Chew:Nope, I'm on Adobe and I can hear both Avri and Jeff Michael Flemming:Everyone is loud and clear Mary Wong:All, please note that, in general, the phone bridge is more stable for audio than AC Mary Wong:Yes Quoc Pham:yes Michelle DeSmyter:yes Justine Chew:Yes, Jeff Martin Sutton:same comment as you Avri - there is still the potential for 10k+ applicants, even with short windows avri doria:my question. if we start from day 1 with this alternate procedure, wll that even out the pent up demand or will we still have a first rush of 10k applications. is there any way to determine this? Martin Sutton:but there could be limits applied, potentially Jeff Neuman:yes Justine Chew:Karen has her hand up Martin Sutton:I am on mute, household is sleeping! Michael Flemming:Lost Karen Justine Chew:Yes, Karen, please carry on avri doria:i am hearing her , though it breaks up. Jeff Neuman:i joined on phone Karen Day:Could we do first come first served w/in the 3 mo window?? Karen Day:No in favor avri doria:my connectivity is bouncing up and down. Michael Flemming:can you hear me? Karen Day:Not* in favor of that proposal Sara Bockey:Yes, hear you avri doria:i can hear Karen Day:We'd make a great Verizon commercial ;-) Michelle DeSmyter:yes Mary Wong:I'm on AC audio and can hear you, Jeff Cecilia Smith:We can hear you, Jeff Sara Bockey:Yes, I hear you from AC avri doria:i can hear but can't seem to talk Martin Sutton:so if an applicant applied for 5000 TLDs immediately, would that be reasonable? or should limits be applied to manage capacity and objection processes avri doria:saw Klauss's hand at one point. Klaus Stoll:Avri, I was able to make my point avri doria:sorry guess it came during one of my dropped moments. avri doria:i can't seem to talk though. Jeff Neuman:Avri, I can take over Michael Flemming:Am I still talking? Klaus Stoll:yes Michael Flemming:Connection is bad avri doria:back at least for a moment Klaus Stoll:No, this connection does no good for communication avri doria:i think other people are waking up in the hotel and starting to share the bandwidth Emily Barabas:Monday, 24 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes -- next meeting Steve Chan:Nothing from me Karen Day:Goodnight, all! Sara Bockey:thanks all Martin Sutton:thank you Avri, Jeff et al Cecilia Smith:Thanks and good night! Justine Chew 2:After 1+hour of good connection, I have completely lost audio now. Sigh, Catch up in Hyderabad remotely then. Christopher Niemi:Thanks Vaibhav Aggarwal:Good bye

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 17 October 2016
by Steve Chan Oct. 14, 2016

Oct. 14, 2016

Dear All, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 17 October 2016 at 0300 UTC for 90 minutes. Please note that for some, this meeting will occur on Sunday for your local time. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Update from WT Leaders 4. WG Update/ICANN57 planning 5. Continued discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1 6. AOB The latest version of the CC1 Review Tool is attached and available on the Wiki here https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw. If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

REMINDER: Please RSVP Pre-ICANN 57 Policy Update Webinar Announcement
by Terri Agnew Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-10-05-en Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 20 October 2016 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, in preparation for the upcoming ICANN Annual General Meeting in Hyderabad. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANNpolicy development community and briefing the community on the Cross-Community sessions taking place in Hyderabad. Cross-Community Sessions Briefings: * New generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds Drafting Team * Cross-Community Working Group for Framework of Cross-Community Working Group Principles * Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as Top Level Domains Community Engagement Team Update: * Community Recognition at ICANN57 and Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2017 Process Launch * Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees Work Effort Inventory/Snapshot Update * Policy Staff Support in Community Charter Amendment Processes Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committee Updates: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Policy Development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Update * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) * Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in all Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Policy Development Process (PDP) * Next-Generation Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) * IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community Update * Government Advisory Committee (GAC) * Adaptation of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Processes to the new ICANN Bylaws * Government Advisory Committee Vice-Chairs Elections taking place in Hyderabad * Capacity Building Session for the Asia Pacific Region organized by the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) Working Group for Underserved Regions * The Government Advisory Committee developing further input for ongoing Policy Development Processes on Registration Directory Services and Future new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be run in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_LTVbnZ8zX…> by 14 October 2016. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 17 October 2016.

1 0

Reminder: Poll on ICANN57 participation for New gTLD PDP WG members
by Emily Barabas Oct. 13, 2016

Oct. 13, 2016

Dear WG Members, A quick reminder -- If you have not already done so, please take a moment to inform the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG leadership team about your participation in ICANN57: http://doodle.com/poll/rhbpwdhqf2m6u2u4 . Please respond to the poll by our next full group meeting on Monday, October 17 at 3:00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Friday 7 October 2016 at 13:41 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Poll on ICANN57 participation for New gTLD PDP WG members Dear WG Members, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting at ICANN57 is currently scheduled to take place on Thursday, November 3 from 13:45 to 18:30 local time (8:15 UTC - 13:00 UTC). Please take a moment to inform the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG co-chairs about your plans for participation: http://doodle.com/poll/rhbpwdhqf2m6u2u4 . Please fill in your response prior to our next full group meeting on Monday, October 17 at 3:00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

FW: [council] Draft Motion - GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board
by Steve Chan Oct. 11, 2016

Oct. 11, 2016

Dear WG Members, Please find the draft GNSO Council response to the ICANN Board’s letter about the work plan and timeline for this PDP. Note, this letter is still in draft form and is subject to changes by the Council. This letter, or the final version of it, is expected to be discussed and possibly agreed upon for transmission to the Board on the 13 October GNSO Council call. Best, Steve On 10/10/16, 6:56 PM, "Steve Chan" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of steve.chan(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear Councilors, In support of the Motion put forth by Carlos below, please find the draft GNSO Council response to the ICANN Board as prepared by Carlos, Phil, James, Keith, and Stefania. The letter is intended to synthesize the responses received from the community while also noting where common views were identified. This drafting group and staff welcome your comments and suggested edits. Best, Steve On 10/3/16, 6:41 PM, "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of crg(a)isoc-cr.org> wrote: Dear Glen, Dear Councillors I submit this motion to approve during our next call on 13 Oct a response to Chairman Crocker´s letter from August 5th 2016, and ask for secondment: <Text> Motion on the GNSO Council Response to the ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Made by: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Seconded by: WHEREAS, On 5 August 2016, the GNSO Council received a letter from Dr. Stephen Crocker seeking an understanding of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group’s (WG) requirements and timing related to advancing a new application process. On 16 August 2016, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the letter and informed the ICANN Board that initial discussions within the GNSO Council and more broadly, within the GNSO community and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, were anticipated. On 12 September 2016, the GNSO Council sent a letter to all of the GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG seeking input to help formulate the Council’s response to the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council received an important number of responses and divergent positions from many different individuals as well a constituencies within the GNSO community, as well as from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG. RESOLVED, The GNSO Council has synthesized the positions received and prepared a response to the ICANN Board. The GNSO Council looks forward to ongoing discussions with the broader community, particularly at ICANN57 in Hyderabad, India. The GNSO Council expects to continue to consult with the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG to determine if there are any significant changes to its schedule or scope of work as defined in its charter. <text end> Respectfully Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) Forwarded message: > From: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> > To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> > Cc: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, Drazek, Keith > <kdrazek(a)Verisign.com>, James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, > Stefania.Milan(a)EUI.eu <Stefania.Milan(a)EUI.eu>, Emily Barabas > <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, > Paul McGrady <policy(a)paulmcgrady.com> > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > the ICANN Board > Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:34:18 +0000 > > All, > > Carlos, thank you for your comments. Seeing no volunteers to hold the > pen, staff is happy to prepare an initial draft for your > consideration, especially given the contracted timelines until the > next Council meeting. > > With a vote expected to consider and approve this letter at the 13 > October 2016 GNSO Council meeting, staff has prepared a draft motion, > also for your consideration. Unfortunately, the document and motion > deadline is today – any volunteers to put forth this motion (with > any necessary edits of course)? > > We will try to provide the draft letter as soon as possible, as > ideally, it should be available with the motion, > > Best, > > Steve > > From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> > Date: Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM > To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> > Cc: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, "Drazek, Keith" > <kdrazek(a)Verisign.com>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, > "Stefania.Milan(a)EUI.eu" <Stefania.Milan(a)EUI.eu>, Emily Barabas > <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, > Paul McGrady <policy(a)paulmcgrady.com> > Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO Council Response to > the ICANN Board > > Thank you vey much Steve for the excellent overview of the comments to > Chairman´s Crocker letter to date. From my personal point of view, I > belong to the group of the subsequent procedures PDP, that wonders > what the (short term vs. long term) context of the question is. And > just because of that, I´m a strong supporter of a very conservative > stance. > > My initial suggestion for a clear formulation of a response at the > Council level, is to structure around the main (contentious) > issues/areas, including its pro and con arguments, instead of listing > the source of all the different positions. From that perspective I see > 4 main areas/chapters for a structure of the response: > > 1. All the pending studies and PDPs that are analyzing the impact or > the 2012 round and will produce related recommendations: RPM, > Subsequent procedures and CCT-RT. (In general it worked well, but it > needs more refinement) > > 2. The question if the 2007 ¨policy¨ is strong enough for subsequent > procedures without any mayor changes. > > 2.a including the policy equal treatment of all applications (without > any categorization), as compared to restrictions over certain groups > of possible new TLDs (Geographic names, Communities, etc.) > > 3. if the AGB is strong enough as a ¨predictable application > process¨ for subsequent procedures, and if not, which type of > revisions it needs > > 3.a including the question of global fairness (or underserved areas) > > 4. if the ¨implementation/delegation¨ of new gTLDs of the last round > was good enough, or there are few lessons that should be carefully > analyzed and improvements introduced before new delegations > > After reading the summary document I see how a general consensus gets > more and more difficult, as we go down the list here proposed. Then it > should be pretty obvious that the Boards main question should be > answered with a pretty clear ¨NO shortcuts¨. > > But I also want to hear what the other members of the team think. > > Carlos Raúl > > El 30 sept 2016, a las 16:20, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> > escribió: > > <Input - ICANN Board Letter on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - 27 > Sept 2016.docx>

1 0

Poll on ICANN57 participation for New gTLD PDP WG members
by Emily Barabas Oct. 7, 2016

Oct. 7, 2016

Dear WG Members, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting at ICANN57 is currently scheduled to take place on Thursday, November 3 from 13:45 to 18:30 local time (8:15 UTC - 13:00 UTC). Please take a moment to inform the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG co-chairs about your plans for participation: http://doodle.com/poll/rhbpwdhqf2m6u2u4 . Please fill in your response prior to our next full group meeting on Monday, October 17 at 3:00 UTC. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0