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

Recording, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Monday, 04 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter June 5, 2018

June 5, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email. The MP3 recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 04 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/PCgFBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-04jun18-en.mp3 [audio.icann.org]<https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-04jun18-en.mp3%20%5ba…> Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p27r8hmyo8m/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 June 2018
by Julie Hedlund June 4, 2018

June 4, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 04 June 2018. 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 will be provided separately. For reference see also the attached slides. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Section 1.7.4: -- Section e: Add specific questions on these elements in Section f: 1. Contention Resolution: "Do Community Priority Evaluation and auctions of last resort continue to be appropriate methods of resolving contention? Are auctions of last resort are in the public interest? 2. Private Auctions: What rules could be established to disincentivize gaming or abuse of private auctions? 3. Synonyms in String Similarity Review: Should synonyms (for example .DOCTOR and .PHYSICIAN) be included in the String Similarity Review.? Such as when the strings are associated with a highly-regulated sector and one of the strings is a verified TLD. Section 1.7.5: -- Section c: Incorporate the definition of what is a variant from the AGB. -- Section e question 2: Change from "Latin-language to Latin-script" Section 1.7.6: Security and Stability -- Section e: Add the note that the SSAC recommends no emojis and TLD, but want to get views on this issue. -- Section f (last sentence): Is Work Track the correct subject or should it be commenters? If Work Track is correct, may want revise the verb to "may look" . . . Section 1.7.7: -- Re: suggested language: "Applicants will be allowed but not required to specify additional registry services." can we revise the report to say that the WT has disagreed and we specifically seek comment on the may vs. required issue? Seems to be a change in policy (from question 23). Notes: 1. Roll Call/SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of the Initial Report (continued): Section 1.7 (Reserved Names; Registrant Protections; Closed Generics; String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) -- see: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org) in advance of the meeting. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.3: Foundational Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation Section 1.7.4 String Similarity -- Section f: Add the three elements at the end of the section to Section e as specific questions on: Contention Resolution, Private Auctions, Synonyms in String Similarity Review. -- Section c: Some explanatory text would be helpful. Those who have not followed the issue carefully won't understand why the first 2 bullets are not inconsistent. Section 1.7.5 IDNs -- Section c: To help the reader know what is a variant, pull the definitions from the AGB. -- Section e question 2, Change from "Latin-language to Latin-script" -- "Latin-language supporting ccTLDs such as .br and .ca" Change "could be it TLD-specific" to "could it be TLD-specific (same item). Section 1.7.6: Security and Stability -- Add the note that the SSAC recommends no emojis and TLD, but want to get views on this issue. -- Section 1.7.3.f (last sentence): Is Work Track the correct subject or should it be commenters? If Work Track is correct, may want revise the verb to "may look" . . . -- From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Section 1.7.6.c., 2nd para: Not clear what problem WT is trying to solve through the suggested Implementation Guidance. An explanatory sentence would be useful. Section 1.7.7: Applicant Reviews -- Comment/question on Section 1.7.7.c (financial evaluation, subsection 2.d): It would be helpful for the report to state if the WT considered extending the conditions to include Affiliates. In other words, if the Applicant or an Affiliate is a company traded on an applicable national public market, etc. -- n Financial Evaluation, I remember people having doubts about the meaning of a "single registry family", a definition ICANN GDD uses. We might want to add a footnote with that definition. -- I'm confused and would appreciate some clarification from folks on the WT who worked on the Registry Services Evaluation recommendations. The Registry Services Evaluation Process implements the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, which I do not read as applying to gTLD applicants. So, how can an "applicant specify whether it wants [its new proposed service] evaluated through RSEP at evaluation time"? -- Re: suggested language: "Applicants will be allowed but not required to specify additional registry services." can we revise the report to say that the WT has disagreed and we specifically seek comment on the may vs. required issue? Seems to be a change in policy (from question 23). >From the chat: Christopher Wilkinson: The financial plan should include a question about the aggregate leverage of the applicant (equity/indebtedness) Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Comment/question on Section 1.7.7.c (financial evaluation, subsection 2.d): It would be helpful for the report to state if the WT considered extending the conditions to include Affiliates. In other words, if the Applicant or an Affiliate is a company traded on an applicable national public market, etc. Rubens Kuhl: Kristina, could be a question like this ? "WT hasn't considered whether to include Affiliates in (...). Should such criteria be changed to include Affiliates ?" Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Rubens: Yes. Rubens Kuhl: On Financial Evaluation, I remember people having doubts about the meaning of a "single registry family", a definition ICANN GDD uses. We might want to add a footnote with that definition. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I'm confused and would appreciate some clarification from folks on the WT who worked on the Registry Services Evaluation recommendations. The Registry Services Evaluation Process implements the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, which I do not read as applying to gTLD applicants. So, how can an "applicant specify whether it wants [its new proposed service] evaluated through RSEP at evaluation time"? Heather Forrest: So you would still be required to answer, for example, 29 on RPMs? Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair): @heather Rubens Kuhl: I don't see us taking out question 23, or the number it becomes. Rubens Kuhl: Because applicants still need to specify what they want in their agreements. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): In the interest of moving forward, can we revise the report to say that the WT has disagreed and we specifically seek comment on the may vs. required issue? Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Kristina about this. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Services can't be hidden if they're new registry services. Post RA signature, the RO will have to submit an RSEP. Rubens Kuhl: This would be curious seem we seem to agree, just not on how to say it... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP WG Co Chair): This was WT 4 Rubens Kuhl: So if there is doubt, I am more from changing language to the point of people that agree, not to disagree. Rubens Kuhl: (I am more to) Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Let's not forget that one major factor in the development and design of the 2006 policy recommendations (and the subsequent AGB) was to avoid having ICANN making judgments about business models. Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Kristina - the questin is timing - in the application itself or in the RSEP or RSTEP process afterward? That is why w eneed public comment. The work Track 4 discussed the pros and cons of this - particularly becaudse of question 23. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Christopher: Suggest you review this list if you're unaware of any new registry services: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rsep-2014-02-19-en Rubens Kuhl: Would "Applicants will be allowed to specify services beyond the base required services, but the base required services will be the only mandatory ones" cut for you, Anne ? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If that's Anne's concern, it assumes that there is a basis for a 3P to comment on or object to a proposed registry service - and I'm not aware of one. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to ask that question, we should also ask the commenters to identify why or why not it should be required, if 3P should be allowed to comment on or object to a proposed service in the application and, if so, on what basis? Anne Aikman-Scalese: The question on which there was disagreement in Work Track 4 was whether disclosure of services known at the time of application - should you be required to disclose them? Anne Aikman-Scalese: I would not require the tick box - I would expect integrity and honesty. And all I am looking for is public comment on the question. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Anne: Understood. But if we're seeking comment on whether disclosure should be be required, we need to ask people to explain their reasons. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes - Kristina - I absolutely agree with that idea to explain reaons. Anne Aikman-Scalese: *reasons - yes Alan Greenberg: The REAL problem is we can only refuse an RSEP if it impacts stability, but here the grounds for objection could be much wider. Rubens Kuhl: Alan, Stability or Competition. And the judge on Competition is external to ICANN, an applicable competition authority. Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Alan - that is why changing Question 23 or modifying it is an important change in policy and this must be highlighted in the questions for public comment. Alan Greenberg: @Rubens, yes + competition, but the general comment still stands. Rubens Kuhl: Anne, that part hasn't changed. Only the pre-approved services list and the opportunity to specifying timing for service evaluation, which could foster more disclosure. 3. ICANN62 Schedule: Session 1 for WTs 1-4 is on Monday, 25 June, 09:00-10:15 Session 2 for WTs 1-4 is on Monday, 25 June, 10:30-Noon Session 3 for WTs 1-4 is on Thursday, 28 June, 13:30-15:00 Session 1 for WT5 is on Monday, 25 June, 15:15-16:45 (Cross-Community Session) Session 2 for WT5 is Thursday, 28 June, 15:15-16:45 -- Break out into groups and try to find some way to find areas of agreement.

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan June 4, 2018

June 4, 2018

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for 4 June 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org) in advance of the meeting. Continue with Section 1.7 (String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) AOB For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org) Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office 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/

5 7

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Steve Chan June 4, 2018

June 4, 2018

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Tuesday 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org) in advance of the meeting. Section 1.7 (Reserved Names; Registrant Protections; Closed Generics; String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) AOB For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org) Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office 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/

3 4

REMINDER TO REGISTER IN ADVANCE Announcement: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar
by Terri Agnew June 4, 2018

June 4, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-23-en Register Now: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar - 12 June 2018 The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two webinar sessions to assist with the community's preparations for the ICANN62 Policy Forum: Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar Tuesday, 12 June 2018 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) The webinar will run in English with simultaneous Spanish interpretation. The presentation materials will be translated into Spanish, and posted following the Webinar with the recordings of the sessions <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en> here. Please register via <https://goo.gl/vZw8kM> this form by 11 June 2018! In this 90-minute webinar, the Policy Development Support Team will summarize the key policy activities taking place across the ICANN community. The Team will also answer your questions about ongoing community policy and advisory work and discuss what to expect at the ICANN62Policy Forum. To ensure that your questions about policy activities are addressed during the session, the Policy Team invites you to submit your questions through the <https://goo.gl/forms/dVbmhQOT8sakSsmg2> registration form or by email to <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. To assist with your preparation for this webinar and for ICANN62, the "Pre-ICANN62 Policy Report" and "Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Briefing: ICANN62 Edition" will be published by Tuesday, 5 June 2018. Please be sure to download and review these materials beforehand for helpful background on policy activities and topics that the Policy Development Support Team will cover during the webinar, such as: * The cross-community discussions that will take place at ICANN62: * Geographic Names at the Top-Level (Work Track 5) * Update from the Registration Directory Service-WHOIS2 Review Team * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance, Access to WHOIS and Accreditation * The expected Initial Report from the New generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group * Presentation of the Final CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 Recommendations * The various policy development processes underway in the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Address Supporting Organization (ASO): * Retirement of Country Code Top-Level Domains * Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs * Next steps in relation to Registration Directory Services policy work * Curative Rights Protections for International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations * New gTLD Subsequent Procedures * Regional Internet Registry policy development activities * Advisory Committee activities within the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) and Security & Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC): * Organizational Review of the At-Large community: Next steps, implementation, and ALACsessions during ICANN62 * GDPR and Key Signing Key (KSK) Rollover discussions * At-Large discussion on new gTLDs and Work Tracks 1-5 * Regional At-Large Organization (RALO) Policy Hot Topics * GAC discussions on .amazon, IGO protections and 2-character codes at the second level * Board-GAC GDPR consultations * RSSAC statement on the distinction between RSSAC and Root-Ops (RSSAC033) * SSAC work concerning name collisions * Other topics of note: * Organizational Review of the ASO * ccNSO sessions on disaster and recovery and business continuity, ccNSO members meeting sessions, and Tech Day. * GAC onboarding initiatives * Report from the RSSAC May 2018 Workshop (RSSAC034) To complement this Pre-ICANN62 Policy Webinar, the GNSO Policy Development Support Team will host, with the Council leadership and Policy Development Process (PDP) working group chairs, a GNSOpolicy-focused webinar on Monday, 18 June 2018 at 21:00 UTC for 90 minutes. This webinar is intended to serve as a replacement for the previously-offered GNSO PDP updates provided during the GNSO weekend sessions and will assist the community in preparing for GNSO policy-related discussions at ICANN62. If you would like to participate in the GNSO Policy Webinar, please register <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Z5ENBC3wa2IOvAeYr27-pGU0lJIEeZCmgZkpAo2l0S 0/edit> here. The Policy Development Support Team looks forward to helping the ICANN community prepare for ICANN62!

1 0

Registry Services Example Question
by Rubens Kuhl June 3, 2018

June 3, 2018

In preparation for our discussions on 1.7 (Evaluation criteria) in less than 24 hours, I've noticed that in Financial Evaluation due to the many changes from the 2012 method we included example questions. Considering the latest exchanges on Registry Services in the list, I imagined that a similar example could be useful. It's not yet part of the report and whether will be included or not is up to discussion by membership and leadership.

1 0

Initial Report Excerpts - Section 1.3: Foundational Issues
by Steve Chan June 2, 2018

June 2, 2018

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the Initial Report excerpt for section 1.3 on Foundational Issues. This section consists of: Competition, Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice Global Public Interest Applicant Freedom of Expression Universal Acceptance This section has been added to the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. It is unlikely that we will be able to begin review of this section on the 4 June 2018 meeting, but please feel free to begin your review and provide your input on these sections ahead of their discussion during a subsequent WG meeting. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne May 30, 2018

May 30, 2018

Rubens, As noted, the discussion on this issue in Work Track 4 was lively. Should applicants be required to describe all new services intended to be offered in their applications as per existing Question 23 or not? Clearly this would be required if closed (exclusive) generics are permitted - in order to evaluate whether those applications serve a public interest. There is also a question about whether the public should know what services are being proposed in connection with each new gTLD. Admittedly there are trade-offs here. It strikes me that given the delays in the 2012 round, the Contracted Parties would be interested in aggregated technical and financial evaluation and pre-approved services in order to get under contract quickly and be able to launch. This is because "time is money". They would then follow the RSEP process to add services, which is a process that occurs as a negotiation between the registry and ICANN only. The trade-off is that the true purpose of the TLD may not be disclosed at a time when the public is paying attention. For example, can RSEP be used to request a waiver for a dotless Top Level Domain? Members of the community will watch and analyze new gTLD applications. They don't necessarily "watch" RSEP requests. The Subsequent Procedures PDP runs on the principle that if the PDP recommendation does not change existing policy, the policy remains the same. In this case, it has not been clearly pointed out that not requiring disclosure of new services at the time of application (if they are actually intended at that time) is a CHANGE in policy when viewed in light of existing Question 23. Again, this was discussed at length in Work Track 4. The fact is that in Work Track 4 discussions, there was support for each of the three proposed models: one proposed by you, one proposed by me, and one proposed by Kurt Pritz. In all three models, there was agreement on development of a list of pre-approved services, but there was in fact no agreement on eliminating the part of Question 23 that requires disclosure of all new services at the time of application. (We cannot get around this fact by stating - hey, don't worry, there was no consensus call - because we are indeed treating the Initial Report as if there had been agreement on recommendations within the Work Track itself.) Regarding San Juan, I do not know who arrived at the "one model". I was in the session remotely, but had been assured repeatedly that there would be future discussion of the three models. As you and Jeff and Cheryl know very well, I expressed concern that such discussion should occur before the draft Initial Report was prepared. Jeff responded on February 28 that the comments would be captured and that staff was tracking all the correspondence. Jeff kept saying, "let's just see what the draft Initial Report says when it comes out." So now here we are. (The November 30 calls and the follow-up e-mails in January and February as well as questions about this in subsequent calls are on record.) All the draft Initial Report says is There was support for continuing to allow applicants to submit new registry services at application submission, or after delegation, as is the case currently, though some sought to make the declaration of registry services compulsory at application submission." This sentence is drafted as if requiring a description of new services at the time of application would be a change in policy, while the opposite is true. It is also misleading in its use of the phrase "as is the case currently". That applies currently to RSEP requests, but is not the case currently as to descriptions of services required at the time of application. Once again, below is the text of Question 23 as it now stands. This time I highlight the relevant policy in red lettering in order to emphasize the point that the AGB language change proposed (and characterized as being proposed by Work Track 4) is a CHANGE in policy. 23. Provide name and full description of all the Registry Services to be provided. Descriptions should include both technical and business components of each proposed service, and address any potential security or stability concerns. The following registry services are customary services offered by a registry operator: A. Receipt of data from registrars concerning registration of domain names and name servers. B. Dissemination of TLD zone files. C. Dissemination of contact or other information concerning domain name registrations (e.g., port-43 WHOIS, Web- based Whois, RESTful Whois service). D. Internationalized Domain Names, where offered. E. DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The applicant must describe whether any of these registry services are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD. Additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described. Certainly it is not accurate that Work Track 4 agreed on eliminating the requirement to disclose "all services" proposed to be rendered in accordance with existing Question 23. I also think that regarding "Deliberations" and "how this was handled in the 2012 round", we need to clearly state what Question 23 said when this type of change is being proposed. (This is reflected in the redline previously forwarded to the list and forwarded again here - with redline changes beginning on page 36.) The issue presented was the subject of much discussion and was documented via numerous e-mails and comments in Work Track 4. The draft Initial Report does not accurately reflect this discussion. Hopefully Leadership will be ready to correct this in the interest of transparency and for the purpose of collecting genuine and informed public comment. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3F808.8AAF7DE0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:59 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC Importance: High Thus, the Initial Report should be revised to accurately reflect the discussion in Work Track 4. Various other points relevant points are raised in the attached redline beginning on page 36 and continuing to the end of Section 1.7 Anne, Your recollection doesn't seem to include the face-to-face session in San Juan, when the topic of registry services was discussed and a replacement model has been introduced. You can see the transcript here, starting page 19: https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/169219/1520870375.pdf?1520870375 The Adobe Connect recording is still unavailable, but the audio starts at 41:00 into the recording: http://audio.icann.org/meetings/sju61/sju61-OPEN-2018-03-10-T1620-104abc-To… I don't remember any interventions from you during the session. Rubens ________________________________ 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

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 30, 2018

May 30, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat of the call attached to this email and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/kRwFBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-29may18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2l84mg1ub9/<https://participate.icann.org/p2l84mg1ub9/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ad71d795d72bf506…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 29 May 2018
by Julie Hedlund May 29, 2018

May 29, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 29 May 2018. 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 will be provided separately. For reference see also the attached slides. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: 1.7.1: a. Section g -- Add: internal dependencies of Work Track 5 Geographic Names and Work Track 3. b. Top of page 5: Check the date -- 08 November 2016? Note also that this resolution has been contested. Add this as a question in section e seeking feedback as to what if anything can or should be done. Also mention the work that has been done to communicate the reasoning behind the resolution from the ICANN Board as to why this resolution was taken. c. Add as a footnote: Add special use domain names at https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domai…. d. Change 1.7.1.2 Geographic Names" to "Geographic Names at the Top Level" 1.7.2: a. Section c: Add reference to PIRR. Also this reference: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf b. Section e: i. Add: A single registrant is defined as a top-level name in which all domains are registered to a particular entity. For those that license out their domain should this recommendation apply to them? ii. Add: In the third question, ask something about affiliates of publicly traded companies (exempt from certain types of registrant protections). c. Section f: Page 14: In the sentence, "Whether the EBERO Service "insurance" should be provided to all RSP clients is a complex issue and merits more discussion." Suggest using a different word, such as "protection". However, "insurance" was the word used in the actual deliberations. 1.7.3: Section e: -- Bullet 3: It would be helpful to identify the referenced potential conflict that the WT identified. -- With respect to the definition of closed generic -- make sure that is referenced in the deliberations. Notes: 1. Roll Call/SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of the Initial Report (continued): Section 1.7 (Reserved Names; Registrant Protections; Closed Generics; String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) -- see: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org) in advance of the meeting. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation 17.1: Reserved Names (page 5) -- Two types of reserved names -- top level and second level. -- Item g in reserved names -- other activities or dependencies: "none" would be inaccurate. Mention Work Track 5 and the objections work in Work Track 3. -- Intention was more about external dependencies, so that's why it is not included. Could consider whether to include internal cross-references. -- Add dependencies to section g: Work Track 5 Geographic Names and Work track 3, as internal references. -- Top of page 5: Check the date -- should be 08 November 2016? Note also that this resolution has been contested. Add this as a question in section e seeking feedback as to what if anything can or should be done. Also mention the work that has been done to communicate the reasoning behind the resolution from the ICANN Board as to why this resolution was taken. -- Add special use domain names at https://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/special-use-domai… . -- Release of names only through ICANN acredited registrars -- check text. -- Make sure nobody applies for a string that his still be resolved from the 2012 round -- not sure if that is a reserved string. That was captured, but make sure it is cross-referenced (to section 1.5). -- Section e, first bullet, first question allows feedback on the specific example of geographic names. Perhaps if you have a city top-level domain perhaps you may be able to reserve more than that. -- Change 1.7.1.2 Geographic Names" to "Geographic Names at the Top Level" 1.7.2 Registrant Protections Section c: -- 2nd bullet: spec 13 does allow spec 13 registries to have third party exemption. -- 3rd bullet: helpful to flag whether or not the WT considered whether the exemption should apply to affiliates? May need to address how a single registrant TLD is formed. Include a question the point on this point: A single registrant is defined as a top-level name in which all domains are registered to a particular entity. For those that license out their domain should this recommendation apply to them? -- 4th bullet: Question: where did that come from? Can we include the background? Answer: It came from the post-mortem report. One of the comments was that it was difficult to do background checks and screening in certain parts of the world. Such as South Korea's restriction on providing certain types of information. -- Privacy law developments since 2012 may make background checks a lot more complex to conduct and less meaningful (potentially). Section e: -- In the third question, ask something about affiliates of publicly traded companies (exempt from certain types of registrant protections). Section f: Page 14: In the sentence, "Whether the EBERO Service "insurance" should be provided to all RSP clients is a complex issue and merits more discussion." Suggest using a different word, such as "protection". However, "insurance" was the word used in the actual deliberations. Could include a clarifying footnote. 1.7.3 Closed Generics -- With respect to definitions: Was there a definition of closed generics from the new gTLD Program Committee? did explore that in the deliberations. Make sure that is included in the deliberations text. Section e: -- Bullet 3: It would be helpful to identify the referenced potential conflict that the WT identified. 3. AOB: Timeline -- Intention is to release an initial report prior to ICANN62. -- Need to consider the timing of the public comment period and want to get as much feedback as possible. -- Will come out with an email on the timeline and planning for ICANN62.

1 0