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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew March 27, 2017

March 27, 2017

Hi Kavouss, The ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-owner(a)icann.org <mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-owner@icann.org> email address is only for staff to send meeting notices. I have forwarded your email to the public archived email address of: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Kind regards, Terri From: mailman-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:mailman-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 1:23 PM To: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-owner(a)icann.org; Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Subject: Re: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 03:00 UTC Dear Co-Chairs I did send a message to the mailing list . It was rejected why? I also need an explanation for the most painful window selected- Pls reply with convincing arguments Regards Kavouss 2017-03-27 19:56 GMT+02:00 <ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-owner(a)icann.org <mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg-owner@icann.org> >: Your message was rejected ---------- Message transféré ---------- From: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> > Cc: "ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> " <gnso-secs(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> > Bcc: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:56:24 +0200 Subject: Re: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] REMINDER: Meeting Invitation for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 03:00 UTC Dear All I do not understand why such an uncomfortable window has been selected. To satisfy Asia pacific, any time after 05,00 UTC was also ok. For US and other Latin American 05,00 UTC is also suitable All Group has had meeting at 05,00 UTC That time is also not too bad for European. I therefore do not who has opted for that tine ( 03,00UTC) for the second time in less than two months. Is it si selected to exclude European Attending the call. Pls Explain Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:19, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org> > wrote: Dear all, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group has been scheduled for Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 3:00 UTC. 20:00 PDT (Monday), 23:00 EDT (Monday), 04:00 London, 05:00 CEST for other places see: http://tinyurl.com/hxk29x7[tinyurl.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_hxk29x7&d=D…> ADOBE CONNECT Room: https://participate.icann.org/newgtldswg If you require a dial-out, please email me with your preferred contact number at gnso-secs(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ____________________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: NEW GTLD Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 <tel:(517)%20345-9004> 866-692-5726 <tel:(866)%20692-5726> VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751 <New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group .ics>

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 28 March 2017 at 3:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas March 24, 2017

March 24, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 3:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/review agenda 2. SOIs 3. Debrief on ICANN58 sessions, WT updates 4. CC2 update 5. Review of recommendations from CCT-RT 6. CC1 status and next steps 7. AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. 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

Invitation: Webinar on Geographic Names at the Top Level
by Emily Barabas March 23, 2017

March 23, 2017

Dear WG members, As discussed in the WG face-to-face session in Copenhagen, the leadership team is organizing a webinar and session at ICANN59 to promote broad community discussion in the issue of geographic names at the top level, a topic within the WG’s Charter. Please find additional details below. We hope you can join these sessions. Please feel free to share this invitation with any other community members who might be interested in participating. Kind regards, Emily ___________________________________________________________________ The leadership team of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group is seeking your input on the issue of geographic names at the top level. All are welcome and encouraged to participate and contribute their perspectives. The following upcoming activities are intended to facilitate a broad community-wide dialogue on this topic to feed into the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: Webinar session on Tuesday 25 April 2017 – Two webinars will take place; one from 15:00-17:00 UTC and the second from 22:00-0:00 UTC. All community members are welcome to submit positions on the treatment of geographic names at the top level to be presented in the webinars. Depending on the number of positions submitted, the sessions may contain the same presentations or different presentations. The webinars will be recorded and archived. Details will follow. * If you would like to attend the webinar, please email Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org<mailto:Geo-Names-Session@icann.org>. Registration is not required, but your response will help us plan and will allow us to send updates to you. * If you would like to submit a position to present at the webinar, please send an email by 7 April 2017 with your name, group or affiliation (if applicable), and your time zone to Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org<mailto:Geo-Names-Session@icann.org>. * The deadline for presentations is 18 April 2017. Each presenter will be asked to prepare a 10 minute initial presentation and be available to answer questions on the webinar. We suggest preparing a maximum of 5 slides. If, in addition to the slides, you would like to make a more complete written contribution available, you may do so, and we will distribute those to each of the attendees and make them available to the public. Please send all slides and other contributions to Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org<mailto:Geo-Names-Session@icann.org>. The webinar will be the beginning of a discussion that will continue at ICANN59. The leadership team will be holding an extended session in Johannesburg to work through the positions presented in the webinars and to propose solutions seeking common ground on a way forward. Additional information about the webinar and the Johannesburg session will soon be available on the WG wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/p77RAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. If you have any questions about the webinar or the ICANN59 session, please email Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org<mailto:Geo-Names-Session@icann.org>. Kind regards, Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) ___________________________________________________________________

1 0

Community Comment 2
by Emily Barabas March 23, 2017

March 23, 2017

Dear WG members, Community Comment 2 has now been posted for public comment at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-20…. The public comment period ends 1 May 2017. Please feel free to share this link with any contacts who might be interested in providing input. 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

- REMINDER: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Session at ICANN58 on 15 March 2017
by Steve Chan March 15, 2017

March 15, 2017

Dear WG Members, I just wanted to send a reminder that there is a session on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Session at ICANN58 on 15 March 2017 at 17:00 local tome (Session details here: http://sched.co/9sZB) For those that are here locally, the session is in Hall C1.4 and is scheduled for 90 minutes. For those that need or want to participate remotely, you can find participation details here (if you would like to be able to speak): https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN58+GNSO+Remote… We intend to discuss some of the important topics that have come up this week, including review of the CCT-RT recommendations to our PDP, a proposed geographic names webinar and community-wide face to face session for ICANN59, Community Comment 2 (CC2), and feedback received from the New gTLD Program Reviews session. Ample time will also be allotted for Q&A. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   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 2

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 11 March 2017
by Julie Hedlund March 11, 2017

March 11, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see attached the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 March at ICANN58 in Copenhagen. 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. The referenced slides and the latest draft of the Community Comment 2 also are attached. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

3 2

Community Comment 2
by Emily Barabas March 8, 2017

March 8, 2017

Dear All, Please find attached the revised CC2 questions reflecting feedback received in yesterday’s WG meeting. The document is also available on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/Gq7DAw. We will be using this document as the basis for discussion in our face-to-face session on Saturday morning in Copenhagen, beginning at 8:30 AM local time in Hall B4.2. For those of you travelling, I look forward to seeing you soon. 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

ICANN News Alert -- Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment
by Steve Chan March 8, 2017

March 8, 2017

Dear WG Members, Many of you will have already received the news alert below, but I wanted to make sure you are all aware that the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Draft Report was published for public comment on 7 March 2017. Links to the announcement and materials are in the message below. Best, Steve From: ICANN News Alert <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Reply-To: "no-reply(a)external.icann.org" <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:56 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment [icann.org] News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-03-07-en[icann.org] Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations For New gTLDs Available for Public Comment 7 March 2017 LOS ANGELES – 7 March 2017 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced the publication of the Draft Report from the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team with its recommendations for the New gTLD Program. Executive summary[icann.org]. [PDF, 71 KB] Summary of Recommendations[icann.org]. [PDF, 1.34 MB] Read the report[icann.org]. [PDF, 3.91 MB] The report examines the extent to which the introduction of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the domain name system. It also assesses the effectiveness of the safeguards ICANN has implemented to mitigate issues related to the introduction of new gTLDs. The report is available for public comment through 27 April 2017. Feedback will be incorporated into a Final Report. Comment on the report[icann.org]. The review team findings include the following: New gTLDs currently account for about 9 percent of registrations in all gTLDs, which suggests that registrants are making use of a broader range of gTLDs. More than half of new registrations of gTLDs have been in new gTLD strings. If ccTLDs are included, registrations are divided roughly into thirds among new gTLDs, legacy gTLDs and ccTLDs. ICANN contractual compliance has reported that 96 percent of registries are performing the analysis that is required to determine if they are being used to perpetrate security threats. At present, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that voluntary public interest commitments do not negatively impact the public interest prior to going into effect. Therefore, it is important for voluntary PICs to be made available to the community during the public comment period of the application process. Outreach programs that were put in place to facilitate and encourage applications from the Global South were thought to be both poorly monitored and largely ineffective. To learn more about the report findings and recommendations, read the blog[icann.org]. More Information The CCT Review Team will meet at ICANN58 and brief the community on its findings and recommendations at their consultation session on 12 March – 9 AM CET in Hall A3. The CCT Review Team work and detailed ICANN58 Program can also be followed via their dedicated wikipage[community.icann.org]. Background The Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team was convened in 2015 under the Affirmation of Commitments. Under ICANN's new Bylaws, the review is now referred to as a "Specific Review". Specific Reviews[icann.org] are mandated by ICANN Bylaws and are crucial to the legitimacy and accountability of ICANN. Specific Reviews serve as ICANN's progress report to the world. The reviews demonstrate how ICANN delivers on its commitments and identify areas where ICANN can improve. Specific Reviews are conducted by members of the stakeholder community who look at past processes, actions and outcomes in order to make recommendations to improve future performance. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation and a community with participants from all over the world. ICANN and its community help keep the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It also promotes competition and develops policy for the top-level of the Internet's naming system and facilitates the use of other unique Internet identifiers. For more information please visit: www.icann.org[icann.org]. This message was sent to steve.chan(a)icann.org from:ICANN News Alert | no-reply(a)external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536Email Marketing by [icontact.com] Manage Your Subscription [app.icontact.com]

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC Recording & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Tuesday, 07 March 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter March 8, 2017

March 8, 2017

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 Tuesday, 07 March 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ha-RAw MP3: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-07mar17-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/Ha-RAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday, 07 March 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Tuesday, 07 March 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:loud and clear. Alexander Schubert:Feels to me like "Groundhog day"...... https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-… Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:loud and clear, avri. Emily Barabas:Please note, we are working with a new Google Document: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… Emily Barabas:If you would like to read along in the Google Doc, please use this link Emily Barabas:The document is not synced Emily Barabas:everyone can scroll Emily Barabas:the formatting of the redline in the pod and the google doc look a little different, but the content of the edits is the same. jeff neuman:I like periodic... jeff neuman:but that is just me Donna Austin, Neustar:agree with Jeff jeff neuman:Should we say "a RSP" or "an RSP" Sara Bockey:a RSP, I think Donna Austin, Neustar:agree with Sara jeff neuman:I know the general rule is you only use "an" before a word that starts with a vowel...but it sounds weird jeff neuman:again that is just me Donna Austin, Neustar:if we spell out RSP it would be 'a registry service provider' jeff neuman:true Alexander Schubert:1.1.7 should be periodic in my opinion - as it doesn't involve any publishing. Steve Chan:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qutP4I6fpyTtH4uSgLqsSFDn7082Guexr7… Steve Chan:Apologies if we've gotten the sentiment wrong, but not a lot of details in the placeholder. Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:support for 1.5.3. as it is worded. jeff neuman:@Steve - you got it right jeff neuman:have some confidence :) Alexander Schubert:In 1.7.1 we should ask in a way that would allow to create this answer: No "draw" needed when we issue a random number during application submission - then use that random number in an algorithm that creates a queue! This who wish to be at the end of the quezuecan indicate at application submission. jeff neuman:SHould we use "category" Alexander Schubert:Sorry typos: "Those who wish to be at the end of the queue can indicate at application submission." Alexander Schubert:Regarding my previous post! Alexander Schubert:In WT2 I still miss any question about 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names ..... Heather Forrest:Interim report of CWG-UCTN has been published for comment Steve Chan:Further to Heather's comment, it was published on 24 Feb here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2… jeff neuman:yes Heather Forrest:To put a finer point on Alexander's comment, the group as a whole has not agreed because the scope of the group's work was very narrow. Certainly the partifcipants have views that need to be discussed here in the PDP. jeff neuman:But we will address that issue when the CWG is done. Donna Austin, Neustar:should there be a note mentioning that country and territory names have been left out of this exercise for x reason Alexander Schubert:Footnote that we deal with it later! Steve Chan:Jeff, you deleted it :) Donna Austin, Neustar:yep Justine Chew:Yes Heather Forrest:Excellent question! jeff neuman:I would like to hear from Paul Heather Forrest:Sorry - slow to post check mark for Option 1. It's wordy, but if there are 'yes' answers out there, this group should hear them jeff neuman:Understood. We can start with a word other than "should" jeff neuman:Structured and/or evaluated? Justine Chew:Yes Steve Chan:Yes, thanks jeff neuman:3.4.6 is new jeff neuman:so let people read jeff neuman:the CCWG on Auction Proceeds is not discussing how auctions work or why they exist jeff neuman:it is only talking about the use of funds jeff neuman:@Avri - correct Julie Hedlund:@Avri: That is correct. Only the funding. Greg Shatan:Actually, they're talking about the mechanisms for deciding how to spend the money. Greg Shatan:Others will then decide how to spend the money using those mechanisms. jeff neuman:only 1/4 of a billion :) Greg Shatan:You got it.... Greg Shatan:Rounding error. Trang Nguyen:4.3.2.3 The AGB criteria did not include evaluation of an applicant's business model. Meaning, Q18 was not evaluated. And the projections in Q46 was not evaluated against the proposed business model in Q18. jeff neuman:I am fine with that Trang Nguyen:yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):if we drop then do ask for the any other comments jeff neuman:Is anybody out there? Greg Shatan:Agree with dropping the question. Martin Sutton:Fine to drop q Greg Shatan:4 3 2 6 ask or both. Greg Shatan:Please see chat Greg Shatan:at application time, at contract signing time, or at both times? Greg Shatan:Sounds good Greg Shatan:I have no voice Greg Shatan:and I must scream jeff neuman:You better get it back before friday ;) Steve Chan:There is a similar question in the technical section. If there are no objections, I'll make the same change there. Greg Shatan:Just not pluigged in. Bonus points for literary reference in my prior interventions.. Trang Nguyen:That timing question probably applies to background screening as well. jeff neuman:no objection Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):fine Paul McGrady:"Additional Questions" Julie Hedlund:Could just say "data"? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):data points refers to any discreet unit of information Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):usually in an analytical context Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):it is an Observation Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:"data points" is quite common as a stan ding expression, I believe. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):can be single or multiple measures Alexander Schubert:Noun 1. data point - an item of factual information derived from measurement or research Rudy Mendoza:agreed Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:yes, please keep it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):can also be seen as a term in multifactorial statistical analysis Paul McGrady:Excellent Avri! Great run through the document. Martin Sutton:well done Sara Bockey:Great job, Avri! Alexander Schubert:I second Kavouss Martin Sutton:well said Kavouss Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:kavouss' motion seconded! Trang Nguyen:Thanks, All! Bye! Donna Austin, Neustar:well done Avri Alexander Schubert:Bye! Sara Bockey:thanks everyone Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye Martin Sutton:thx, bye Christopher Niemi:Thank you! Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks, all - bye. Heather Forrest:Safe travels, everyone - thanks Avri and Jeff

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 07 March 2017
by Julie Hedlund March 7, 2017

March 7, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting 07 March. 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, 07 March 1. SOIs - No changes 2. CC2 - Second Reading: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qutP4I6fpyTtH4uSgLqsSFDn7082Guexr7gU8YD… General Comments: -- Will not start the comment period until after ICANN58 is over. -- Should the discussions next week present us any substantive changes recommend a third reading of at least those substantive. First paragraph: Need to insert the date. 1. Background paragraphs -- no comments. 2. Community Comment Request -- no comments. Last paragraph -- no comments. Annex A -- Work Track Subjects -- no comments 1.1 (Registry Service Provider) Accreditation Programs 1.1.1 - Changed to "Benefits [and] risks..." Rewrite and deletions -- no comments. 1.1.2 - Addition of requirements -- no comments. 1.1.3 - One word change -- no comments. 1.1.4 - Clause at the end added "Please explain." - no comments. 1.1.5 - no changes 1.1.6 - no comments 1.1.7 - no comments -- change to "periodic", change to a RSP 1.1.8 - no comments. 1.1.9 - New sentence and deletion 1.1.10 and 1.1.11 - no comments. 1.2 Applicant Support -- no comments. 1.3 Clarity of Application Process 1.3.1 - rewrite - no comments 1.4 Application Fees - no comments 1.5 Variable Fees 1.5.3 - This is the suggested language: "Should the application fee be variable based on the volume of applications received from a single applicant" If so, how should the fee be adjusted and what are the potential impacts from doing so? 1.6 Application Submission Period -- no comments 1.7 Application Queuing 1.7.2 - Don't know what it means "IDNs or some other group of applications"? Example: brands. ACTION ITEM: Change "group of applications" to "categories". Also, add for example. 1.8 Systems, 1.9 Communications, and 1.10 Applicant Guidebook - no comments 2.1 Base Registry Agreements 2.1.3 - Understand what is meant by "explicitly identified"? Some sections of the application would be explicitly identified as such. 2.2 Reserved Names - -- Still waiting on output from the CCWG-UCTN so we thought it might be premature at this stage since they are doing work on this. The interim report has been published for comment.: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-uctn-interim-paper-2017-02-24-en. -- We most likely won't get any input from CCWG-UCTN. -- Don't need to add a question at this point. -- Will be taking the CCWG-UCTN final report into consideration. >From the Chat: Alexander Schubert: In WT2 I still miss any question about 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names ..... Heather Forrest: To put a finer point on Alexander's comment, the group as a whole has not agreed because the scope of the group's work was very narrow. Certainly the participants have views that need to be discussed here in the PDP. jeff neuman: But we will address that issue when the CWG is done. Donna Austin, Neustar: should there be a note mentioning that country and territory names have been left out of this exercise for x reason. Alexander Schubert: Footnote that we deal with it later! ACTION ITEM: Add a general note in the preamble that some of the work is dependent on other outcomes. 2.3 Registrant Projections - no comments 2.4 Closed Generics - no comments 2.5 Applicant Terms and Conditions 2.5.1 Two Options -- why do we need two options? The options are for us to pick on, not to keep both in the document. Option 1 is from Paul McGrady. [Reading the text.] Option 2 is more brief. [Reading the text.] -- Paul McGrady: Option 2 seems to presuppose the answer. Don't think it reflects reality. -- Do options relate to 2.5.1 or 2.5.2? Relates only to 2.5.1. ACTION ITEM: Go with option 1. 2.5.2-2.5.4 - No comments. 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 - no comments. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 - no comments ACTION ITEM: Renumber 3.3.5 to 3.3.4 and 3.3.6 to 3.3.5 3.3.6 -- "Should the claim to support a community affect other parts of the application process." Don't understand. Read this as saying if it isn't community application should there be a different form of application. But, it also should a community application go through CPE anyway? Meant to say "Should a claim to support a community affect other parts of the evaluation process?" -- "Should" causes difficulty. Maybe "Does" or "Do"? ACTION ITEM: Change to "Do you think a community application should be structured or evaluated differently than other applications?" 3.4 String Similarity 3.4.6 is new. -- Draw attention to the CWG on Auctions. Trying to do some definitions. Do we need to reference that work? >From the chat: jeff neuman: the CCWG on Auction Proceeds is not discussing how auctions work or why they exist. It is only talking about the use of funds. Greg Shatan: Actually, they're talking about the mechanisms for deciding how to spend the money. Others will then decide how to spend the money using those mechanisms. 3.5 Accountability Mechanisms - no comments 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.1 - no comments. 4.3.2 Financial Evaluation Trang Nguyen: 4.3.2.3 The AGB criteria did not include evaluation of an applicant’s business model. Meaning, Q18 was not evaluated. And the projections in Q46 was not evaluated against the proposed business model in Q18. ACTION: Change to "In the prior round, detailed business plans were provided, but not evaluated." 4.3.2.5 -- Comment: Not sure we want to ask this questions because it seems loaded. Should we drop it? No objections to dropping. ACTION ITEM: Drop 4.3.2.5 and renumber. 4.3.2.6 - at application time, at contract signing time, or at both times? ACTION ITEM: Add "or at both times" Also, change on 4.3.1.1 and on the background screening question (anywhere this construction appears in the questions). 4.3.3 - Why is there a general question? It was a general question relating to that category. 4.4 Name Collisions - no comments. 4.5 Security and Stability - no comments. Miscellaneous Questions -- why call them that? Can we call them something else? Could call them "General Questions". These were not specifically part of any of the work tracks. Suggestion is "Additional Questions"? ACTION ITEM: Change to "Additional Questions". -- Question 4: What is "data points"? What do we mean? >From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): data points refers to any discreet unit of information, usually in an analytical context. It is an Observation Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON: "data points" is quite common as a stan ding expression, I believe. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): can be single or multiple measures Alexander Schubert: Noun 1. data point - an item of factual information derived from measurement or research Rudy Mendoza: agreed Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON: yes, please keep it. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): can also be seen as a term in multifactorial statistical analysis. 4. Any Other Business -- WG Chairs trying to create an over the Internet intersessional between ICANN58 and ICANN59 to discuss.

1 0