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

Mp3, Attendance, AC Chat & AC Recording for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG on Monday, 06 March 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter March 7, 2017

March 7, 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 Monday, 06 March 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/9JLRAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-06mar17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p57ijfuutft/ <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/9JLRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 06 March 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 06 March 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Jeff Neuman:thanks! Kavouss Arasteh:There are decicated and devoted peosons all attening art all meetings to assume theier assigned responsibilities Kavouss Arasteh:Good to hear that people lafughting ' Kavouss Arasteh:PLS SHOW THE AGENDA Michael Flemming:The Agenda is on the right. Kavouss Arasteh:distorteed voice Karen Day:lots of audio distortion Ken Stubbs - Afilias:hello all ! Michael Flemming:Avri, could you speak up? Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: The Agenda is in the Notes 5 pod. Michael Flemming:please and thank you. Karen Day:Can barely hear Avri Christa Taylor:better already - can hear you a lot clearer Christa Taylor:No update Christa Taylor:If everyone could review the updates in the questions - that would be great Kavouss Arasteh:DISTORTED AUDIO Kavouss Arasteh:i HEAR DISTORTED VOICE Michael Flemming:PELAS Michael Flemming:PLEASE STOP USING CAPS Kavouss Arasteh:aVRI, MY LINE IS OKAY BUT YOUR AND OTHER VOICES ARE DISTORTED Ken Stubbs - Afilias:why does it matter if he uses caps or not ? Kavouss Arasteh:Sorry for cap Michael Flemming:I think it is more than known that caps have a history for being associated with yelling. Christa Taylor:Kavouss, I can hear everyone clear and the voices are not distorted Christa Taylor:...so far ;-) Kavouss Arasteh:What do ou mean, pls consult swisscom Karen Day:sorry 'bout that! Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:yes Kavouss Arasteh:no it is not okay Christa Taylor:clear and a good level Steve Chan:I'm dialed in and it's choppy and crackly. I wonder if it's better on AC versus phone. Karen Day:I can't understand Jeff. Perhaps those of us on dial in having the issues? Philip Corwin:Audio for Jeff very scratchy Michael Flemming:Its a little muphled but I can hear him. Christa Taylor:Clear here Ken Stubbs - Afilias:please post correct page jeff is referring to Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Adobe audio is fine here Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:no issues hearing jeff Karen Day:Christa are you listening via Adobe or dial in? Alexander Schubert:Very clear here! Ken Stubbs - Afilias:jeff is clear ! Dietmar Lenden - Valideus:clearly Kavouss Arasteh:I have seriou difficulties to hear clear voice. Christa Taylor:Adobe Ken Stubbs - Afilias:will be an echo Susan Payne:can you give us control of the document please Steve Chan:@Susan, the document is unsynced Susan Payne:cheers Steve Chan:Confirmed, much clearer on AC versus dial-in. Michael Flemming:Some of the questions have been deleted. Michael Flemming:We need to renumber them and some of the sections as well. Jeff Neuman:i am back Raymond Zylstra - Neustar:Hi - I can't connect to the audio right now Raymond Zylstra - Neustar:Fine with the answer at this point Alexander Schubert:Now you sound like in a water bowl ... Ken Stubbs - Afilias:this is not good Alexander Schubert:BAD! Alexander Schubert:Loser..... Michael Flemming:Very distorted. Alexander Schubert::D Jeff Neuman:I am back on Adobe Paul McGrady:Can we draw a distinction between an evolution of a business plan and a change in the nature of the registry itself? Ken Stubbs - Afilias:very difficult to understand kavouss Jeff Neuman:@Paul - I think your answer could make the distrinction Ken Stubbs - Afilias:avery is crisp & clear so i have a good connection Michael Flemming:You sound better. Ken Stubbs - Afilias: can hear jeff clear Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):I hear you just fine. Ken Stubbs - Afilias:cannot hear kavouss Michael Flemming:We cannot hear you Kavouss. Donna Austin, Neustar:I have the same problem as Kavouss with regard to Jeff Paul McGrady:Me too. Can hear Kavouss clearly, but Jeff is very fuzzy. Ken Stubbs - Afilias:kavouss need to reconnect Liz Brodzinski:I just hung up and called back in and now can hear Kavouss clearly Karen Day:Will hang up dial in and try to listen from Adobe, but won't be able to speak. Steve Chan:I recommend signing in through the AC audio. I was dialed in earlier and switched to AC and it's much clearer. Michael Flemming:Kavouss, you are able to go in and check the CC2 questions and make suggestions and comments directly. This may help for you to have a chance to review them and offer suggestions directly. Michael Flemming:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-… Ken Stubbs - Afilias:this difference in reception really creates inefficiences in this conference Rudy Mendoza:Jeff is loud and clear through adobe Karen Day:now that I'm listening in Adobe I can hear you. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):distortion over the phone is significant Jeff Paul McGrady:I'm on the phone and it sounds like the Klingons are jamming Jeff's frequency at the source. Ken Stubbs - Afilias:adobe for me gives clarity to both jeff & avery. only prob is kavouss Jeff Neuman:I will try cell Michael Flemming:Yes Ken Stubbs - Afilias:wish icann had a tech monitoring this call. they may be able to avoid this in future if they knew what the issues were. Ken Stubbs - Afilias:can't understand him at all. you may have to repeat or summarize his comments Michael Flemming:I cannot hear Kavouss at all. Is that just me. Michael Flemming:? Martin Sutton:Very difficult to hear Kavouss Susan Payne:me neither Michael Julie Hedlund:@Michael: I can barely her him. Julie Hedlund:hear him Gg Levine (NABP):+1 Donna Austin, Neustar:and I can hear Kavouss fine Michael Flemming:Kavouss, could you please check your connection? Michael Flemming:+1 on that. Michael Flemming:I think "should" is a much more precise in this manner. Michael Flemming:People could believe anything. Donna Austin, Neustar:perfect thanks Jeff Gg Levine (NABP):Jeff is fuzzy now. Paul McGrady:Much better!! Phil Buckingham:jeff is fuzzy Martin Sutton:good Michael Flemming:you sound a lot better Michael Flemming:indeed Martin Sutton:quieter but clearer Karen Day:I think Paul nailed it - Klingons! Laura Watkins (Nominet):much better. still slightly muffled but understandable Steve Chan:Apologies all, staff is trying to determine what is causing the audio issues. Michelle DeSmyter:Please know we are currently working on the audio issues and currently working on the issue Alexander Schubert:These 100 names are escaping the TMCH - so that's why not unlimited! Ken Stubbs - Afilias:whatever you did to correct the audio problems, it worked. can hear kavouss clearly Alexander Schubert:(It is my understanding they escaped the TMCH ... correct me if wrong) Ken Stubbs - Afilias:isn't that opening pandorra's box Michael Flemming:I think the question is correct as it is now. Alexander Schubert:In regard to "reserved TLD names": Work Track 2 also covers section 2.2.1.4.1 = Treatment of Country or Territory Names on Top-Level. Do we cover that later? Rubens Kuhl:As the name suggests, icann-sla-monitoring was suggested by ICANN, although accepted by registries. Paul McGrady:We use "propose"-formative words 3 times in a short space. Can we mess with it to make the question more clear? Michael Flemming:I think it would be great to reword. Kavouss Arasteh:Pls just insert the reference to that amendment Rubens Kuhl:The amendment in question is this one: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… Rubens Kuhl:Note that is not yet approved. Michael Flemming:I think the word breach allows for the individual answering the question to interpret a level of discretion for that at this point. It is rather difficult for us to define it at this point, but with a more formal consultation with ICANN, after we issue the question, I think we will be able to have a better outlook for what would constitute that certain type of breach. Steve Chan:@Jeff, that's right. Michael Flemming:not all countries are formally recongized? Rubens Kuhl:In some countries, different states have different rules... so jurisdiction looks better to me. Michael Flemming:that is why jurisdictions is used, it is much more flexible. Rubens Kuhl:Like California and New York. Michael Flemming:we could do something like countries/jurisdictions Michael Flemming:I am going to leave the room for this one :D Michael Flemming:I agree with Kavouss on this one. You ask for a suggestion to define something and then you ask if modifications are needed to the definition. Michael Flemming:COMMENT: I think its a great question. But Avri's suggestions is good. Laura Watkins (Nominet):Agreed Avri Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Apologies for late arrival. Multiple conflicting calls (as is always the case in the week before an ICANN meeting.) Alexander Schubert:It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies ..... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):General question: Wouldn't we generally be interested in teh respondee's explanation of their answer - regardless of whether they answer "yes" or "no" and regardless of what the question is? If not, it would be helpul to understand why not. Thanks. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):oops. "the respondee's" Christa Taylor:Sorry Jeff, a bit delayed. There is a bit of an overlap with 2.7.3 and 1.3.1 Phil Buckingham:Avri - back tracking thinking about 2.8.1 - wording is not correct IMO Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):replace "issues" with "claimed inefficiencies" Susan Payne:I think on 2.8.3 we should also ask "what safeguards are required" Steve Chan:@Phil, can you elaborate? Not correct in what way? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Can we ask ICANN for facts, namely, the outcome of any PICDRP proceedings? Rubens Kuhl:And it's hard to gather facts to measure deterrence. Do people acted good because they are good or because there could be consequences ? Ken Stubbs - Afilias:+1 susan payne Ken Stubbs - Afilias:@kristina shouldn't this be public info. why shoul;d it not be disclosed Michael Flemming:YAY Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I have to drop from Adobe but will stay on the call. I'll read the transcript and comment on the list. Michael Flemming:Thank you, Kristina. Rubens Kuhl:Some answers to this question will be very entertaining. Phil Buckingham:@ Steve think should read " ..... issues of Registrar non discrimination ( vertical separation ) and registry / registrar/ registrant ownership ( vertical integration ) now that .... Michael Flemming:Can't window be the same as a round? Michael Flemming:Not sure of that distinction. avri doria:rounds has come to mean what we have now. perhaps in the future it will refer to what we are currently taking about, but now it is confusing. Gg Levine (NABP):If so, please explain. Gg Levine (NABP):Sorry; re: 3.1.6. Karen Day:Thanks, Gg. Will make that change Rubens Kuhl:future rounds -> subsequent procedures Alexander Schubert:Like stated before: It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies ..... Heather Forrest:3.3.5 - should we ask for specific examples? Susan Payne:yes Karen Day:Yes, Heather, I think we can add that Donna Austin, Neustar:Apologies all, I have to drop from this call. Paul McGrady:For 3.1.2, if "no" can we also seek examples? Susan Payne:can we give a link to something which explains how they are handled in ccTLDs? to ensiure ebveryone is aware Susan Payne:sorry about typos! Alexander Schubert:The ccTLDs are determined by ISO! Alexander Schubert:So it wouldn't be ICANN but ISO who does that...... Rubens Kuhl:IDN ccTLD has such a process, detailed at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource… . Heather Forrest:Note for the notes - the point on 3.4.2 was raised by Kristina Rosette, not Susan Payne Rubens Kuhl:2-char ASCII ccTLDs are assumed to not generate confusion. Heather Forrest:Credit to both! Alexander Schubert:Then let's say it in 3.4.2.: "IDN-ccTLDs" Alexander Schubert:Also we might ask: Should private auctions be prohibited (or: did they created harm - speculation - etc)? Alexander Schubert:I guess in th next rond we will have people applying with nothing other in mind than to "cash in" in private auctions..... Alexander Schubert:rond = round Alexander Schubert:3.5.1 is valid as ICANN always said: "Sorry there is no appeals mechanism - and please do not abuse our other accountability mechanisms" Karen Day:Go for it! Christa Taylor:Minor formatting - line break on 4.3.2.5/.6 Kavouss Arasteh:Consensus by Ehausion Phil Buckingham:additional Q suggestion : Should applicants use an ICANN financial templated model or should they be allowed to provide their own financials model (s) Kavouss Arasteh:Exhaustion Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):well done Avri Kavouss Arasteh:PLS KINDLY CORRECT MISSPELLING THAT i MADE INADERTANTLY Paul McGrady:Well done Jeff and Avri! Lots here to think about. Christa Taylor:Way to go Avri!!! Susan Payne:what is tomorrow's meeting? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thank you all Susan Payne:for the full wg? Martin Sutton:thanks Avri and Jeff Alexander Schubert:Tnx Susan Payne:I completely missed that Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now then Heather Forrest:Thanks, Jeff and Avri. Karen Day:@Susan, yes, full group for 2nd reading so we can get CC2 out the door :) Susan Payne:aha :) Susan Payne:night Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks to both of you, jeff and avri.

1 0

Subsequent Procedures PDP WG newsletter - March 2017
by Emily Barabas March 7, 2017

March 7, 2017

Dear WG members, The Subsequent Procedures PDP WG leadership team is piloting a monthly newsletter to help WG members and the community stay informed about WG progress and learn about upcoming discussion topics. The first installment of the newsletter is attached and also available on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/Mgp1Aw. Input is welcome on improving future editions of the newsletter! Please feel free to share with other groups and individuals that might be interested. 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

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 06 March 2017
by Emily Barabas March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 March 2017. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript. Please also see the recording and transcript on the meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/9JLRAw. Kind regards, Emily ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Consider having tech support on calls to monitor for problems. 1. SOIs -- No updates 2. Work Track Updates Work Track 1 -- Christa Taylor: No update. If everyone could review the updates in the questions - that would be great. Work Track 2 -- Michael Flemming -- No update per se. Continuing meeting per the schedule. Recently started on the closed generics. Work Track 3 -- Karen Day -- Meets tomorrow at 1500 UTC. Robin Gross will lead the meeting. Continuing work on string related issues: objections, similarity, community-based objections. Work Track 4 -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr -- Met today. Topic was name collisions. Managed to resolve one or two questions and tabled another two. Will continue that work. 3. Community Comment 2 (CC2) First reading continued. (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…) ACTION ITEM: check the numbering and correct, as needed. ACTION ITEM: throughout the CC2 document, ask for an explanation regardless of whether the response is "yes" or "no" -- Trying to make sure that the questions are clear and for others to answer. Section 2.1 Base Registry Agreement: 2.1.1 -- any clarifications (note that numbering needs to be checked) 2.1.3 -- Restrictions relating to sunrise periods. No questions or clarifications 2.1.4 -- One of the issues was that this needs to have examples. Do we need examples? Fine with the answer at this point. Not very clear as drafted. Long sentences that are difficult to properly understand. Re: "Should the application form state" not clear what part of the application. -- Maybe the word "state" is not the most common meaning. Perhaps editing that sentence "should the application form explain..." -- What do we mean by "balance be struck between allowing the [repeat "the] the community"? -- That is ideomatic speech. Could be "balance be found". ACTION ITEM: clarify text in 2.1.4; replace the word “state” with “explain”; change “balance be struck” to balance be “found” From the chat: Paul McGrady: Can we draw a distinction between an evolution of a business plan and a change in the nature of the registry itself? 2.3 Reserved Names (renumber): 2.3.1 re: string requirements and 2.3.2 re: list of Reserved Names: ACTION ITEM: check the references against the Applicant Guidebook and add URLs. 2.3.3 -- Special Use Domain Names -- Is Raymond Zylstra's edit more clear? The question is saying that there is a 6761 procedure in the IETF and they will reserve the name when appropriate according to their procedure ("is appropriate" is correct). the last clause might be dangling. ACTION: Edit for 2.3.3 for clarity. -- The question about whether the Special Use Domain Names -- change it "Do you think that" instead of "Should..." 2.3.5 -- Re: reserved names -- Change to "right to reserve domain name[s]" Comments are answers rather than changes to the question. -- What is the basis to have these names reserved [audio dropped out]..why was the unlimited number of reserved names and where does 100 names come from? - The right came from the registry agreement. It was something that got negotiated in and then was put into the Applicant Guidebook. Specification 5 has the language on 100 names and no limit for reserving any other names subject to releasing them to an ICANN accredited registrar. -- Is this not warehousing TLDs? Perhaps the question is "Do you believe that the 100 and unlimited number should be reviewed?" -- The above comment seems to be an answer to the question, or a response. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: (It is my understanding they escaped the TMCH ... correct me if wrong) Michael Flemming: I think the question is correct as it is now. Alexander Schubert: In regard to "reserved TLD names": Work Track 2 also covers section 2.2.1.4.1 = Treatment of Country or Territory Names on Top-Level. Do we cover that later? 2.3.6 -- Question doesn't seem to be clear. -- Needs to be rewritten for clarity. -- Cross reference to the amendment. -- Before our PDP ends changes to the Registry Agreement will include these new reserved names. ACTION ITEM: clarify and reword. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: As the name suggests, icann-sla-monitoring was suggested by ICANN, although accepted by registries. Paul McGrady: We use "propose"-formative words 3 times in a short space. Can we mess with it to make the question more clear? Kavouss Arasteh: Pls just insert the reference to that amendment Rubens Kuhl: The amendment in question is this one: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/global-amendment-base-new-gtld-regist…. [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>Note that is not yet approved. 2.4 Registrant Protections 2.4.1 re: EBERO, COI, Data Escrow and Registry Performance etc. 2.4.3 re: EBERO funding model 2.4.4 re: Background screening -- Opens up a can of worms. Would have to get into signicant definitions as to what constitutes a breach. Concerned about how it is worded. -- The 4th line -- what do we mean by "information that is not readily available in some jurisdictions". -- Alluding to the fact that it was no always possible to do background screening if the entity was in a country that didn't allow that kind of background to be provided. ACTION ITEM: change "some jurisdictions" to "some countries". From the chat: Michael Flemming: I think the word breach allows for the individual answering the question to interpret a level of discretion for that at this point. It is rather difficult for us to define it at this point, but with a more formal consultation with ICANN, after we issue the question, I think we will be able to have a better outlook for what would constitute that certain type of breach. Steve Chan: @Jeff, that's right. Michael Flemming: not all countries are formally recognized? Rubens Kuhl: In some countries, different states have different rules... so jurisdiction looks better to me. Michael Flemming: that is why jurisdictions is used, it is much more flexible. Rubens Kuhl: Like California and New York. Michael Flemming: we could do something like countries/jurisdictions. 2.6 Closed Generics 2.6.1: no questions 2.6.2: ACTION ITEM: insert the provision from the Registry Agreement, Specification 11, clarify wording of the question. -- Is the question whether to revise the definition? Not clear or seems repetitive. 2.7.1: -- Comment: the question is loaded. Can we make it more neutral? This was never meant to be a blank check for ICANN to violate policy, the text should not imply that this is the case. --ACTION ITEM: change "if yes, please explain" to "please explain," reword to make more neutral. 2.7.2 - Comment: request for clarification on the word "submitted" and clarification on additional mechanisms mentioned beyond accountability mechanisms. - Answer: the accountability mechanisms do not go to the substance of the issue. The question is asking about this. ACTION ITEM: clarify text in 2.7.2. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies ..... 2.7.3 - suggestion: add "consistent with the bylaws" ACTION ITEM: insert "consistent with the bylaws" in the text of this question. Check for overlap between 2.7.3 and 1.3.1 From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): General question: Wouldn't we generally be interested in teh respondee's explanation of their answer - regardless of whether they answer "yes" or "no" and regardless of what the question is? If not, it would be helpul to understand why not. Thanks. Christa Taylor: Sorry Jeff, a bit delayed. There is a bit of an overlap with 2.7.3 and 1.3.1 2.7.4 - Comment: probably a good idea to remove the word "significant." ACTION ITEM: remove the word "significant" from this question. 2.8.1 From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Avri - back tracking thinking about 2.8.1 - wording is not correct IMO 2.8.2 - Comment: clarify that there are other exceptions ACTION ITEM: include the other exceptions to the Registry Code of Conduct 2.8.3 - Question: In the second to last sentence, what do the words "these" "issues" and "address" mean? - Response: leadership team can attempt to clarify text in this question. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): General question: Wouldn't we generally be interested in teh respondee's explanation of their answer - regardless of whether they answer "yes" or "no" a Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): replace "issues" with "claimed inefficiencies" Susan Payne: I think on 2.8.3 we should also ask "what safeguards are required" ACTION: clarify text of 2.8.3 to be more precise about the issues referenced. For example, replace "issues" with "claimed inefficiencies." Add question: "what safeguards are required"? 2.8.4 - no comments 2.10 - no comments 2.11.1 - no comments 2.12.1 - Comment inserted in the text - "I feel these questions should look for factual inputs. . ." - Response: the request for supporting documentation attempts to get at this. Comment regarding CCT-RT refers to the entire PDP. Will revisit in the second reading. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can we ask ICANN for facts, namely, the outcome of any PICDRP proceedings? Rubens Kuhl: And it's hard to gather facts to measure deterrence. Do people acted good because they are good or because there could be consequences ? Ken Stubbs - Afilias: @kristina shouldn't this be public info. why shoul;d it not be disclosed 2.12.2 - suggestion: following the term public interest, add "as referred to in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws" - response: with the new reference in the articles of incorporation, we may need remove this question ACTION ITEM: consider if 2.12.1 should be deleted given the new articles of incorporation. 3.1.1 - no comments 3.1.2 - no comments From the chat: Paul McGrady: For 3.1.2, if "no" can we also seek examples? ACTION ITEM: If response is "no," also ask for examples. 3.1.3 - no comments 3.1.4 - comment: decisions made by whom? - response: decisions made by objection dispute panels... - ACTION: clarify that this question refers to decisions made by objection dispute panels. Encourage explanation of response whether it is “yes” or “no.” 3.1.6 – comment: change "rounds" to "application windows" ACTION ITEM: change "rounds" to "application windows" 3.1.7 - split into two questions 3.1.8 - no comments 3.2.1 - no comments 3.3.1 - - Comment: clarify the text "true to the policy" in the second to last sentence. ACTION ITEM: adjust text to clarify the meaning of "true to the policy" in the second to last sentence. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Like stated before: It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies ..... - response: this seems to speak to a possible response and not the formulation of the question. 3.3.2 - no comments 3.3.3 - no comments 3.3.4 - no comments 3.3.5 From the chat: Heather Forrest: 3.3.5 - should we ask for specific examples? ACTION ITEM: ask for specific examples in 3.3.5 3.3.6 - suggestion: include as a sub-question, if we have a proposal on the table, perhaps we can put that out for comment? ACTION ITEM: consider including the proposal for comment. 3.4.1 3.4.2 - Kristina Rosette: question needs to be clear that they should be handled the same, may need to explain the process that ccTLD use. From the chat: Susan Payne: can we give a link to something which explains how they are handled in ccTLDs? to ensure everyone is aware Alexander Schubert: The ccTLDs are determined by ISO! Alexander Schubert: So it wouldn't be ICANN but ISO who does that...... Heather Forrest: Note for the notes - the point on 3.4.2 was raised by Kristina Rosette, not Susan Payne Rubens Kuhl: IDN ccTLD has such a process, detailed at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> . Alexander Schubert: Then let's say it in 3.4.2.: "IDN-ccTLDs" Alexander Schubert: Also we might ask: Should private auctions be prohibited (or: did they created harm - speculation - etc)? ACTION ITEM: clarify the question and link to ccTLD process: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> . 3.4.3 - Comment: replace "noted issues" with "raised concerns" ACTION ITEM: replace "noted issues" with "raised concerns" in 3.4.3. 3.4.4 - no comments ACTION ITEM: add “please explain” to 3.4.4. 3.4.5 From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Also we might ask: Should private auctions be prohibited (or: did they created harm - speculation - etc)? Alexander Schubert: I guess in th next rond we will have people applying with nothing other in mind than to "cash in" in private auctions..... Alexander Schubert: rond = round ACTION ITEM: add this question about the use of auctions to 3.4.5, phrase the question in a neutral manner. 3.5 3.5.1 & 3.5.2 ACTION ITEM: check for overlap with questions in WT2. 3.5.2 - Comment: is this question necessary? - We can be more clear about whether there should be new accountability mechanisms and whether these mechanisms are good. ACTION ITEM: clarify the text in question 3.5.2. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: 3.5.1 is valid as ICANN always said: "Sorry there is no appeals mechanism - and please do not abuse our other accountability mechanisms" 4.1.1 - no comments 4.1.2 - no comments 4.1.3 - no comments 4.1.4 - no comments 4.2.1 - no comments 4.3.1.1 - no comments 4.3.1.2 - no comments 4.3.1.2.1 - no comments 4.3.2 - no comments 4.3.2.1 - no comments 4.3.2.2 - no comments 4.3.2.3 - no comments 4.3.2.4 - no comments 4.3.2.5 - no comments From the chat: Christa Taylor: Minor formatting - line break on 4.3.2.5/.6 ACTION ITEM: add line break on 4.3.2.5/.6. 4.3.2.6 - no comments 4.3.2.7 - no comments 4.3.2.8 - no comments 4.3.1.1 - no comments 4.4.1 - no comments 4.4.2 - no comments 4.4.3 - no comments 4.4.4 - no comments 4.5.1 - no comments 4.5.2 - no comments Misc. questions 1. no comments From the chat: Kavouss Arasteh: Consensus by Exhaustion Phil Buckingham: additional Q suggestion : Should applicants use an ICANN financial templated model or should they be allowed to provide their own financials model (s) 2. ACTION ITEM: Change the word "contract" so it is not confused with a legal contract. 3. no comments 4. no comments

1 0

Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 6 March at 2000 UTC
by Steve Chan March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 6 March 2017 at 2000 UTC for 120 minutes. 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Work Track Updates 4. Community Comment 2 (CC2) first reading continued (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…) 5. 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 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

DNS WOMEN COCKTAIL Formal INVITATION - ICANN 58 COPENHAGEN
by Vanda Scartezini March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

Dear Women friends from GNSO – NEWGTLD working group. As we already organize here the invitation to all women attending ICANN 58. Attached the formal invitation. Please register yourselves as demanded per hotel rules – just click inside the invitation - Bring your badge for facility. Since the place is not so clear at the invitation here the location: Auditorium Foyer, AC Hotel Bella Sky Copenhagen, Center Boulevard 5 , Copenhagen 2300, Denmark. It will be a pleasure to have you with us! Kisses to all and safe travels. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017! From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 27, 2017 at 2:58 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting 27 February Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 February. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/x/l7HDAw. Kind regards, Emily ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: ACTION ITEM: If people have comments that they make on the call, it would be helpful if they could also insert a written note in the CC2 document reflecting that comment. ACTION ITEM: All WG members should read through text and suggest edits in the document. Notes: 2. SOIs - no updates 3. Work Track Updates WT 1 (Sara Bockey) - meeting tomorrow: will focus on systems, communications, and the AGB. If the WG sends questions back to the WT for clarification, the WT will address the questions on the WT call. WT2 (Michael Flemming) - Call this week will focus on Closed Generics and any questions about CC2 from the full group. WT3 (Karen Day) - Currently looking at string related issues. Next week’s meeting will focus on confusing similarity objections, sword tool, and community applications. WT4 (CLO) - Last week, guest presenter Don Hollander spoke about UA. 4. Community Comment 2 (CC2) first reading (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…) - Page 1, no questions or concerns - Avri added a comment on pg 2 regarding accreditation, no concerns expressed EDIT: Spell out all acronyms in the text when used for the first time. - Question: are we required to use the term accreditation by the Charter or can we use an alternate term, such as certification? Answer: this is the term used in the Charter, but we may not be required to use it. We may want to keep the words as they were in the original document, but add a note describing alternate terminology or a footnote about use of terminology, in general. ACTION ITEM: If people have comments that they make on the call, it would be helpful if they could also insert a written note in the CC2 document reflecting that comment. - Page 3, comments are largely clarifications, no additional comments - Page 4, no additional comments - Page 5, no additional comments - Suggestion for clarification on sentence just before 1.1.1, add to the text after the word “operators” the words “acting as its own RSP.” EDIT: In text just before 1.1.1, add to the text after the word “operators” the words “acting as its own RSP.” - Page 5-6 comment from Greg Shatan -- include both benefits and risks or include neither. EDIT: Greg Shatan and Jeff Neuman will work together on this paragraph regarding benefits and risks in 1.1.1. - Page 6 - 1.1.6 – Comment: this question is unclear. Response: The purpose of the question is to say that we could take some findings and lessons learned from the other group. The question could be revised or removed. Edit: Remove question 1.1.6. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): As someone who is currently going through the Material Subcontracting Arrangement Assignment process, the lesson I'm learning is that we really need an RSP accreditation/certification program. - 1.1.8 - Suggestion to change "continuous" to "periodic." Clarification - the purpose of the question is once approved, does there need to be a regular review. EDIT: In 1.1.8, change the word "continuous" to "periodic” and/or clarify further. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: If we are confused in what the question means, the community will be more confused. jeff neuman: Agree with Rubens, let's make sure we note that - 1.1.10 - Request for clarification of the language with respect to grandfathering. Answer: this refers to the grandfathering of entities that already serve as an RSP. EDIT: Clarify text of 1.1.10 with respect to grandfathering of entities that already serve as an RSP. - 1.2 comment on publicity and outreach - suggestion to add a question on this topic. EDIT: Add question on publicity and outreach in 1.2. - 1.2.1.2 - comment requesting clarification on terminology: least developed, developing, developed, underserved. If we are using UN terms, we should mention that. Otherwise we should define terms. EDIT: In 1.2.1.2, explain the origin of the terms used (least developed, developing, developed, underserved, etc). - 1.2.2 - request to clarify the language of this question. What other support mechanisms are being referenced? EDIT: In 1.2.2, clarify language around support mechanisms being referenced. - 1.2.3 - request for clarification on what is meant by success metric. Lack of participation has been cited as an issue. AMGlobal report indicated that even with a perfectly designed program, there may be reasons why prospective applicants may not apply. Question may require additional wordsmithing. EDIT: In 1.2.3, clarify language about success metrics. From the chat: Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): on the applicant support: couln't there be an open 1.2.4. question requesting any other suggestions for improving it? EDIT: Add open-ended question at 1.2.4 requesting any other suggestions for improving applicant support. - 1.3.1 Request to amplify and clarify that changes occured at two different times and the timing of the impact on applicants. Response: different applicants may have had impact at different points in time. Do changes made after the application has been submitted have a particularly negative effect? EDIT: In 1.3.1, clarify language regarding the timing of changes and impact at different points in time. From the chat: Trang Nguyen: Application changes are sometimes needed for applicants to address issues raised against their applications, for example to address GAC early warning. - 1.4 - There is a comment in the document from Greg Shatan on confusion on cost recovery concept and implementation of this concept (throughout the section) - 1.4 - Comment in the document from Donna Austin also speaks to this distinction - Comment: it is difficult to implement a cost recovery model. - 1.4.2 - Comment in the document regarding surplus. Is it true that there was significant surplus? If inaccurate, should be corrected. - Suggestion to change or remove the word " considerable." (no objections to this comment) EDIT: In 1.4.2, remove the word “considerable.” - 1.4.2 - Comment in the text -- lobbying may have been included in that third bucket which was a non-legal cost, but should be clarified if there were other contingencies. EDIT: In 1.4.2, clarify specific costs mentioned in relation to contingency. - 1.4.3 - Comment in the text - what is a strict vs. non-strict cost recovery fee? Reponse: People were concerned if the cost recovery fees were too low or too high. i.e. No other activities would be included to increase the price over some minimum. Suggestion to remove the work "strict." What are the implication of calculating just based on cost recovery vs. cost recovery along with other considerations, such as to prevent squatting and gaming. EDIT: Reword 1.4.3 to clarify the intention of this question. - 1.6.2 – Question in the document regarding application window- response: it was discussed that 3 months may be an appropriate application window in the first round but that a shorter window could be appropriate in the future. EDIT: Reword or remove 1.6.2. This should be a follow-up to an overarching question, not a repeat of a question on overarching issues. - 1.7.1 – Comment: unclear what we are talking about with respect to first come, first serve in this question. Response: this question is asking a hypothetical question as the issue of first come, first serve has not been settled. This is talking about queuing on applications for review (first come, first evaluated). Suggestion for language: "first submitted for order of processing." EDIT: Clarify text in 1.7.1 to explain the use of the term first come, first serve. From the chat: Laura Watkins (Nominet): order of receipt Alexander Schubert: Order of receipt leads to benefiting portfolio applicants who submit run of the mill applications! Laura Watkins (Nominet): Alexander - I meant as an alternative phrase to replace "1st come 1st served" jeff neuman: I believe we should eliminate question 1.7.3 EDIT: Delete question 1.7.3. - 1.8 - No objections to suggested edits -1.9.2 - No objections to moving this question to Applicant Support section. It can remain as an example in 1.9. EDIT: Move 1.9.2 to Applicant Support section of the document. In 1.9.2, change the words "in particular" to "for example." - We may need to schedule an additional call to continue going over CC2 questions. - IGF meeting 9:00-12:00 and 14:00-17:00 UTC Wed through Fri this week. This will be a potential conflict for some people. If we hold another meeting this week, we should try to avoid these times. ACTION ITEM: All WG members should read through text and suggest edits in the document. 5. ICANN58 Planning - F2F on first day of ICANN58- 8:30 to 11:45 – The group plans to use the CC2 questions as a basis for the conversation, explain context and clarify the questions. If there is time we can also get some answers and feedback on the questions. There should be equal distribution of time for each WT. - Wednesday (Day 5) from 17:00 to 18:30 - additional session, community facing and outreach focused. - New gTLD Program Review session will take place on Monday 13 March at 13.45. From the chat: Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): @jeff/@avri: on ICANN 58 I guess GAC Sec will approach you to invite you (and any interested WG members) to the GAC sessions on new gTLDs avri doria: yes Jorge, think we have received the invitation. avri doria: we == Jeff and I. since they are open meetings all members should look at participating. - We are trying to get through two readings so we can put out a clean set of questions by ICANN58. We won't start the clock on the public comment period until after ICANN58. Responses will not be due until the end of April. - It is still possible that the discussion at ICANN58 will result in further clarification and revision of the questions. 6. AOB - None.

1 0

ICANN58: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Nathalie Peregrine March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Dear all, Pre-ICANN meeting email inboxes are full at the best of times, so the GNSO SO/AC Support team has created a one-stop wiki page for all your open meeting remote participation queries. In addition to this, the ICANN meetings website provides you with an easy to navigate schedule and the possibility of downloading all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN58 Meeting Schedule<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__schedule.icann.org_&d=…> GNSO Remote Participation wiki page<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Step 1 Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage, and if not done yet, create a log in when prompted. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your calendar inbox. To get a general description of the session, please hover your mouse over the session title and a summary of the session will appear as well as a “add to my schedule” option. Step 2 Please download the ICANN58 Mobile App to automatically receive the latest updates to your schedule (available on Apple and Android products, look for “ICANN58”) Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the Meeting Schedule and on the GNSO Remote Participation Wiki page) will provide audio streaming. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation wiki page for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Terri Agnew will be onsite to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<applewebdata://FB60497E-61D8-4FE9-BF9C-EB238191E416/gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team

1 0

Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 27 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 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 Monday, 27 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/l7HDAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-27feb17-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/l7HDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ——————————————— Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 27 February 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 27 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Alexander Schubert:At the top there is "Attendees" - to the right of it a drop down menue! There "Ediit" - and you can change the name! vanda scartezini:hi all carnival here. lots of noise, will be just listen the call. Sara Bockey:Perfect! Rubens Kuhl:Not today... avri doria:especially during carnival week Carlton Samuels:@Vanda: I applaud your devotion to duty :-) Carlton Samuels:For I would be at least looking out the window! Rubens Kuhl:Avri, baby is making more noise than the carnival folks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ahh Carnival and sleeping babies.. not easy to manage Rubens... good luck Gg Levine (NABP):Was WT3 strawman proposal provided? Emily Barabas:WT 4 is scheduled to have a call on Monday 6 March at 15:00 UTC Steve Chan:There is actually a WT4 call scheduled for 6 Mar at 15000 UTC. It was moved up in the week so that it could take place, hopefully before everyone departs. If it ends up not working out, it can of course be cancelled. Michael Flemming:Not at all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ok Steve noted Gg Levine (NABP):Great idea, Avri. Justine Chew:+1 Avri. Or insert a glossary section. Alexander Schubert:There is an echo! Michael Flemming:Susan, can you mute your speakers? Alexander Schubert:Maybe a speaker not muted? Susan Payne:not my speaker Arshad Mohammed:I hear echo too Michael Flemming:Oh, sorry. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):it certainly did cause concerns Susan Alexander Schubert:Everybody not speaking simply muting the mike, please. Susan Payne:ok, thanks Steve jeff neuman:Perhaps we can add a sentence on the terminology. I can work on that. Michael Flemming:rogue speaker Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):s note, makes sense Avri Greg Shatan:I put in some risks. Greg Shatan:Agree with that result, Avri. Steve Chan:If anyone else would like to review in the Google doc, it's available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… jeff neuman:Or maybe we accidentally deleted it Greg Shatan:I prefer the elimination of the single model answer. Greg Shatan:We should not be amatuer antitirust economists. Greg Shatan:amateur Greg Shatan:I practiced antitrust law for 12 years, so I am particularly sensitive to doing this. jeff neuman:Greg - The WG has done some thiking on this issue and it would be good to let everyone know why we are discussing this issue jeff neuman:Greg - I will work withyou Greg Shatan:Will you provide model answers for the other questions? Greg Shatan:Why is this question different from all other questions? jeff neuman: @Greg, i see it more as providing context for why we are asking the question. Greg Shatan:OK jeff neuman:but yes, lets take offline Greg Shatan:That OK was for Avri. jeff neuman:So, I am fine with removing Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):As someone who is currently going through the Material Subcontracting Arrangement Assignment process, the lesson I'm learning is that we really need an RSP accreditation/certification program. Alexander Schubert:Too far away from the mike! Alexander Schubert:Can't hear you! Rubens Kuhl:If we are confused in what the question means, the community will be more confused. jeff neuman:Agree with Rubens, lets make sure we note that Trang Nguyen:1.1.10 seems to assume that the RSP program would be structured like the existing pre-del testing? Christa Taylor:Sounds like a good add jeff neuman:Trang, I agree that it makes that assumption, so we can clarify the question jeff neuman:to take out that assumption Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):on the applicant support: couln't there be an open 1.2.4. question requesting any other suggestions for improving it? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that could be useful Jorge Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Picking up on Jorge's suggestion, shouldn't we add an open "any other comments on this topic" question for every subtopic? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree @Avri re terms definitely Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):definition Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):makes, sense, Kristina Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup jeff neuman:Hard to understand Kavuoss Trang Nguyen:Application changes are sometimes needed for applicants to address issues raised against their applications, for example to address GAC early warning. Gg Levine (NABP):Apologies -- I need to drop off early for another call. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Good points from Greg in distinguishing the concept from its implementation jeff neuman:I think i understand the points Greg raised, but we could use Greg's help to restructure the questions Rubens Kuhl:I also have to drop early. Looking forward for the transcript if one is planned, or hearing the recording if not. jeff neuman:@Greg - ICANN has not been permitted to comingle the newgtld funds and ICANN's overall funds vanda scartezini:will need to drop in 5 minutes. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):They are true. Application fees don't go into reserve, as I understand it. Greg Shatan:My comments assume that "cost recovery" was in fact the basis of the pricing. I think that's right but I can't cite a source. jeff neuman:Cost recovery was indeed the principle, but it was based on a guess as to what the costs would be Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Regarding agenda item 5: I would like to reiterate my apologies for missing the Copenhagen sessions of this PDP WG. Unfortunately they conflict with important GAC (or GAC-led) sessions. Maybe in future meetings we would need to allow for compatibility of schedules with key PDP WG meetings, such as this PDP... Greg Shatan:To the Notes: "lobbying may have been included" Christa Taylor:i.e. people were concerned if the cost recovery fees were too low or too high Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that would be great Jorge I am also conflicted a lot but have been able to prioritise WG s best I can jeff neuman:Ok, lets remove the word "strict" Christa Taylor:i.e. no other activities would be included to increase the price over some minimum Greg Shatan:We should clarify that we are talking about TYPES of costs and not AMOUNTS of costs. Mary Wong:@Jorge, thank you and understood. Unfortunately, as you know, conflicts are unavoidable - for the GNSO PDPs, the first day (Saturday) was set aside so that each of the three most recent PDPs (including this one) could have a 3-hour face to face meeting, but the GAC is also having meetings through Saturday. For the Wednesday meetings, the GNSO sessions had to be scheduled to take into account staff support and other conflicting sessions, and again, unfortunately, the GAC has sessions throughout that day as well. Christa Taylor:agree to the removal of 'strict' Greg Shatan:Wow. I didn't get that implication at all, from the text. Christa Taylor:thanks! The gap between cost recovery and application fee - but will work on re-wording. My apologies. Phil Buckingham:agree remove strict , but add in a fixed and variable cost recovery fee ? Christa Taylor:Thanks Greg....point taken. Will work on adding the background/implications jeff neuman:Thanks Greg. jeff neuman:agree Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Mary: thanks for that info. And, yes, sure I understand. Just saying that for key PDPs as this one a treatment akin to "high interest topics" or "cross-comm meetings" would be sensible if we want other parts of the community attending and actively participating Greg Shatan:Apologies for many comments.... Alexander Schubert:Why LOWERING? It should be higher! Otherwise we get swamped by gTLD tasters and investors trying to capitalize on private auctions (which should be prohibited in the first place). Greg Shatan:Agree -- that clarification makes sense -- that it's about the length of the window. Mary Wong:@Jorge, cross community discussion topics and high interest topics are for the community to suggest :) :) Christa Taylor:Perhaps 'first submitted' Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good point Jeff Laura Watkins (Nominet):Agress Crista or "in irde Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Mary: yes... in would be interesting to include under such HITs meetings such as the key PDP F2F - which could at times be more useful than an ad hoc meeting on a given topic Laura Watkins (Nominet):order of receipt Alexander Schubert:Order of receipt leads to benefiting portfolio applicants who submit run of the mill applications! Laura Watkins (Nominet):Alexander - I meant as an alternative phrase to replace "1st come 1st served" jeff neuman:I believe we should eliminate question 1.7.3 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):please be mindful of the IGF Open consultations and MAG meeting covering Wednesday to Friday this week avri doria:apologies if i went through too slowly. Mary Wong:1700 - 1830 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@jeff/@avri: on ICANN 58 I guess GAC Sec will approach you to invite you (and any interested WG members) to the GAC sessions on new gTLDs Mary Wong:New gTLD Program Reviews (general): Monday 13 March at 13.45 avri doria:yes Jorge, think we have received the invitation. avri doria:we == Jeff and I. since they are open meetings all members should look at particpating. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):indeed, open door policy continues... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone bye for now then... Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks, all - bye! Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks all and bye! Carlton Samuels:Thanks all! vanda scartezini:thanks you all Greg Shatan:Bye all! vanda scartezini:could make till the end - good meeting Phil Buckingham:thanks Avri .

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting 27 February
by Emily Barabas Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 27 February. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/x/l7HDAw. Kind regards, Emily ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items: ACTION ITEM: If people have comments that they make on the call, it would be helpful if they could also insert a written note in the CC2 document reflecting that comment. ACTION ITEM: All WG members should read through text and suggest edits in the document. Notes: 2. SOIs - no updates 3. Work Track Updates WT 1 (Sara Bockey) - meeting tomorrow: will focus on systems, communications, and the AGB. If the WG sends questions back to the WT for clarification, the WT will address the questions on the WT call. WT2 (Michael Flemming) - Call this week will focus on Closed Generics and any questions about CC2 from the full group. WT3 (Karen Day) - Currently looking at string related issues. Next week’s meeting will focus on confusing similarity objections, sword tool, and community applications. WT4 (CLO) - Last week, guest presenter Don Hollander spoke about UA. 4. Community Comment 2 (CC2) first reading (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…) - Page 1, no questions or concerns - Avri added a comment on pg 2 regarding accreditation, no concerns expressed EDIT: Spell out all acronyms in the text when used for the first time. - Question: are we required to use the term accreditation by the Charter or can we use an alternate term, such as certification? Answer: this is the term used in the Charter, but we may not be required to use it. We may want to keep the words as they were in the original document, but add a note describing alternate terminology or a footnote about use of terminology, in general. ACTION ITEM: If people have comments that they make on the call, it would be helpful if they could also insert a written note in the CC2 document reflecting that comment. - Page 3, comments are largely clarifications, no additional comments - Page 4, no additional comments - Page 5, no additional comments - Suggestion for clarification on sentence just before 1.1.1, add to the text after the word “operators” the words “acting as its own RSP.” EDIT: In text just before 1.1.1, add to the text after the word “operators” the words “acting as its own RSP.” - Page 5-6 comment from Greg Shatan -- include both benefits and risks or include neither. EDIT: Greg Shatan and Jeff Neuman will work together on this paragraph regarding benefits and risks in 1.1.1. - Page 6 - 1.1.6 – Comment: this question is unclear. Response: The purpose of the question is to say that we could take some findings and lessons learned from the other group. The question could be revised or removed. Edit: Remove question 1.1.6. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): As someone who is currently going through the Material Subcontracting Arrangement Assignment process, the lesson I'm learning is that we really need an RSP accreditation/certification program. - 1.1.8 - Suggestion to change "continuous" to "periodic." Clarification - the purpose of the question is once approved, does there need to be a regular review. EDIT: In 1.1.8, change the word "continuous" to "periodic” and/or clarify further. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: If we are confused in what the question means, the community will be more confused. jeff neuman: Agree with Rubens, let's make sure we note that - 1.1.10 - Request for clarification of the language with respect to grandfathering. Answer: this refers to the grandfathering of entities that already serve as an RSP. EDIT: Clarify text of 1.1.10 with respect to grandfathering of entities that already serve as an RSP. - 1.2 comment on publicity and outreach - suggestion to add a question on this topic. EDIT: Add question on publicity and outreach in 1.2. - 1.2.1.2 - comment requesting clarification on terminology: least developed, developing, developed, underserved. If we are using UN terms, we should mention that. Otherwise we should define terms. EDIT: In 1.2.1.2, explain the origin of the terms used (least developed, developing, developed, underserved, etc). - 1.2.2 - request to clarify the language of this question. What other support mechanisms are being referenced? EDIT: In 1.2.2, clarify language around support mechanisms being referenced. - 1.2.3 - request for clarification on what is meant by success metric. Lack of participation has been cited as an issue. AMGlobal report indicated that even with a perfectly designed program, there may be reasons why prospective applicants may not apply. Question may require additional wordsmithing. EDIT: In 1.2.3, clarify language about success metrics. From the chat: Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): on the applicant support: couln't there be an open 1.2.4. question requesting any other suggestions for improving it? EDIT: Add open-ended question at 1.2.4 requesting any other suggestions for improving applicant support. - 1.3.1 Request to amplify and clarify that changes occured at two different times and the timing of the impact on applicants. Response: different applicants may have had impact at different points in time. Do changes made after the application has been submitted have a particularly negative effect? EDIT: In 1.3.1, clarify language regarding the timing of changes and impact at different points in time. From the chat: Trang Nguyen: Application changes are sometimes needed for applicants to address issues raised against their applications, for example to address GAC early warning. - 1.4 - There is a comment in the document from Greg Shatan on confusion on cost recovery concept and implementation of this concept (throughout the section) - 1.4 - Comment in the document from Donna Austin also speaks to this distinction - Comment: it is difficult to implement a cost recovery model. - 1.4.2 - Comment in the document regarding surplus. Is it true that there was significant surplus? If inaccurate, should be corrected. - Suggestion to change or remove the word " considerable." (no objections to this comment) EDIT: In 1.4.2, remove the word “considerable.” - 1.4.2 - Comment in the text -- lobbying may have been included in that third bucket which was a non-legal cost, but should be clarified if there were other contingencies. EDIT: In 1.4.2, clarify specific costs mentioned in relation to contingency. - 1.4.3 - Comment in the text - what is a strict vs. non-strict cost recovery fee? Reponse: People were concerned if the cost recovery fees were too low or too high. i.e. No other activities would be included to increase the price over some minimum. Suggestion to remove the work "strict." What are the implication of calculating just based on cost recovery vs. cost recovery along with other considerations, such as to prevent squatting and gaming. EDIT: Reword 1.4.3 to clarify the intention of this question. - 1.6.2 – Question in the document regarding application window- response: it was discussed that 3 months may be an appropriate application window in the first round but that a shorter window could be appropriate in the future. EDIT: Reword or remove 1.6.2. This should be a follow-up to an overarching question, not a repeat of a question on overarching issues. - 1.7.1 – Comment: unclear what we are talking about with respect to first come, first serve in this question. Response: this question is asking a hypothetical question as the issue of first come, first serve has not been settled. This is talking about queuing on applications for review (first come, first evaluated). Suggestion for language: "first submitted for order of processing." EDIT: Clarify text in 1.7.1 to explain the use of the term first come, first serve. From the chat: Laura Watkins (Nominet): order of receipt Alexander Schubert: Order of receipt leads to benefiting portfolio applicants who submit run of the mill applications! Laura Watkins (Nominet): Alexander - I meant as an alternative phrase to replace "1st come 1st served" jeff neuman: I believe we should eliminate question 1.7.3 EDIT: Delete question 1.7.3. - 1.8 - No objections to suggested edits -1.9.2 - No objections to moving this question to Applicant Support section. It can remain as an example in 1.9. EDIT: Move 1.9.2 to Applicant Support section of the document. In 1.9.2, change the words "in particular" to "for example." - We may need to schedule an additional call to continue going over CC2 questions. - IGF meeting 9:00-12:00 and 14:00-17:00 UTC Wed through Fri this week. This will be a potential conflict for some people. If we hold another meeting this week, we should try to avoid these times. ACTION ITEM: All WG members should read through text and suggest edits in the document. 5. ICANN58 Planning - F2F on first day of ICANN58- 8:30 to 11:45 – The group plans to use the CC2 questions as a basis for the conversation, explain context and clarify the questions. If there is time we can also get some answers and feedback on the questions. There should be equal distribution of time for each WT. - Wednesday (Day 5) from 17:00 to 18:30 - additional session, community facing and outreach focused. - New gTLD Program Review session will take place on Monday 13 March at 13.45. From the chat: Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): @jeff/@avri: on ICANN 58 I guess GAC Sec will approach you to invite you (and any interested WG members) to the GAC sessions on new gTLDs avri doria: yes Jorge, think we have received the invitation. avri doria: we == Jeff and I. since they are open meetings all members should look at participating. - We are trying to get through two readings so we can put out a clean set of questions by ICANN58. We won't start the clock on the public comment period until after ICANN58. Responses will not be due until the end of April. - It is still possible that the discussion at ICANN58 will result in further clarification and revision of the questions. 6. AOB - None.

1 0

Announcement: Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House Registration
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-02-27-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House Monday, 6 March 2017 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC Please register via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_vZw8kM&d=DwMGaQ…> by 3 March 2017! 27 February 2017 The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two sessions for the Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House on Monday, 6 March 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC. The Policy Open House builds on the previous Policy Update Webinar and incorporates more interaction. The focus of each open house session is an active question and answer session with the Policy Development Support Team. The new format will feature: · Decreased Duration | Two 60-minute sessions, rather than two 90-minute briefings · Interactive Format | A question and answer exchange with the Policy Team · Preparatory Materials | The Pre-ICANN58 Policy Report[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> and Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Briefing ICANN58 Edition[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu…> This improved structure will allow the ICANN community to ask questions about policy and advice development work taking place at ICANN58. The Policy Team also welcomes questions through the registration form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_dVbmhQOT8…> and via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. The Policy Team will provide brief overviews and answer questions regarding current work within each Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee: · Address Supporting Organization (ASO) · Address Supporting Organization Address Council Annual Meeting · Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Numbering Services Review Committee Meeting · Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) · Implementation of the Processes and Mechanisms Related to The Empowered Community · Interim Report Cross-Community Working Group: Framework for Use of Country and Territory Names as Top Level Domains open for Public Comment · Policy Development Process regarding the retirement of country code Top Level Domains and the development of a review mechanism for the decisions on delegation, revocation and retirement of country code Top Level Domains · Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) · Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Development Processes (including new generic Top Level Domain Subsequent Procedures, the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All generic Top Level Domains, the Next-Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS) to Replace WHOIS, the International Governmental Organization (IGO)-International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms) · Non-Policy Issues (such as Generic Names Supporting Organization Review Implementation, Bylaws updates and Generic Name Supporting Organization Standing Selection Committee) · Cross-Community Working Groups (including new generic Top Level Domain Auction Proceeds and Use of Country & Territory names as Top Level Domains) · At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community · The At-Large Review · The work of the At-Large Structures Criteria and Expectations Taskforce · At-Large and Work Stream 2 Issues · Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) · Protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent national names & Protection of International Governmental Organization acronyms · Accountability Work Stream 2 Issues · Input to Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Development Process on Subsequent Procedures for new generic Top Level Domains and Registration Directory Services · Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) · [RSSAC023]: History of the Root Server System · [RSSAC024]: Key Technical Elements of Potential Root Operators · [RSSAC025]: Root Server System Advisory Committee October 2016 Workshop Report · Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Update · [SAC091]: Security and Stability Advisory Committee Comment on Identifier Technology Health Indicators (20 January 2017) · [SAC090]: Security and Stability Advisory Committee Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace (22 December 2016) · [SAC089]: Security and Stability Advisory Committee Response to ccNSO Comments on SAC084 (12 December 2016) The open house will run in English and will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Recordings of the sessions will be made available here[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>. The Policy Team looks forward to assisting the ICANN community prepare for ICANN58! Please register via this form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_vZw8kM&d=DwMGaQ…> by 3 March 2017!

1 0

ICANN58 Sessions for the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
by Steve Chan Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

Dear WG Members, With ICANN58 rapidly approaching, staff wanted to make sure that you are all aware of the sessions that are scheduled to take place in Copenhagen for this WG. Below, please find the most pertinent meetings: · GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group Meeting 08:30-11:45 Hall B4.2 · ICANN GDD: New gTLD Program Reviews 15:15-16:45 Hall A3 · GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Community Dialogue 17:00-18:30 Hall C1.4 As with all Working Group sessions at ICANN Public Meetings, all our sessions will be open to anyone to attend and observe, and will be recorded and transcribed. For those who will not be participating in person in Copenhagen, there will be remote participation via an Adobe Connect virtual meeting room, live audio stream and telephone bridge (though please note that these will be in the “ICANN meeting format” and so will have different set ups than our weekly calls – these details will be shared closer to the meeting date). 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/

2 2