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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 07 January 2019
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 7, 2019

Jan. 7, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 07 January 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-01-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2g…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: Create a timeline of the review/analysis of the various report comments and how they will be incorporated. ACTION ITEM 2: Re: SSAC overarching comment -- ask the SSAC and the Board where they believe that the NCAP is and possiblity dependencies. ACTION ITEM 3: Consider via email the question of how to define round closure. ACTION ITEM 4: Request from ICANN staff a list of unresolved 2012 applications, current status, and reason for lack of resolution. Circulate to the WG. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): -- No Updates were provided. 2. Work Group Updates (e.g., Sub Groups, Work Track 5, Supplemental Initial Report) Work Track 5: -- Supplemental Initial Report published 05 December for public comment. Comments are due 22 January. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-names-wt5-initial-2018-12-05-en. [icann.org] -- Webinar will be held Wednesday, 09 January at 20:00 UTC to see if there are questions, but not meant to be a substantive discussion. -- Encourage your communities to send in their comments. -- Possible LAC Webinar, but not currently scheduled, nor is it an official meeting as none are planned for other languages. -- Comment period closed for Supplemental Initial Report; staff in process of putting comments into a analysis tool. The full WG will review the comments: Sub Groups Analyzing Comments on Initial Report: -- Role is to organize the comments to see if there are patterns and convergence on recommendations to the full WG. -- Substance will be discussed with the full WG. -- Meeting weekly. Sub Group A: Overarching issues, pre-application topics (rounds, communications prior to round(s)). See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zDdzlBwLCz5m2sNXui6N6pporbUq-lDFEw…. [docs.google.com] Sub Group B: Application period, evaluations. See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133WbhWYB4M4kT6DqSfiCR2-ij7jxNkLj5EW…. [docs.google.com] Sub Group C: Almost completed accountability mechanisms, will be completing other comments, and moving on to community applications. See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MQmo1B6zBqGXYFRF2pKZXPhGmz0JfZhIaMx…. [docs.google.com] -- Question: Could there be a timeline for all of the parallel efforts? 3. Continued Review of Items Referred from the Sub Groups to the Full Working Group Top of Page 7: SSAC comment -- Concerns about SubPro not properly taking into account dependent activities, and therefore moving too quickly. - Not sure where the name collision analysis project (NCAP) stands? Could ask SSAC re: dependencies. Their comments suggest that they would leave it to the community as to possible dependencies. The WG is making progress on possible recommendations on many of the dependencies. - To define what we are asking the Board we should go back to the chart of the Board resolution from 2017 to ask what the Board is asking. >From the chat: Jim Prendergast: it might be best to ask the SSAC that question too. Jeff Neuman: @Jim - I agree we should ask Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): Anne as far as I undertand the Name Collision Program is very much in its 'formative' phase and even when begun is a multiyear planned project Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): But Yes we need to Ask for an update Avri Doria: NCAP is not budgeted yet. Donna Austin, Neustar: Is there any way that we can get the Board's view on whether there is a dependancy, because that may be more important to understand than the SSAC's view. Jim Prendergast: it would be good to clarify as well if NCAP is a dependency in the mind of SSAC as well as the Board. Thats a pretty major issue we have to deal with if it is. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): Good point @Donna Donna Austin, Neustar: But while we're getting that information it should not toll our work. Donna Austin, Neustar: I think the NCAP is the result of a Board request. Avri Doria: yes NCAP came about becasue of the Nov 17 resolution. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes Donna - last I heard the budget was being revised and the structure has been reworked but the Board did tell us that they adopted advice they received from the SSAC and we have a communication from the Board about the advice they adopted as to the "dependency". I think the SAC report does not say this depends on NCAP per se but rather that no next round should go forward til name collision issues are resolved. Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Jeff - I am talking about the Board resolution related to a prior SAC report advising the Board. We have a chart that Steve prepared related to the Board's letter to Sub Pro. Christopher Wilkinson: So... NCAP is about Name collissions - correct? Jim Prendergast: yes Steve Chan: I believe Anne is referring to this Board resolution: https://features.icann.org/consideration-ssac-recommendations-sac047-sac058… [features.icann.org] Steve Chan: The resolution refers to a scorecard, which can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/bm/briefing-materials-2-redacted-23ju… [icann.org] Steve Chan: The Board actually adopted the scoredcard, although within the scoredcard, it states: "The Board accepts this advice and will ask the GNSO Subsequent Procedures PDP to include this recommendation in its work." This is in respect to SAC090, which is an, "SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace" Steve Chan: And this WG's worksheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PrXjzhhdwU2O9k8oF6RG8pohqwBVz_UdYr4… [docs.google.com] Anne Aikman-Scalese: re name collisions - Yes - Steve - very precisely stated. It's SAC 90 that creates the potential "dependency" since the Board adopted that and it states that various risk assessments should be done prior to "adding new names" to the TLD space. Page 7, Defining Round Closure, Board comment: - Sub Group A discussed what it means to close a round, because Sub Group A is examining the comments on whether the future introduction of gTLDs will be in the form of rounds, and if it is, how do you determine when one round ends and a new one begins. - There have been a number of comments in favor of doing rounds with some type of predictable time table in between. At some point you need to be able to say that a round is closed. - Confusing to continue to speak of "rounds" - could talk about various groupings of applications. However, most of the comments do reference "rounds". Whatever we call it there is an application window (phased, batched, etc.) that opens and later closes. Prior to opening up the next application window there is a concept of when is it appropriate, from a cost-recovery perspective, to say that the window is closed to determine if we have a surplus and if so what to do with it. - Comment in Sub Group A seem unanimous that there should be at least one application window in the form of a round. -- ACTION ITEM: Take this up on email. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Speaking of a "round being closed", do we have a list yet of the applications still pending from 2012 and their current status? QUESTION Vanda Scartezini: I know that at least one string is pending for decision but would be good to know the whole list Steve Chan: @Anne, the New gTLD micro site should help provide that list. If you go to this site: https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/viewstatus [gtldresult.icann.org] Steve Chan: You should be able to filter down. For instance, filtering Application Status to Active provides a list of 22 applications. Vanda Scartezini: thanks Steve. Phil Buckingham: @ Vanda , Anne, I can send you the list . At least 10 contention sets out 234 STILL remain unresolved 7 years since Jan 2012. .Music . gay .hotel . kid(s) come to mind . This obviously excludes the highly contentious outstanding cases re . Amazon & .Web Vanda Scartezini: thanks Phil , is amazing we still have unsolved strings under discussion... Anne Aikman-Scalese: @STeve - thanks Steve - however, I have requested that we receive a formal list from staff because there are policy issues related to defining rounds and we need to consider these issues from the standpoint of the full Working Group. Jeff indicated we woudl receive this list and that it would be circulated to the full WG. Steve Chan: @Anne, Jeff said that after I commented in chat here :) You'll see an action item is now captured. Page 7, What if Consensus Cannot Be Reached, Comment from the Board: - Default position: If there is no consensus to change a policy then the policy remains as it was for the 2012 round, at least in cases where the default is still feasible. - There may be issues where we can't reach consensus right now, but we don't want to forgo the opportunity to keep reviewing these types of issues for subsequent application windows without stopping the process completely. - Will indicate in the Final Report for each recommendation the level of support received, including divergent views. - The GNSO Council would adopt and forward recommendations that reach the level of consensus or full consensus. Could forward in theory recommendations that don't reach that level, but that's not typical. >From the chat: Anne AikmanScalese: COMMENT: The protocol for Working Group guidelines is that there are Consensus levels specifiee and if applicable, Minority views. The GNSO then has to make its recommendation to the Board regarding those items. Anne Aikman-Scalese: JEff - I think the GNSO Council has to decide what it is formally recommending to the Board. Steve Chan:Yes Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd 2:Yes Anne Aikman-Scalese:Donna makes a good point. I think GNSO Council has "oversight", even if they do not have a habit of taking up an issue with a PDP recommendation. They also have to deal with the fact that communications from the Board ultimately have to be handled at the GNSO Council level because if these are not reflected in policy recommendations, the Board will come to the Council to ask why. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. would that include addressing issues raised by minority interests in the ICANN community that are left unaddressed or create further dissadvantage simply because existing policy (or status quo) plays to the benefit of the majority? Christopher Wilkinson: In view of the changes that have taken place since 2012, i suggest that the GNSO Council should co-opt for these purposes additional members from the other SO/ACs most directly concerned. Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Christohper - interesting observation - for example, ALAC does not have a vote on Council. I think the structure contemplates that ALAC, GAC, and others provided direct advice to the Board. The Board ends up having to "mediate" this advice, which of course slows things down. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jamie, I understand and appreciate you concern, but my sense is that the Council is reluctant to debate issues that were discussed by a PDP WG and recommendations made. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Where it gets really interesting is that when the GNSO advises the Board, it takes a 2/3 vote to override it. When the GAC advises the Board, it takes 60% vote to override it. So when GNSO and GAC advice conflict, the Board tends to come back to tell us all to "work it out".This of course slows things down if we have not worked it out before the recommendations go to the Board. Maybe that is why the Board wants us to clarify that existing policy from 2012 applies unless there is a clear recommendation otherwise and/or we have Board resolutions that modify that policy. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. the concern here is for some subgroups of the new gTLD program will never get a fair shake because the louder & larger voices in the community maintain control over the smalller voices in the community. For example, will the community TLD program ever get to serve at its best if some are trying to keep it from getting in the way of their interests. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jamie, sadly that's a challenge of the MS model.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday 7 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan Jan. 4, 2019

Jan. 4, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday 7 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Work Group Updates (e.g., Sub Groups, Work Track 5, Supplemental Initial Report) Continued Review of Items Referred from the Sub Groups to the Full Working Group (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2g… [docs.google.com] Topics/sections to be covered on the call are currently highlighted in yellow. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +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 1

REMINDER: Announcement: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group’s Work Track 5 on geographic names at the top level webinar
by Terri Agnew Jan. 2, 2019

Jan. 2, 2019

Dear all, The Co-Leaders of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group’s Work Track 5 on geographic names at the top level will be holding a community information webinar on Wednesday 9 January 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. The purpose of the webinar is to provide an overview of Work Track 5’s Supplemental Initial Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…>, for which a public comment period [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> is currently open. The public comment period is scheduled to close on 22 January 2019. The goal of this webinar is not to debate substantive issues contained in the report but rather to ensure that there is an understanding of the structure and content of the document and answer questions. All are welcome to attend the webinar. If you would like to participate, please fill out this form: https://goo.gl/forms/cGZVV86qjaqJt56v2 You will receive call details by email. The webinar will be recorded for those who are unable to attend. We look forward to your participation. Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

2 1

Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget Now Available for Your Feedback - ICANN CEO- Göran Marby
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 20, 2018

Dec. 20, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/draft-fy20-operating-plan-and-budget-now-av… Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget Now Available for Your Feedback As a not-for-profit organization working in the public interest, one of the ICANN organization's most important responsibilities is to develop an annual operating budget. We posted our Draft Operating Plan and Budget for Fiscal Year 2020<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-12-17-en>. Long-term financial planning and fiscal responsibility is necessary, and can only be achieved when the ICANN org, Board, and community work together to properly plan. In FY20, we continue to anticipate minimal growth in funding; it is forecasted at $140.1 million, up 2% from FY19. Expenses are budgeted below funding at $137.1 million. As a result of the budgeted increase of the Reserve Fund, the budgeted funding is slightly higher than last year. We've budgeted to contribute approximately $3 million (2 to 3% of the total budget) to the Reserve Fund, which will not have any negative impact to planned work. Annual allocation to the Reserve Fund will be the standard approach, at least until it is replenished to the minimum target level. This simply is the right thing to do. Constituency and fellowship travel support will remain at the same level as FY19, as will the ICANN org staff, which stands at approximately 400 people. To ensure the best support for the community's work, we have controls in place to hire or replace staff only when clearly required, but we still ensure the best support for the community's work after driving efficiency improvements. We've also brought the timeline for Public Comment forward to begin before the end of 2018. We've extended the comment period to 53 days to give you more time to review the documents. You will find five detailed documents, with content broken into six modules by topic: Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards, Direct Policy Support, DNS Marketplace and Identifier Ecosystem, Technology and DNS Security, Engagement, and Reviews. The FY20 planning cycle is the final year of the current strategic plan, which makes it a transition year, as we are developing the 2021-2025 Strategic Plan in parallel. During FY20, we will use the new strategic plan to plan for FY21. You, the community, play an essential role in planning for the year ahead. We need and want your feedback and input. I look forward to productive discussions about this proposed Budget over the coming months before it's finalized in March 2019. Please take action! Share your comments here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-12-17-en> during the Public Comment process. David A. Olive | Senior Vice President Policy Development Support ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 801 17th Street NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://3>

1 0

FW: ICANN Board Comments: Supplemental Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP
by Jeff Neuman Dec. 19, 2018

Dec. 19, 2018

All, Please find enclosed comments from the ICANN Board to the Supplemental Initial Report. This will likely be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence page. As a reminder, all comments are due by this coming Friday, December 21st. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Michelle Bright <michelle.bright(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 3:50 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> Cc: Board Ops Team <board-ops-team(a)icann.org> Subject: FW: ICANN Board Comments: Supplemental Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Cheryl and Jeff, I wanted to direct you to the ICANN Board’s formal submission regarding the Supplemental Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Kind Regards, Michelle Bright Board Operations, ICANN From: Michelle Bright <michelle.bright(a)icann.org<mailto:michelle.bright@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 12:35 PM To: "comments-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-supp-initial-30oct18(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-supp-initial-30oct18@icann.org>" <comments-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-supp-initial-30oct18(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-supp-initial-30oct18@icann.org>> Subject: ICANN Board Comments: Supplemental Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Attached, please find comments from the ICANN Board of Directors on the Supplemental Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4). Kind Regards, Michelle Bright Michelle Bright Director, Board Operations, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Direct: +1-310-578-8678 Mobile: +1-310-570-8296 http://icann.org<http://icann.org/>

4 3

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 18 December 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Dec. 18, 2018

Dec. 18, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 18 December 2018 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7gXVBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-18dec18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p66lwhkrm4e/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

FYI: Reminder CSP deadline
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 18, 2018

Dec. 18, 2018

Dear all, We would like to remind you about the upcoming Chairing Skills Program (CSP). If you would like to take part in the training and benefit from individual feedback on your chairing skills, or if you are willing to share your experience and act as a coach we kindly ask that you register here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_forms_…> by next Friday, 21 December, 2018. You will find some general information about the program in the flyer enclosed and in more detail here: https://community.icann.org/x/8xK4Aw. The CSP will be held during ICANN64 in Kobe, Japan with a preparatory call beforehand. Participation includes a reasonable time commitment between 3-7 hours, but offers great opportunities for effective participation at ICANN meetings. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Sandra Hoferichter, Chair of the ICANN Academy Working Group at info(a)hoferichter.eu<mailto:info@hoferichter.eu> or the PRS Team at prs(a)icann.org<mailto:prs@icann.org>. Thank you, PRS Team Carlos Reyes Strategic Policy Planning Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 202 802 8019 Skype: carlos.reyes.icann www.icann.org

1 0

Applications which are "stuck" from the 2012 round
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Dec. 18, 2018

Dec. 18, 2018

Jeff, Cheryl, et al, Regarding the discussion on the full WG call related to 2012 applications, could you please circulate to the full WG the list of all applications which are "stuck" and the reason that these are "stuck"? We would need to consider this if any sort of recommendation were going to be made with respect to "special considerations" mentioned by Trang. Please also note that in relation to the discussion as to .HOME, .CORP, and .MAIL, the discussion throughout Work Track 4 was that these are out of scope for the current PDP. I note this in part because although the status of these is listed as "Not Approved" by ICANN, some of these applications have not actually been withdrawn. Once again, my understanding is that 2012 applications are "out-of-scope". But if we think we can somehow expand the scope, (i.e. with an amendment to the Charter from GNSO?), we would still need advice from ICANN Legal if we are going to make any recommendations on applications from the 2012 round. Again, a list of "stuck" applications and their current "Application Status" is needed. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D49653.966AF170] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.

2 1

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 December 2018
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 18, 2018

Dec. 18, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 18 December 2018. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-12-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2g…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: RE: Suggestion to be more clear when recommendations have effects beyond just subsequent new gTLD procedures. Suggestion to provide clarity on applied-for strings that did not proceed. (ICANN Org question): WG formulates and agrees upon a question before it is sent to GDD, ICANN legal, etc. ACTION ITEM 2: Question: Are there any closed generics applications that are in this limbo state that are waiting for the policy in the next round? Answer (ICANN Org): Don't believe so - not all are delegated, but none have said they want to wait pending future policies. Request to ICANN Org to clarify. Notes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates: -- Michael Casadevall: Recorder of the public comments for NCSG for WT5. -- Justine Chew: Nominated as ALAC (small) liaison and will serve as the contact point for any outstanding or onwards clarification requests regarding ALAC's comments to the Initial Report. 2. Update on Sub Groups and Work Track 5: Work Track 5: The WT5 Supplemental Initial Report has been published: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-names-wt5-initial-2018-12-05-en. [icann.org]Comment period closes 22 January. There will be a webinar on 09 January at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Sub Group Updates: Sub Group A: -- Tough to get good attendance. Got through a bunch of items on the overall subject -- predictability framework and overarching questions. -- One of the important things to get out of the sub groups is that if a group is against a recommendation do they have a suggestion/proposal for a compromise. -- Next meeting is Tuesday, 20 December at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Sub Group B: -- Next meeting is Tuesday, 18 December 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Sub Group C: -- Next meeting is Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. -- Sub Group C: 3. Continued Review of Items Referred from the Sub Groups to the Full Working Group https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2g… [docs.google.com] Page 2: Suggestion to be more clear when recommendations seek to codify implementation of 2012 round of the New gTLD Program (ICANN Org) -- Leadership -- brainstorming on how we can identify areas where there are changes, to make sure that it's clear whether we are recommending that things stay the same or change. Page 3: Suggestion to be more clear when recommendations have effects beyond just subsequent new gTLD procedures. Suggestion to provide clarity on applied-for strings that did not proceed..(ICANN Org): -- Should any additional considerations be given to strings applied-for from the 2012 round (similar to how round 2000 strings were provided a discount)? -- Don't think any recommendations look backwards to those strings, but the charter allows us to do that. -- QUESTION: Jeff, could you please remind me what name collision issues were described as backward looking in the 2012 round? QUESTION - For Work Track 4: Thought 2012 applications were out of scope? Concern that we might be trying to develop new policy recommendations at this point when in Work Track 4 those recommendations where characterized as out of scope. -- From what staff recalls is that the name collision issue was not to 2012 but to legacy domains. For 2012 there was a framework. -- Don't think we got into discussions about a framework for legacy domains. -- Should be clear that if there is any application/string still pending from the 2012 rounds -- look at what we should do with the strings that were not resolved in the 2012 round (still in limbo)? -- ICANN Org's question should be directed to ICANN Legal. -- "what if any considerations should be given to strings that were applied-for but did not proceed in the 2012 round (e.g., IDN variants identified in applications submitted during the 2012 round, applications that received GAC advice, etc.)." -- Don't think it is in the scope of this WG to resolve the 2012 strings. -- If the next round starts and there are still unresolved items, then should we say that ICANN can't accept applications for those string, or not start processing applications for them until they are resolved? -- There is a view that between 2012 round and the next round once strings are applied for we should not accept applications for that string in the next round. Would that same principle be carried through for all rounds? -- Legal issue with respect to what is the contract between the applicants and ICANN in the 2012 round. What is the legal status of those applications? - Related question: In the 2012 round, ICANN could put applications on a "will not proceed" status. Applicants could withdraw their applications, but they did not have to. If we go along with the concept that applications for a string are still in process at the next round begins, what does it mean to be "in process"? Should we think about policy/procedures if a string/application is in a "will not proceed" status can we force the string into a forceable withdrawl? -- Maybe for the next AGB you put in a limit. -- Put some sort of limit in the AGB -- a mechanism where an applicant would be forceably withdrawn. -- Sounds like there is some agreement that for any strings that are still in process from the 2012 round if they are still in process, we shouldn't allow applications for them. -- But for future rounds we may want to consider a cut-off point that takes into account all accountability mechanisms to have a cut-off period. -- Don't agree that all new applications for a string in limbo from the 2012 round are prohibited. - Question: Are there any closed generics applications that are in this limbo state that are waiting for the policy in the next round? Answer (ICANN Org): Don't believe so - not all are delegated, but none have said they want to wait pending future policies. -- Shouldn't retroactively apply policy to strings applied for in the 2012 round. -- Question: (ICANN Org): Forward looking question: some applications from this round proposed to change the string name, but that was not allowed in 2012 -- should any special considerations be given any particular string or category of string in the next round? -- ICANN Org: On IDN variants: there were 4 applications that were identified as IDN variants in the 2012 round. - Don't think the recommendations are legal issues if we say "no special considerations". We only need legal adice if we think someone should get special treatment. No comments thus far that there should be special considerations. If that is the conclusion it should be documented. - Did the .mail, .corp, and .home that were withdrawn given any special preference in the next round? In Work Track 4 these were listed as out of scope. Those were refunded and they aren't stuck. They also are on a reserve list. Per the Board -- should not proceed, directs President and CEO that upon withdrawal provide a full refund. 3. Update on Discussions with Auction Provider: - Scheduled Monte Cahn for a call in mid-January. Also tried to reach out to another provider, but have not heard back.

1 0

Multistakeholder Ethos Award 2019 - Nominations Open
by Nathalie Peregrine Dec. 17, 2018

Dec. 17, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-12-17-en Nomination Period Opens For ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award | Award Targeted for ICANN65 | Nominations Close 22 March 2019 Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10p6ycAj9Cve9J5YcbT8eG_1aKMLPNkJtKQPga0_8PE…> ICANN is pleased to announce the opening of the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award. Launched in 2014 at ICANN50 in London, the Multistakeholder Ethos Award recognizes ICANNparticipants who have deeply invested in consensus-based solutions, acknowledging the importance of ICANN's multistakeholder model of Internet governance, and contributed in a substantive way to the higher interests of ICANN's organization and its community. The ideal recipient(s) will have served in roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees and collaborated with more than one Supporting Organization and/or Advisory Committee in a significant capacity. Candidates for the award will demonstrate at least five years of participation in the ICANN Community. Candidates will be evaluated by a panel of community members appointed by the Chairs of each Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees using a merit-based point system evaluated against three criteria: 1. Demonstrated ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANNStakeholders with the aim of consensus building and collaboration that substantiate ICANN's multistakeholder model; 2. Facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner, through the spirit of collaboration as shown through empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests; and 3. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. Please submit your nominations via this Nomination Form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10p6ycAj9Cve9J5YcbT8eG_1aKMLPNkJtKQPga0_8PE…> including detailed information outlining why the nominee meets the award criteria. Any additional information in support of nominations and/or questions about the award process may be submitted via email ethosaward2019(a)icann.org<mailto:ethosaward2019@icann.org>. Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2019 at ICANN65 Marrakech. For more insights on the award program, please consult the ICANN Community Wiki.<https://community.icann.org/x/YyOAAw> Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/10p6ycAj9Cve9J5YcbT8eG_1aKMLPNkJtKQPga0_8PE…>

1 0