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

Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
by Jim Prendergast Oct. 23, 2018

Oct. 23, 2018

Jeff and Cheryl - in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report. Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members...... With the Following ...... While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic: ICANN Board - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on "gaming" or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values. IPC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions. ALAC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw). RySG - Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis. The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward. Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place. Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; * During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of 'losing' in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant's application strategy * Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants * All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented * The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined. We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient. The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim(a)galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren

6 8

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 20 October 2018 (ICANN63)
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 22, 2018

Oct. 22, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see attached the notes from the three Full WG sessions at ICANN63 on 20 October 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/2018-10-20+ICANN63+Barcelona+-+Ne…. Please also see the attached referenced slides and documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
by Vanda Scartezini Oct. 22, 2018

Oct. 22, 2018

Much better in my opinion Sarah. thanks 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. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Langstone, Sarah via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Sarah' 'Langstone <slangstone(a)Verisign.com> Date: Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 18:12 To: "jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com" <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, "jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM" <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Thanks Jim Just one small clarification if I may – the Initial Report did ask for feedback in the following question: 2.7.4.e.2: Do you think rules should be established to disincentivize “gaming” or abuse of private auctions? Why or why not? If you support such rules, do you have suggestions about how these rules should be structured or implemented? A suggested edit to your text would be to replace the opening of the first sentence with: “The recently closed comment period on the Initial Report sought feedback on whether rules should be established to incentivize “gaming” or abuse of private auctions…..” While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Verisign Inc This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:51 PM To: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Thanks Jim. I think this looks good. Any objections from member of the Working Group on including this language which reflects discussions that took place yesterday. 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<mailto:jeff.neuman@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: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 4:54 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Jeff and Cheryl – in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report. Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members…… With the Following …… While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic: ICANN Board – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on “gaming” or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values. IPC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions. ALAC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw). RySG – Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis. The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward. Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place. Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; • During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of ‘losing’ in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant’s application strategy • Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants • All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented • The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined. We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient. The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim(a)galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Sub Group Break Outs
by Steve Chan Oct. 20, 2018

Oct. 20, 2018

Apologies and with thanks to Kristine Dorrain for flagging, Sub Groups B and C will be going to different physical rooms as well. Sub Group B will go to 121 and Sub Group C will go to 129. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:19 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Sub Group Break Outs Dear WG Members, For the 17:00-18:30 session, we will be breaking up into Sub Groups A, B, and C, which is to serve as a kickoff of sorts for these groups. Here, I want to share some working documents that the Sub Groups will be reviewing, as well as the respective Adobe Connect rooms. Sub Group A: Will discuss Applications Assessed in Rounds and will stay in the main room Sub Group B: Will discuss Application Fees and time permitting Variable Fees. They will use https://participate.icann.org/sc-policy/ Sub Group C: Will discuss the Base Registry Agreement. They will use https://participate.icann.org/emilybarabas/ 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/

1 0

Sub Group Break Outs
by Steve Chan Oct. 20, 2018

Oct. 20, 2018

Dear WG Members, For the 17:00-18:30 session, we will be breaking up into Sub Groups A, B, and C, which is to serve as a kickoff of sorts for these groups. Here, I want to share some working documents that the Sub Groups will be reviewing, as well as the respective Adobe Connect rooms. Sub Group A: Will discuss Applications Assessed in Rounds and will stay in the main room Sub Group B: Will discuss Application Fees and time permitting Variable Fees. They will use https://participate.icann.org/sc-policy/ Sub Group C: Will discuss the Base Registry Agreement. They will use https://participate.icann.org/emilybarabas/ 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/

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Jamie Baxter Oct. 18, 2018

Oct. 18, 2018

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Updated Supplemental Report
by Steve Chan Oct. 18, 2018

Oct. 18, 2018

Dear Jim, Apologies, I completely lost track of your suggested changes. Updated documents are attached – please let us know if something is still not captured properly. Best, Steve From: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 4:07 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Updated Supplemental Report Hi Steve It doesn’t appear as thought the edits I circulated to the group that we also discussed on the last plenary were captured in this version. Specifically in Section 1.5 Registrar Support. Thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Updated Supplemental Report Dear WG Members, As noted in previous emails, staff and leadership have been integrating suggestions from the last WG meeting and subsequent messages on the mailing list into the Supplemental Report. Attached, you will find the latest red-lined version of the Supplemental Report excerpts in both Word and PDF, which will serve as the focus of discussions during the WG’s 13:30-15:00 face-to-face session on 20 October. Also attached is a clean version which has been worked into the full report template, to help give you all a sense of what the complete Supplemental Report will look like. 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 [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]

1 0

Updated Supplemental Report
by Steve Chan Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

Dear WG Members, As noted in previous emails, staff and leadership have been integrating suggestions from the last WG meeting and subsequent messages on the mailing list into the Supplemental Report. Attached, you will find the latest red-lined version of the Supplemental Report excerpts in both Word and PDF, which will serve as the focus of discussions during the WG’s 13:30-15:00 face-to-face session on 20 October. Also attached is a clean version which has been worked into the full report template, to help give you all a sense of what the complete Supplemental Report will look like. 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/

3 2

ICANN63: Schedule of New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and Related Meetings
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the schedule and links for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and related meetings at ICANN63. See the full ICANN63 schedule at: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings. Please let us know if there are any meetings of interest that we may have missed. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie Barcelona ICANN63: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group and Related Meetings (with remote participation in the links below): Working Group and Work Track 5 Meetings: GNSO - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Work Track 5 (Geographic Names) 9:00 - 13:15, Sat, Oct 20, 2018 -- 117 GAC) Remote Participation: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901599 Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/shVpBQ GNSO - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (1 of 3) 13:30 - 15:00, Sat, Oct 20, 2018 – 114 (ccNSO) Remote Participation: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901662 Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/IBZpBQ GNSO - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (2 of 3) 15:15 - 16:45, Sat, Oct 20, 2018 – 114 (ccNSO) Remote Participation: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901663 Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/IBZpBQ GNSO - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (3 of 3) 17:00 - 18:30, Sat, Oct 20, 2018 – 114 (ccNSO) Remote Participation: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901664 Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/IBZpBQ Related Meetings: GAC: New gTLDs Work Tracks 1 - 4 9:30 - 10:15, Sun, Oct 21, 2018 -- 117 (GAC) Remote Participation: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901602 GAC: Geographic Names WG/WT5 Discussion Meeting 17:00 - 17:45, Sun, Oct 21, 2018 -- 117 (GAC) Remote Participation: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901610 Middle East Space - Applicant Support Program for the new gTLD Subsequent Procedure 10:30 - 11:45, Mon, Oct 22, 2018 -- 116 (ALAC) Remote Participation: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901573

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan Oct. 17, 2018

Oct. 17, 2018

Dear Anne, apologies, the email below was sitting unsent. Below is confirmation that your suggestion was integrated, but also a questions/suggestion for your and the WG’s consideration. Your suggestion has been added to the working draft, although I wonder if this is more applicable to the section on change requests, where the topic of string changes is talked about more fully? Specifically, it might make sense to add to this block of text in section 1.4.d instead (or in addition?): Implementation Guidance: Some examples to consider in allowing for a new string to be selected include prepending/appending a new element to the original string or selecting a string that is closely related to the class/sector of the original string. ICANN org must perform a re-evaluation of the new applied-for string in all string related evaluation elements (e.g., DNS Stability, String Contention, etc.) and the application for the new string would be subject to string related objections (e.g., String Confusion Objections, Legal Rights Objections, etc.). The applicant may be responsible for additional, material costs incurred by ICANN due to re-evaluation and the application could be subject to delay. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ) As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org] Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org) Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] 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.

5 14