Paul, You and I have talked earlier, but wanted to let everyone know as well, that we have captured all of your edits in a separate version and that we will be adding the ones back in the WG discussed were for clarification purposes and the other redlines that were more substantive (as discussed on the WG call) will be put in comment form back in the draft. So, no need to cancel your plans (and yes I am jealous - I love Yellowstone). Just take some good pictures and send them around :) Have fun. Sincerely, Jeff Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 6:41:14 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: Pruis, Elaine <epruis@verisign.com>; steve.chan@icann.org <steve.chan@icann.org>; jim@GALWAYSG.COM <jim@galwaysg.com>; julie.bisland@icann.org <julie.bisland@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC Thanks Jeff. Do I really need to re-add everything in again? I’m trying to be sympathetic ear but I followed orders and I am on a road trip vacation with my son in Yellowstone. Shirley staff captured all the content that I put in that they have since deleted. Could you please simply capture that way? If I need to add it in a second time I will find a way to do that, but this is a very unhappy situation where I followed orders and spent significant time doing so only to have all the work undone because a handful of people were unhappy that they didn’t add any content to the document prior to the call as instructed.. Please do let me know as soon as possible as I will most likely have to cancel a tour I have planned tomorrow for the Yellowstone park in order to get this done. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 24, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:  Paul, We are getting to the end of the process where we need to make sure that we have appropriate document version control. I appreciate the fact that our instructions may not have been as clear as they should have been and for that I will take the blame. At this point in time, we are asking that all changes to the drafts be made by Leadership and really mostly staff. Comments should be sent around on e-mail and for all other topics other than (a) Closed Generics, (b) Resolution of Last Resort / Auctions, and (c) Predictability, they need to use the “Cant Live With” form if there is a request for change of language. For the 3 topics stated above, you can use the “comment” feature in the current Google Doc to indicate comments or proposed wording changes for now. After the meeting on Monday, hopefully these 3 topics will be “Cant Live With” topics sent around in Package 8 and the form will then be required. Some of the changes that you put in which we discussed were done for clarity and where that is the case, we will likely add those back in. With respect to the substantive changes, those will need buy off from the Working Group. For all future proposed changes, we do ask that they be circulated to the group well in advance of meetings so that other members of the working group can come prepared. I hope this all makes sense. Sincerely, Jeff <image001.png> <image002.png> Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 1:22 AM To: Pruis, Elaine <epruis@verisign.com>; steve.chan@icann.org; jim@GALWAYSG.COM; julie.bisland@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC Sending again, this time copying the list. Looking forward to Staff instructions on this. I have never in all my years of WG work seen all suggestions rejected by Staff before so I am really befuddled about how this process now works. Thanks. Thanks Steve. Unless I hear otherwise, I will take your email as overriding the Co-chair’s instructions to make changes into the Google document. I’m not exactly sure why we are taking a different approach on this issue than for every other issue this WG has encountered so far where the document was Jackson Pollock’s White, Red and Black. But, perhaps that will become clear to me as time goes on. As for your suggestion that “WG members try and reach alignment on the principle components of a proposal rather than preparing competing redlines” – how should we do that? Trying to do that exclusively over email will be quite a feat to track when there is no unified Google document anymore. I’m concerned that I will miss something. Will Staff gather the substantive portions of those comments and circulate them prior to our next call? If so, what is the cut-off deadline for making those comments? How will the various changes that I proposed and we walked through as a group be captured and brought forward for refinement? Sorry to ask so many questions, but when the rules change this significantly this late in the game over one issue only, I am just trying to figure out how to pivot so that I can do my best to follow the new rules. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. On Jul 23, 2020, at 6:48 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> wrote:  Thanks Steve. Unless I hear otherwise, I will take your email as overriding the Co-chair’s instructions to make changes into the Google document. I’m not exactly sure why we are taking a different approach on this issue than for every other issue this WG has encountered so far where the document was Jackson Pollock’s White, Red and Black. But, perhaps that will become clear to me as time goes on. As for your suggestion that “WG members try and reach alignment on the principle components of a proposal rather than preparing competing redlines” – how should we do that? Trying to do that exclusively over email will be quite a feat to track when there is no unified Google document anymore. I’m concerned that I will miss something. Will Staff gather the substantive portions of those comments and circulate them prior to our next call? If so, what is the cut-off deadline for making those comments? How will the various changes that I proposed and we walked through as a group be captured and brought forward for refinement? Sorry to ask so many questions, but when the rules change this significantly this late in the game over one issue only, I am just trying to figure out how to pivot so that I can do my best to follow the new rules. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Pruis, Elaine via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 1:09 PM To: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>; jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; julie.bisland@icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC Thanks Steve, I agree, staff or chairs should “hold the pen” and incorporate agreed upon language and changes. Otherwise our document will turn into Jackson Pollock’s White, Red and Black. Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis@verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 <image002.png> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 1:16 PM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, Julie Bisland <julie.bisland@icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC Hi Jim, all, Staff has created a separate version that retains Paul’s redlines (here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10-4Ihe76XexR_4WcodSnxBlEiJAS3tMw6_i0wY9M...) and in turn, rejected the suggestions that Paul made in the main document (here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZz...) for ease of review. From the staff perspective, we think it may be more productive if WG members try and reach alignment on the principle components of a proposal rather than preparing competing redlines. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 9:34 AM To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland@icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC I believe Anne also asked for this on the call but could we get a copy of Proposal 5 before Paul made edits to the document. Or a clean copy with Paul’s edits below it? Would be easier for some of us to compare the changes and suggest our own without making changes to the master version. If I make any suggestions or changes, I’ll create my own version and circulate via email for all to see. thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 12:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1FuMyD8UifwhaMbQu28ThQ9OhpvuasiaCNQsZK5Injpt2nJ...> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-...> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1FgEdOUxEmTeEz4vh3STcbpbeyP5uy_FGYI5E5tt_QDq76gR...> and the main wiki page<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1zBgzBUZOEJFGT0akFQFv-P0bTuhoVpLUfmjoxrtksXSyGo...>. Thank you. Kind regards Julie

Thanks Jeff! Much appreciated. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone On Jul 24, 2020, at 4:58 PM, Pruis, Elaine <epruis@verisign.com> wrote:  Don’t cancel your tour! It’s all there Paul. Steve said “ Staff has created a separate version that retains Paul’s redlines (here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10-4Ihe76XexR_4WcodSnxBlEiJAS3tMw6_i0wY9M...) and in turn, rejected the suggestions that Paul made in the main document (here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZz...) for ease of review. Elaine On Jul 24, 2020, at 6:41 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> wrote:  Thanks Jeff. Do I really need to re-add everything in again? I’m trying to be sympathetic ear but I followed orders and I am on a road trip vacation with my son in Yellowstone. Shirley staff captured all the content that I put in that they have since deleted. Could you please simply capture that way? If I need to add it in a second time I will find a way to do that, but this is a very unhappy situation where I followed orders and spent significant time doing so only to have all the work undone because a handful of people were unhappy that they didn’t add any content to the document prior to the call as instructed.. Please do let me know as soon as possible as I will most likely have to cancel a tour I have planned tomorrow for the Yellowstone park in order to get this done. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 24, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:  Paul, We are getting to the end of the process where we need to make sure that we have appropriate document version control. I appreciate the fact that our instructions may not have been as clear as they should have been and for that I will take the blame. At this point in time, we are asking that all changes to the drafts be made by Leadership and really mostly staff. Comments should be sent around on e-mail and for all other topics other than (a) Closed Generics, (b) Resolution of Last Resort / Auctions, and (c) Predictability, they need to use the “Cant Live With” form if there is a request for change of language. For the 3 topics stated above, you can use the “comment” feature in the current Google Doc to indicate comments or proposed wording changes for now. After the meeting on Monday, hopefully these 3 topics will be “Cant Live With” topics sent around in Package 8 and the form will then be required. Some of the changes that you put in which we discussed were done for clarity and where that is the case, we will likely add those back in. With respect to the substantive changes, those will need buy off from the Working Group. For all future proposed changes, we do ask that they be circulated to the group well in advance of meetings so that other members of the working group can come prepared. I hope this all makes sense. Sincerely, Jeff <image001.png> <image002.png> Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 1:22 AM To: Pruis, Elaine <epruis@verisign.com>; steve.chan@icann.org; jim@GALWAYSG.COM; julie.bisland@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC Sending again, this time copying the list. Looking forward to Staff instructions on this. I have never in all my years of WG work seen all suggestions rejected by Staff before so I am really befuddled about how this process now works. Thanks. Thanks Steve. Unless I hear otherwise, I will take your email as overriding the Co-chair’s instructions to make changes into the Google document. I’m not exactly sure why we are taking a different approach on this issue than for every other issue this WG has encountered so far where the document was Jackson Pollock’s White, Red and Black. But, perhaps that will become clear to me as time goes on. As for your suggestion that “WG members try and reach alignment on the principle components of a proposal rather than preparing competing redlines” – how should we do that? Trying to do that exclusively over email will be quite a feat to track when there is no unified Google document anymore. I’m concerned that I will miss something. Will Staff gather the substantive portions of those comments and circulate them prior to our next call? If so, what is the cut-off deadline for making those comments? How will the various changes that I proposed and we walked through as a group be captured and brought forward for refinement? Sorry to ask so many questions, but when the rules change this significantly this late in the game over one issue only, I am just trying to figure out how to pivot so that I can do my best to follow the new rules. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. On Jul 23, 2020, at 6:48 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> wrote:  Thanks Steve. Unless I hear otherwise, I will take your email as overriding the Co-chair’s instructions to make changes into the Google document. I’m not exactly sure why we are taking a different approach on this issue than for every other issue this WG has encountered so far where the document was Jackson Pollock’s White, Red and Black. But, perhaps that will become clear to me as time goes on. As for your suggestion that “WG members try and reach alignment on the principle components of a proposal rather than preparing competing redlines” – how should we do that? Trying to do that exclusively over email will be quite a feat to track when there is no unified Google document anymore. I’m concerned that I will miss something. Will Staff gather the substantive portions of those comments and circulate them prior to our next call? If so, what is the cut-off deadline for making those comments? How will the various changes that I proposed and we walked through as a group be captured and brought forward for refinement? Sorry to ask so many questions, but when the rules change this significantly this late in the game over one issue only, I am just trying to figure out how to pivot so that I can do my best to follow the new rules. Best, Paul From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Pruis, Elaine via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 1:09 PM To: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>; jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; julie.bisland@icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC Thanks Steve, I agree, staff or chairs should “hold the pen” and incorporate agreed upon language and changes. Otherwise our document will turn into Jackson Pollock’s White, Red and Black. Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis@verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 <image002.png> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 1:16 PM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, Julie Bisland <julie.bisland@icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC Hi Jim, all, Staff has created a separate version that retains Paul’s redlines (here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10-4Ihe76XexR_4WcodSnxBlEiJAS3tMw6_i0wY9M...) and in turn, rejected the suggestions that Paul made in the main document (here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZz...) for ease of review. From the staff perspective, we think it may be more productive if WG members try and reach alignment on the principle components of a proposal rather than preparing competing redlines. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 9:34 AM To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland@icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC I believe Anne also asked for this on the call but could we get a copy of Proposal 5 before Paul made edits to the document. Or a clean copy with Paul’s edits below it? Would be easier for some of us to compare the changes and suggest our own without making changes to the master version. If I make any suggestions or changes, I’ll create my own version and circulate via email for all to see. thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 12:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1FuMyD8UifwhaMbQu28ThQ9OhpvuasiaCNQsZK5Injpt2nJ...> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-...> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1FgEdOUxEmTeEz4vh3STcbpbeyP5uy_FGYI5E5tt_QDq76gR...> and the main wiki page<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1zBgzBUZOEJFGT0akFQFv-P0bTuhoVpLUfmjoxrtksXSyGo...>. Thank you. Kind regards Julie