Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017

Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

Dear Emily: 1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based. Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement. 2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying. In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories. Regards Christopher Wilkinson
On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments.
On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...>). Your input is encouraged on the following questions:
Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.).
The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...>), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: > What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice?
For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018.
Kind regards, Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
Dear Working Group members,
Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_S...>.
Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments.
Slides are attached for reference.
Kind regards, Emily
ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call.
1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none
Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
<Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>

Chris, I am not sure I agree. There is danger in trying to categorize TLD’s. GEO names can easily be brands. Or even generics words, for example. I would love to own .carp perhaps, but there is a small village called Carp, Ontario. Suggesting that the applicants need to do more research also doesn’t necessarily hold sway with me. I am betting Amazon did a ton of research prior to applying, but likely did not predict such opposition. If we categorize, it will just shift the battles to a different place. Better to keep all in one category and work on making the conflict resolutions better. We saw game playing with the community categorizations in the last round. We should be moving away from this, not towards it. Rob From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 at 2:10 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Emily: 1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based. Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement. 2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying. In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 <Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

Dear Cristopher, I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs. Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities. And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job. In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do). As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse). If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation. Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs). My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones). In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
Dear Emily:
1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories
It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based.
Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement.
2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying.
In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments.
On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...>). Your input is encouraged on the following questions:
Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.).
The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...>), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: >> What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice?
For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018.
Kind regards, Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
Dear Working Group members,
Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_S...>.
Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments.
Slides are attached for reference.
Kind regards, Emily
ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call.
1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none
Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
<Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

+1 BG, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Maxim Alzoba Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Cc: Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Cristopher, I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs. Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities. And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job. In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do). As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse). If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation. Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs). My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones). In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Emily: 1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based. Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement. 2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying. In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 <Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: +1 BG, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Maxim Alzoba Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Cristopher, I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs. Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities. And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job. In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do). As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse). If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation. Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs). My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones). In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Emily: 1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based. Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement. 2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying. In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 <Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

Vanda, I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ? Rubens
Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> escreveu:
Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit
Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos
On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote:
+1
BG, Katrin
DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting <http://www.dotzon.consulting/>
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Maxim Alzoba Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
Dear Cristopher,
I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs.
Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities.
And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job.
In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do).
As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse).
If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation.
Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs).
My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones).
In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one.
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear Emily:
1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories
It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based.
Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement.
2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying.
In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments.
On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...>). Your input is encouraged on the following questions:
Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.).
The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...>), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following:
What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice?
For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018.
Kind regards, Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
Dear Working Group members,
Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_S...>.
Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments.
Slides are attached for reference.
Kind regards, Emily
ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call.
1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none
Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
<Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>

Dear All, First of all Happy new years to all . While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however, this should be further explored and discussed . Regards Kavouss On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Vanda,
I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ?
Rubens
Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini < vanda@scartezini.org> escreveu:
Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit
Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos
On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com> wrote:
+1
BG, Katrin
DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 <+49%2030%2049802722> Fax: +49 30 49802727 <+49%2030%2049802727> Mobile: +49 173 2019240 <+49%20173%202019240> ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Maxim Alzoba *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 *An:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu *Cc:* *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
Dear Cristopher,
I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs.
Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities.
And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job.
In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do).
As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse).
If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation.
Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs).
My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones).
In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one.
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580 <+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
Dear Emily:
1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories
It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based.
Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement.
2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying.
In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments.
On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=0). Your input is encouraged on the following questions:
- Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the *pros/cons *for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? - If there are *critical exceptions* needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.).
The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa- Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81tfQ/edit#heading=h.8pcr95hvmmz), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following:
- What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice?
For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018.
Kind regards, Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> *Date: *Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
Dear Working Group members,
Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann. org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_S...> .
Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments.
Slides are attached for reference.
Kind regards, Emily
*ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call.*
1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: *kavouss Arasteh: *I do not agree with your conclusions *kavouss Arasteh: *The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO *kavouss Arasteh: *The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here *kavouss Arasteh: *There seems to be that our concerns are not heard *Greg Shatan: *This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. *kavouss Arasteh: *It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue *Greg Shatan: *That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. *kavouss Arasteh: *I am speaking from my own side here *Robin Gross: *We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. *kavouss Arasteh: *WHAT Rules Dear Mdam *kavouss Arasteh: *MADAM' *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/ federal governmental body *Greg Shatan: *Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *or letter of non objection from the same governmental body *kavouss Arasteh: *It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names *Steve Chan: *As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann. org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> *kavouss Arasteh: *Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries *Greg Shatan: *Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. *Martin Sutton: *@ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. *Greg Shatan: *Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. *kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: *Kurt Pritz: *I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: *Donna Austin, Neustar: *Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 *Steve Chan: *NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. *Heather Forrest: *I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement *kavouss Arasteh: *There is no clear description on community *kavouss Arasteh: *If there is what is that? *kavouss Arasteh: *There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other *Kurt Pritz: *My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter " categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: *kavouss Arasteh: *Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i *Jim Prendergast: *While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. *Robin Gross: *I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. *kavouss Arasteh: *Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *AGB might change as result f some PDP work *Marc Palau: *What about family names? that's not an strict community *Marc Palau: *like .kim *Steve Chan: *@Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *it might depend on wealth of the family *Greg Shatan: *@Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... *kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? *avri doria: *Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? *kavouss Arasteh: *We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities *kavouss Arasteh: *As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: *Kurt Pritz: *If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these *Greg Shatan: *@Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? *Greg Shatan: *We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: *Kurt Pritz: *@ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? *Kurt Pritz: *I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models *Kurt Pritz: *I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) *Martin Sutton: *Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed *Christopher Wilkinson: *@AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: *Robin Gross: *4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. *Steve Chan: *@Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. *Robin Gross: *Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. *Kurt Pritz: *With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: *kavouss Arasteh: *I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names *kavouss Arasteh: *Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. *Annebeth Lange,WT5: *The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a " true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. *Annebeth Lange,WT5: **Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/ cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none
*Emily Barabas *| Senior Policy Specialist *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 <+31%206%2084507976>
<Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________ ________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

I think we are overstepping the scope of the WG here. Is this WG going to decide on business models? If that is the case, I think this WG should inform the GNSO and make sure we are within scope. Thanks, Theo Geurts Theo On 1-1-2018 21:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, First of all Happy new years to all .
While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however, this should be further explored and discussed . Regards Kavouss
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote:
Vanda,
I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ?
Rubens
Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org <mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> escreveu:
Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit
Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos
On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote:
+1 BG, Katrin
DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 <tel:+49%2030%2049802722> Fax: +49 30 49802727 <tel:+49%2030%2049802727> Mobile: +49 173 2019240 <tel:+49%20173%202019240> ohlmer@dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting <http://www.dotzon.consulting/>
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin *Von:*Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*Im Auftrag von*Maxim Alzoba *Gesendet:*Donnerstag, 28.Dezember 2017 08:05 *An:*lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Cc:* *Betreff:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Cristopher, I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs. Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities. And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job. In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do). As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse). If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation. Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs). My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones). In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one. Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580 <tel:+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10,lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>wrote: Dear Emily: 1.Re: Potential TLD types/categories It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based. Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement. 2.Framework of Predictability:I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying. In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories. Regards Christopher Wilkinson
On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...>). Your input is encouraged on the following questions:
* Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the *pros/cons *for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are *critical exceptions* needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.).
The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...>), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following:
* What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice?
For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily *From:*Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> *Date:*Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 *To:*"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject:*[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_S...>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily *ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call.* 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: *kavouss Arasteh: *I do not agree with your conclusions *kavouss Arasteh: *The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO *kavouss Arasteh: *The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here *kavouss Arasteh: *There seems to be that our concerns are not heard *Greg Shatan: *This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. *kavouss Arasteh: *It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue *Greg Shatan: *That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. *kavouss Arasteh: *I am speaking from my own side here *Robin Gross: *We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. *kavouss Arasteh: *WHAT Rules Dear Mdam *kavouss Arasteh: *MADAM' *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body *Greg Shatan: *Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *or letter of non objection from the same governmental body *kavouss Arasteh: *It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names *Steve Chan: *As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> *kavouss Arasteh: *Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries *Greg Shatan: *Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. *Martin Sutton: *@ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. *Greg Shatan: *Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. *kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: *Kurt Pritz: *I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: *Donna Austin, Neustar: *Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 *Steve Chan: *NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. *Heather Forrest: *I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement *kavouss Arasteh: *There is no clear description on community *kavouss Arasteh: *If there is what is that? *kavouss Arasteh: *There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other *Kurt Pritz: *My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: *kavouss Arasteh: *Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i *Jim Prendergast: *While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. *Robin Gross: *I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. *kavouss Arasteh: *Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *AGB might change as result f some PDP work *Marc Palau: *What about family names? that's not an strict community *Marc Palau: *like .kim *Steve Chan: *@Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *it might depend on wealth of the family *Greg Shatan: *@Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... *kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? *avri doria: *Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? *kavouss Arasteh: *We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions *Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities *kavouss Arasteh: *As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: *Kurt Pritz: *If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these *Greg Shatan: *@Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? *Greg Shatan: *We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: *Kurt Pritz: *@ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? *Kurt Pritz: *I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models *Kurt Pritz: *I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) *Martin Sutton: *Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed *Christopher Wilkinson: *@AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: *Robin Gross: *4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. *Steve Chan: *@Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. *Robin Gross: *Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. *Kurt Pritz: *With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: *kavouss Arasteh: *I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names *kavouss Arasteh: *Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. *Annebeth Lange,WT5: *The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. *Annebeth Lange,WT5: **Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none *Emily Barabas*| Senior Policy Specialist *ICANN*| Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email:emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>| Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 <tel:+31%206%2084507976> <Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

I’d also be quite concerned about dictating the business models of a registry. Looking at the new TLDs that have launched to date (there are still quite a few that haven’t), the more flexible they are in terms of their business models the better and more sustainable they are. I also wonder why anyone would think that mandating “non-profit” is viable or what that’s even based on. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Date: Monday 1 January 2018 at 21:14 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 I think we are overstepping the scope of the WG here. Is this WG going to decide on business models? If that is the case, I think this WG should inform the GNSO and make sure we are within scope. Thanks, Theo Geurts Theo On 1-1-2018 21:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, First of all Happy new years to all . While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however, this should be further explored and discussed . Regards Kavouss On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Vanda, I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ? Rubens Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> escreveu: Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: +1 BG, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722<tel:+49%2030%2049802722> Fax: +49 30 49802727<tel:+49%2030%2049802727> Mobile: +49 173 2019240<tel:+49%20173%202019240> ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Maxim Alzoba Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Cristopher, I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs. Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities. And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job. In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do). As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse). If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation. Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs). My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones). In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580<tel:+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Emily: 1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based. Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement. 2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying. In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<tel:+31%206%2084507976> <Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

Thanks Michele, Theo, Kavouss, Vanda and Christopher. Seems like we have a cross over of issues here between the overall group and the new Work Track 5. I would encourage overall discussions on business models to stay within this mailing list, but remove any issues on geographic names to Work Track 5 when we get into the substance. Thus, the issue of whether business models of registries in general or within some “categories” of TLDs should be explored here. But whether TLDs that coincide with geographic names should or should not be of a certain business model, should be discussed within Work Track 5. The reason is not to stifle discussion, but I note that not all of the participants of Work Track 5 are in fact participants in this overall group. I want to make sure that all Work Track 5 participants see all discussions that relate to “geographic names” Thanks Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:37 AM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 I’d also be quite concerned about dictating the business models of a registry. Looking at the new TLDs that have launched to date (there are still quite a few that haven’t), the more flexible they are in terms of their business models the better and more sustainable they are. I also wonder why anyone would think that mandating “non-profit” is viable or what that’s even based on. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Date: Monday 1 January 2018 at 21:14 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 I think we are overstepping the scope of the WG here. Is this WG going to decide on business models? If that is the case, I think this WG should inform the GNSO and make sure we are within scope. Thanks, Theo Geurts Theo On 1-1-2018 21:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, First of all Happy new years to all . While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however, this should be further explored and discussed . Regards Kavouss On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Vanda, I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ? Rubens Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> escreveu: Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: +1 BG, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722<tel:+49%2030%2049802722> Fax: +49 30 49802727<tel:+49%2030%2049802727> Mobile: +49 173 2019240<tel:+49%20173%202019240> ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Maxim Alzoba Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Cristopher, I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs. Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities. And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job. In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do). As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse). If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation. Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs). My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones). In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580<tel:+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Emily: 1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based. Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement. 2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying. In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<tel:+31%206%2084507976> <Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

Good evening: Regarding the business models for Geo-Names, suffice to say that there are instances in the previous round, which, if repeated for Geo-Names, would aggravate the scope for agreement. Regarding not-for profit, I would recall that one of the most successful new TLDs in recent years operates on a not for profit basis. In my view, the eventual ‘rent’ for a ‘Good Name’ should accrue to the Registrant and not to the Registry or Registrar. However, I note Jeff’s request to move discussion of the business models for Geo-Names to WT5, with which I concur. I thought I was responding to Emily’s note of 21 December. Nothing more. CW
On 3 Jan 2018, at 02:35, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Michele, Theo, Kavouss, Vanda and Christopher. <>
Seems like we have a cross over of issues here between the overall group and the new Work Track 5. I would encourage overall discussions on business models to stay within this mailing list, but remove any issues on geographic names to Work Track 5 when we get into the substance.
Thus, the issue of whether business models of registries in general or within some “categories” of TLDs should be explored here. But whether TLDs that coincide with geographic names should or should not be of a certain business model, should be discussed within Work Track 5.
The reason is not to stifle discussion, but I note that not all of the participants of Work Track 5 are in fact participants in this overall group. I want to make sure that all Work Track 5 participants see all discussions that relate to “geographic names”
Thanks
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:37 AM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
I’d also be quite concerned about dictating the business models of a registry.
Looking at the new TLDs that have launched to date (there are still quite a few that haven’t), the more flexible they are in terms of their business models the better and more sustainable they are.
I also wonder why anyone would think that mandating “non-profit” is viable or what that’s even based on.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://www.blacknight.com/> http://blacknight.blog/ <http://blacknight.blog/> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ <https://michele.blog/> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ <https://ceo.hosting/> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Date: Monday 1 January 2018 at 21:14 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
<>
I think we are overstepping the scope of the WG here. Is this WG going to decide on business models? If that is the case, I think this WG should inform the GNSO and make sure we are within scope.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts
Theo On 1-1-2018 21:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, First of all Happy new years to all .
While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however, this should be further explored and discussed . Regards Kavouss
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote:
Vanda,
I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ?
Rubens
Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org <mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> escreveu:
Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit
Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos
On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote:
+1
BG, Katrin
DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 <tel:+49%2030%2049802722> Fax: +49 30 49802727 <tel:+49%2030%2049802727> Mobile: +49 173 2019240 <tel:+49%20173%202019240> ohlmer@dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting <http://www.dotzon.consulting/>
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Maxim Alzoba Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
Dear Cristopher,
I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs.
Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities.
And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job.
In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do).
As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse).
If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation.
Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs).
My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones).
In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one.
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580 <tel:+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear Emily:
1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories
It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based.
Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement.
2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying.
In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments.
On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...>). Your input is encouraged on the following questions:
Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.).
The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...>), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: > What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice?
For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018.
Kind regards, Emily
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
Dear Working Group members,
Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_S...>.
Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments.
Slides are attached for reference.
Kind regards, Emily
ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call.
1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none
Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 <tel:+31%206%2084507976>
<Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>

Christopher Agreement with whom about what? Which TLD are you referring to that you consider a success? I also don’t understand your point about “rent’ at all. Verisign is anything but a not for profit, but they make the same amount of money per .com sold whether the name is traded on the aftermarket for millions or sold below cost. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Wednesday 3 January 2018 at 15:08 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, KAVOUSS ARASTEH <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Good evening: Regarding the business models for Geo-Names, suffice to say that there are instances in the previous round, which, if repeated for Geo-Names, would aggravate the scope for agreement. Regarding not-for profit, I would recall that one of the most successful new TLDs in recent years operates on a not for profit basis. In my view, the eventual ‘rent’ for a ‘Good Name’ should accrue to the Registrant and not to the Registry or Registrar. However, I note Jeff’s request to move discussion of the business models for Geo-Names to WT5, with which I concur. I thought I was responding to Emily’s note of 21 December. Nothing more. CW On 3 Jan 2018, at 02:35, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Michele, Theo, Kavouss, Vanda and Christopher. Seems like we have a cross over of issues here between the overall group and the new Work Track 5. I would encourage overall discussions on business models to stay within this mailing list, but remove any issues on geographic names to Work Track 5 when we get into the substance. Thus, the issue of whether business models of registries in general or within some “categories” of TLDs should be explored here. But whether TLDs that coincide with geographic names should or should not be of a certain business model, should be discussed within Work Track 5. The reason is not to stifle discussion, but I note that not all of the participants of Work Track 5 are in fact participants in this overall group. I want to make sure that all Work Track 5 participants see all discussions that relate to “geographic names” Thanks Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:37 AM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 I’d also be quite concerned about dictating the business models of a registry. Looking at the new TLDs that have launched to date (there are still quite a few that haven’t), the more flexible they are in terms of their business models the better and more sustainable they are. I also wonder why anyone would think that mandating “non-profit” is viable or what that’s even based on. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Date: Monday 1 January 2018 at 21:14 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 I think we are overstepping the scope of the WG here. Is this WG going to decide on business models? If that is the case, I think this WG should inform the GNSO and make sure we are within scope. Thanks, Theo Geurts Theo On 1-1-2018 21:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, First of all Happy new years to all . While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however, this should be further explored and discussed . Regards Kavouss On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Vanda, I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ? Rubens Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> escreveu: Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: +1 BG, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722<tel:+49%2030%2049802722> Fax: +49 30 49802727<tel:+49%2030%2049802727> Mobile: +49 173 2019240<tel:+49%20173%202019240> ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Maxim Alzoba Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Cristopher, I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs. Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities. And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job. In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do). As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse). If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation. Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs). My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones). In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580<tel:+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Emily: 1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based. Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement. 2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying. In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<tel:+31%206%2084507976> <Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

Dear all, I have a few thoughts about categories that might be out there somewhere already, but still, here they are: Possible categories in the next round: 1. The main group – “true” generics – open registries 2. Geographic TLDs – which was a special category in the 2012 * Serving special geographical communities * Specific application requirements (e.g. support/non-objection) * May need a system for post-delegation 3. Brands – already a category in 2012 * Registration restrictions * “Closed” – restricted registrant admission * Limited need for registrar services * May justify lower technical requirements * May justify more limited registrant protections 4. Intergovernmental organizations * Specific application requirements 5. Community registry * Serving special communities * Specific application requirements * Registration restrictions * May be “closed” – restricted registrant admission 6. Closed generics * Registration restrictions * Restricted registrant admission * May have limited need for registrar services 7. Applications from developing countries/underserved regions * May justify lower financial requirements In addition, I would like to point to a document from April 7, 2010, made by the Cross-Community Group on Categorization in the new gTLD Framework, a discussion that took place before the first round was opened for applications. Most of you have probably seen this before, and I am sure it is in the archive somewhere, but it might be new to some and contains some useful information. The document is enclosed. To be sure that all participants in WT5 also see this, I will send the same text to the WT5-list. It seems to be a confusion on where to discuss categories, and they are kind of overlapping as only geonames belong in WT5. Kind regards, Annebeth Annebeth B. Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Julei Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 16:14 To: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Christopher Agreement with whom about what? Which TLD are you referring to that you consider a success? I also don’t understand your point about “rent’ at all. Verisign is anything but a not for profit, but they make the same amount of money per .com sold whether the name is traded on the aftermarket for millions or sold below cost. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Wednesday 3 January 2018 at 15:08 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, KAVOUSS ARASTEH <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Good evening: Regarding the business models for Geo-Names, suffice to say that there are instances in the previous round, which, if repeated for Geo-Names, would aggravate the scope for agreement. Regarding not-for profit, I would recall that one of the most successful new TLDs in recent years operates on a not for profit basis. In my view, the eventual ‘rent’ for a ‘Good Name’ should accrue to the Registrant and not to the Registry or Registrar. However, I note Jeff’s request to move discussion of the business models for Geo-Names to WT5, with which I concur. I thought I was responding to Emily’s note of 21 December. Nothing more. CW On 3 Jan 2018, at 02:35, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Michele, Theo, Kavouss, Vanda and Christopher. Seems like we have a cross over of issues here between the overall group and the new Work Track 5. I would encourage overall discussions on business models to stay within this mailing list, but remove any issues on geographic names to Work Track 5 when we get into the substance. Thus, the issue of whether business models of registries in general or within some “categories” of TLDs should be explored here. But whether TLDs that coincide with geographic names should or should not be of a certain business model, should be discussed within Work Track 5. The reason is not to stifle discussion, but I note that not all of the participants of Work Track 5 are in fact participants in this overall group. I want to make sure that all Work Track 5 participants see all discussions that relate to “geographic names” Thanks Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:37 AM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 I’d also be quite concerned about dictating the business models of a registry. Looking at the new TLDs that have launched to date (there are still quite a few that haven’t), the more flexible they are in terms of their business models the better and more sustainable they are. I also wonder why anyone would think that mandating “non-profit” is viable or what that’s even based on. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Date: Monday 1 January 2018 at 21:14 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 I think we are overstepping the scope of the WG here. Is this WG going to decide on business models? If that is the case, I think this WG should inform the GNSO and make sure we are within scope. Thanks, Theo Geurts Theo On 1-1-2018 21:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, First of all Happy new years to all . While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however, this should be further explored and discussed . Regards Kavouss On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Vanda, I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ? Rubens Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> escreveu: Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: +1 BG, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722<tel:+49%2030%2049802722> Fax: +49 30 49802727<tel:+49%2030%2049802727> Mobile: +49 173 2019240<tel:+49%20173%202019240> ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Maxim Alzoba Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Cristopher, I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs. Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities. And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job. In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do). As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse). If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation. Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs). My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones). In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580<tel:+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Emily: 1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based. Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement. 2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying. In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<tel:+31%206%2084507976> <Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

Dear Annebeth Thank you for circulating this cross community document on categorization, very interesting. I was not previously aware of it (I was not really participating in ICANN in 2010) and I do not recall us having referred to or discussing it within this working group before. I also have not been able to find a reference to it on the ICANN website, although of course the search function can be challenging! Do you know the status of the cross community group and of this document, or can you point us to where to find more information? Are these final recommendations and were they adopted by whoever chartered the cross community group? Or maybe this is a question for Staff? Thanks so much. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: 10 January 2018 13:52 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear all, I have a few thoughts about categories that might be out there somewhere already, but still, here they are: Possible categories in the next round: 1) The main group – “true” generics – open registries 2) Geographic TLDs – which was a special category in the 2012 a. Serving special geographical communities b. Specific application requirements (e.g. support/non-objection) c. May need a system for post-delegation 3) Brands – already a category in 2012 a. Registration restrictions b. “Closed” – restricted registrant admission c. Limited need for registrar services d. May justify lower technical requirements e. May justify more limited registrant protections 4) Intergovernmental organizations a. Specific application requirements 5) Community registry a. Serving special communities b. Specific application requirements c. Registration restrictions d. May be “closed” – restricted registrant admission 6) Closed generics a. Registration restrictions b. Restricted registrant admission c. May have limited need for registrar services 7) Applications from developing countries/underserved regions a. May justify lower financial requirements In addition, I would like to point to a document from April 7, 2010, made by the Cross-Community Group on Categorization in the new gTLD Framework, a discussion that took place before the first round was opened for applications. Most of you have probably seen this before, and I am sure it is in the archive somewhere, but it might be new to some and contains some useful information. The document is enclosed. To be sure that all participants in WT5 also see this, I will send the same text to the WT5-list. It seems to be a confusion on where to discuss categories, and they are kind of overlapping as only geonames belong in WT5. Kind regards, Annebeth Annebeth B. Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Julei Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 16:14 To: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Christopher Agreement with whom about what? Which TLD are you referring to that you consider a success? I also don’t understand your point about “rent’ at all. Verisign is anything but a not for profit, but they make the same amount of money per .com sold whether the name is traded on the aftermarket for millions or sold below cost. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Wednesday 3 January 2018 at 15:08 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>, KAVOUSS ARASTEH <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Good evening: Regarding the business models for Geo-Names, suffice to say that there are instances in the previous round, which, if repeated for Geo-Names, would aggravate the scope for agreement. Regarding not-for profit, I would recall that one of the most successful new TLDs in recent years operates on a not for profit basis. In my view, the eventual ‘rent’ for a ‘Good Name’ should accrue to the Registrant and not to the Registry or Registrar. However, I note Jeff’s request to move discussion of the business models for Geo-Names to WT5, with which I concur. I thought I was responding to Emily’s note of 21 December. Nothing more. CW On 3 Jan 2018, at 02:35, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Michele, Theo, Kavouss, Vanda and Christopher. Seems like we have a cross over of issues here between the overall group and the new Work Track 5. I would encourage overall discussions on business models to stay within this mailing list, but remove any issues on geographic names to Work Track 5 when we get into the substance. Thus, the issue of whether business models of registries in general or within some “categories” of TLDs should be explored here. But whether TLDs that coincide with geographic names should or should not be of a certain business model, should be discussed within Work Track 5. The reason is not to stifle discussion, but I note that not all of the participants of Work Track 5 are in fact participants in this overall group. I want to make sure that all Work Track 5 participants see all discussions that relate to “geographic names” Thanks Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:37 AM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 I’d also be quite concerned about dictating the business models of a registry. Looking at the new TLDs that have launched to date (there are still quite a few that haven’t), the more flexible they are in terms of their business models the better and more sustainable they are. I also wonder why anyone would think that mandating “non-profit” is viable or what that’s even based on. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Date: Monday 1 January 2018 at 21:14 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 I think we are overstepping the scope of the WG here. Is this WG going to decide on business models? If that is the case, I think this WG should inform the GNSO and make sure we are within scope. Thanks, Theo Geurts Theo On 1-1-2018 21:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, First of all Happy new years to all . While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however, this should be further explored and discussed . Regards Kavouss On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Vanda, I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ? Rubens Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> escreveu: Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: +1 BG, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722<tel:+49%2030%2049802722> Fax: +49 30 49802727<tel:+49%2030%2049802727> Mobile: +49 173 2019240<tel:+49%20173%202019240> ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Maxim Alzoba Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Cristopher, I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs. Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities. And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job. In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do). As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse). If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation. Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs). My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones). In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580<tel:+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Emily: 1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based. Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement. 2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying. In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<tel:+31%206%2084507976> <Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

Hi Susan I unfortunately do not know the status of this document. I found it in my archive and thought it could be interesting. However, there might be someone from staff that has been around for long time that might now this. I will try to ask some people and see what we can dig out. Kind regards, Annebeth From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Date: Friday, 12 January 2018 at 19:51 To: "Annebeth B. Lange" <annebeth.lange@norid.no>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Annebeth Thank you for circulating this cross community document on categorization, very interesting. I was not previously aware of it (I was not really participating in ICANN in 2010) and I do not recall us having referred to or discussing it within this working group before. I also have not been able to find a reference to it on the ICANN website, although of course the search function can be challenging! Do you know the status of the cross community group and of this document, or can you point us to where to find more information? Are these final recommendations and were they adopted by whoever chartered the cross community group? Or maybe this is a question for Staff? Thanks so much. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange Sent: 10 January 2018 13:52 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>; lists@christopherwilkinson.eu; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear all, I have a few thoughts about categories that might be out there somewhere already, but still, here they are: Possible categories in the next round: 1. The main group – “true” generics – open registries 2. Geographic TLDs – which was a special category in the 2012 * Serving special geographical communities * Specific application requirements (e.g. support/non-objection) * May need a system for post-delegation 3. Brands – already a category in 2012 * Registration restrictions * “Closed” – restricted registrant admission * Limited need for registrar services * May justify lower technical requirements * May justify more limited registrant protections 4. Intergovernmental organizations * Specific application requirements 5. Community registry * Serving special communities * Specific application requirements * Registration restrictions * May be “closed” – restricted registrant admission 6. Closed generics * Registration restrictions * Restricted registrant admission * May have limited need for registrar services 7. Applications from developing countries/underserved regions * May justify lower financial requirements In addition, I would like to point to a document from April 7, 2010, made by the Cross-Community Group on Categorization in the new gTLD Framework, a discussion that took place before the first round was opened for applications. Most of you have probably seen this before, and I am sure it is in the archive somewhere, but it might be new to some and contains some useful information. The document is enclosed. To be sure that all participants in WT5 also see this, I will send the same text to the WT5-list. It seems to be a confusion on where to discuss categories, and they are kind of overlapping as only geonames belong in WT5. Kind regards, Annebeth Annebeth B. Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Julei Hedlund <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 16:14 To: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Christopher Agreement with whom about what? Which TLD are you referring to that you consider a success? I also don’t understand your point about “rent’ at all. Verisign is anything but a not for profit, but they make the same amount of money per .com sold whether the name is traded on the aftermarket for millions or sold below cost. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Wednesday 3 January 2018 at 15:08 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>, theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>, KAVOUSS ARASTEH <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Good evening: Regarding the business models for Geo-Names, suffice to say that there are instances in the previous round, which, if repeated for Geo-Names, would aggravate the scope for agreement. Regarding not-for profit, I would recall that one of the most successful new TLDs in recent years operates on a not for profit basis. In my view, the eventual ‘rent’ for a ‘Good Name’ should accrue to the Registrant and not to the Registry or Registrar. However, I note Jeff’s request to move discussion of the business models for Geo-Names to WT5, with which I concur. I thought I was responding to Emily’s note of 21 December. Nothing more. CW On 3 Jan 2018, at 02:35, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Michele, Theo, Kavouss, Vanda and Christopher. Seems like we have a cross over of issues here between the overall group and the new Work Track 5. I would encourage overall discussions on business models to stay within this mailing list, but remove any issues on geographic names to Work Track 5 when we get into the substance. Thus, the issue of whether business models of registries in general or within some “categories” of TLDs should be explored here. But whether TLDs that coincide with geographic names should or should not be of a certain business model, should be discussed within Work Track 5. The reason is not to stifle discussion, but I note that not all of the participants of Work Track 5 are in fact participants in this overall group. I want to make sure that all Work Track 5 participants see all discussions that relate to “geographic names” Thanks Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:37 AM To: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 I’d also be quite concerned about dictating the business models of a registry. Looking at the new TLDs that have launched to date (there are still quite a few that haven’t), the more flexible they are in terms of their business models the better and more sustainable they are. I also wonder why anyone would think that mandating “non-profit” is viable or what that’s even based on. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Date: Monday 1 January 2018 at 21:14 To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 I think we are overstepping the scope of the WG here. Is this WG going to decide on business models? If that is the case, I think this WG should inform the GNSO and make sure we are within scope. Thanks, Theo Geurts Theo On 1-1-2018 21:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, First of all Happy new years to all . While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however, this should be further explored and discussed . Regards Kavouss On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Vanda, I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ? Rubens Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> escreveu: Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> wrote: +1 BG, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722<tel:+49%2030%2049802722> Fax: +49 30 49802727<tel:+49%2030%2049802727> Mobile: +49 173 2019240<tel:+49%20173%202019240> ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Maxim Alzoba Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 An: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Cristopher, I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs. Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities. And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected), they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job. In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do). As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it) , and there is no need to make it worse). If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation. Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of those services from the backend providers (RSPs). My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones). In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think that it will help in the next one. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580<tel:+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Emily: 1. Re: Potential TLD types/categories It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based. Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement. 2. Framework of Predictability: I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level. For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research before applying. In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’. On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories. Regards Christopher Wilkinson On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). Your input is encouraged on the following questions: * Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? * If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.). The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following: * What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice? For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017 Dear Working Group members, Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>. Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call. 1. SOI Updates - no updates 2. Work Track Updates - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads. - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections. - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document. - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue. - Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call. - Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference. - There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO. kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views. kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them. kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam kavouss Arasteh: MADAM' Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=> kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise. Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5. Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard. kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand) Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012 Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder. Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that? kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is. Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community. kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community Marc Palau: like .kim Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists.... kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so? avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities? kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains. - Review of attributes for current application types. - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem? - We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway. Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation? Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation. - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes Chat excerpt: Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way? Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word) Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now. - We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation - If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that. -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing) - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach? Chat excerpt: Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing. Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types. Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together. Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy - Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. Chat excerpt: kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate. Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be. - The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13) - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16) - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17) - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. . AOB - none Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<tel:+31%206%2084507976> <Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

Happy new year to everybody and sorry for coming up so late on this thread and comments to the Spreadsheet and other documents attached (4.2.15 Different TLD Types) *SOI*: I'm clearly a Pro-Categories fan*** (but only if categories are defined on a policy-based framework, and not too many please). I clearly see more pros than cons in the spreadsheet attached that Emily sent to us with the first mail, but I still miss a framework to address the overall categories discussion. GeoNames is only one of the categories possible we are discussing, and for a good reason as I will develop below. I would like to add to tomorrows discussion a perspective on categorization that we discussed at length in the CCT-RT. CCT-RT focused, as you know, on the "cost and benefits" of the expansion. In this particular thread, I want to focus on a continuum that should be one possibility to evaluate all different/possible categories, not only GeoNames. (a) *The Background*: In the beginning there was only two buckets: one the one end with the least restrictions open Generics, vs. "strict-unitary*, single-variable**, for profit and non for profit" GeoNames (currently known as ccTLDs) on the other end, some with the highest levels of very mixed restrictions for whatever reasons, but many of those restritions being of economic nature (i.e. high price for the right to use a niche). * strict unitary because it was only one per country or region or island, single variable because it focused on political borders only for its definition, for profit because many countries or private cc TLDs managers sold their initial rights to private operators with a myriad of business models. (b) *The Trade-off*: And we hoped the *Innovation* of the expansion would bring about more competition, more choice and increase trust because new gTLDs would be easier to identify than the previous two large buckets. They would be sitting in the middle ground between the two extreme buckets and everybody would easily recognize their advantages. But it came at a high price: less openness, at least as compared to the initial generics bucket. I think that less openness, as expressed by the number, scope and impact of restrictions (including its administrative costs for evaluation, assignment and management of new ones), is a very worrisome tendency in the Internet as a whole. Ad-hoc restrictions developed outside the normal ICANN policy process are even more worrisome, as the community has had little chance (if at all) to evaluate the restrictions and accept the reduction in openness as a fair price to pay for the innovation of new categories. So I think we have to get very serious about the pros and cons of the categorization trend, which probably start well before the expansion. (c) Categories are here with us and will remain open for discussion in and outside of WT5. The justification, need and urgency for WT5 is my view more the result of the lousy, mixed-up set of non-policy based restrictions looking for profits in the ccTLD world, than a problem derived from the last round. And nobody has called up the Paris convention to support or prohibit such dealings. I personally fully support WT5 because I believe that is more urgent to address the lack of openness in *GeoNames* than in other segments (as .africa and .amazon have shown). But that alone doesn't help us looking forward with all the other (non-geo) categories. (d) I think that the spreadsheet is an important input to start-up and formalize and "Openness" vs. "restrictions" framework to be used in the evaluation, assignment and management of TLD Categories. A "policy based" continuum could/should be based on the "openness", vs. the number and levels of "restrictions" that a TLD may have, just to make any new category possible. The continuum between total openness on the one side, and increasing/creeping restrictions as we move away towards the other end (and please accept my personal appreciation of the ccTLDs restrictions as only one cautionary expression of how bad it can get, worse scenarios are possible). We have to focus on the cost/benefits evaluation of those restrictions (as we tried to do in CCT-RT and develop quite a few recommendations in that direction). So to make my long story short, my reaction to the background supplied by our great staff could be summarized with the following questions to the group: - How is the openness of the DNS going to look after we introduce whole new "sets of restrictions," that define new categories (=bundles of new gTLDs)? - How strong is he basis for those sets of restrictions? Do we need more Paris Conventions for each category, just to keep up with the Jones of the IPC? - Is a future ICANN community consensus for a new category as strong as an International Convention? - Can we measure the cost/benefits of those sets of restrictions effectively (as CCT-RT hopes and recommends)? - Is it worth the policy based effort to define/evaluate those sets of restrictions in parallel to WT 5/ before subsequent rounds? - or are we walking into a mined potato field? _______ *** I have sat trough the GAC discussions on the highly regulated sectors in the last round, the .africa and .amazon Advice discussions, the long but unsuccessful GNSO-ccNSO Working Group on the use of country and territory names, and the extenuating and most abstract of all, first review on Competition, Consumer Choice and Consumer Trust. Base on all of the above I think that the "categories" discussion is very very important and necessary. We should not put categories in the back burner again only because we fail (again) to find a consensus solution for GeoNames. Categories is an overall larger field, of which GeoNames is just one of the hot potatoes sunk in it. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments.
On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=0). Your input is encouraged on the following questions:
- Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the *pros/cons *for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types? - If there are *critical exceptions* needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.).
The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa- Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81tfQ/edit#heading=h.8pcr95hvmmz), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following:
- What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice?
For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> *Date: *Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11 *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
Dear Working Group members,
Please find below notes and action items from the call today. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ SQxyB[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_S...>.
Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments.
Slides are attached for reference.
Kind regards,
Emily
*ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call.*
1. SOI Updates
- no updates
2. Work Track Updates
- Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing
- Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads.
- Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections.
- Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models.
- Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document.
- Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue.
- Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call.
- Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference.
- There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5.
Chat excerpt:
*kavouss Arasteh: *I do not agree with your conclusions
*kavouss Arasteh: *The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO
*kavouss Arasteh: *The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here
*kavouss Arasteh: *There seems to be that our concerns are not heard
*Greg Shatan: *This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact. The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO.
*kavouss Arasteh: *It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue
*Greg Shatan: *That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views.
*kavouss Arasteh: *I am speaking from my own side here
*Robin Gross: *We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them.
*kavouss Arasteh: *WHAT Rules Dear Mdam
*kavouss Arasteh: *MADAM'
*Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/ federal governmental body
*Greg Shatan: *Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group.
*Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *or letter of non objection from the same governmental body
*kavouss Arasteh: *It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names
*Steve Chan: *As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann. org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>
*kavouss Arasteh: *Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries
*Greg Shatan: *Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise.
*Martin Sutton: *@ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5.
*Greg Shatan: *Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard.
*kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject
- The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community
3. Overarching Issue: Application Types
- Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand)
Chat excerpt:
*Kurt Pritz: *I think we might distinquish between the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward:
*Donna Austin, Neustar: *Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012
*Steve Chan: *NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder.
*Heather Forrest: *I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement
*kavouss Arasteh: *There is no clear description on community
*kavouss Arasteh: *If there is what is that?
*kavouss Arasteh: *There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other
*Kurt Pritz: *My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter " categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy
- Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names
- On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions.
Chat excerpt:
*kavouss Arasteh: *Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i
*Jim Prendergast: *While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is.
*Robin Gross: *I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community.
*kavouss Arasteh: *Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically
*Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *AGB might change as result f some PDP work
*Marc Palau: *What about family names? that's not an strict community
*Marc Palau: *like .kim
*Steve Chan: *@Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP.
*Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *it might depend on wealth of the family
*Greg Shatan: *@Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists....
*kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so?
*avri doria: *Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities?
*kavouss Arasteh: *We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions
*Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ): *I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities
*kavouss Arasteh: *As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument
- Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest.
- There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities.
- If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains.
- Review of attributes for current application types.
- Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem?
- We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook
- .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway.
Chat excerpt:
*Kurt Pritz: *If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these
*Greg Shatan: *@Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation?
*Greg Shatan: *We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation.
- . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes
Chat excerpt:
*Kurt Pritz: *@ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way?
*Kurt Pritz: *I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models
*Kurt Pritz: *I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word)
*Martin Sutton: *Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed
*Christopher Wilkinson: *@AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve
- It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now.
- We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories.
- The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation
- If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that.
-Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing)
- Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach?
Chat excerpt:
*Robin Gross: *4 seems to lump two different groups together. Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing.
*Steve Chan: *@Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types.
*Robin Gross: *Thanks, Steve. I think we wouldn't want to lump them together.
*Kurt Pritz: *With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy
- Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate.
Chat excerpt:
*kavouss Arasteh: *I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names
*kavouss Arasteh: *Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed?
*Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance.
*Annebeth Lange,WT5: *The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a " true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved.
*Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate.
*Annebeth Lange,WT5: **Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately.
*Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths.
- One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be.
- The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization
- Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13)
- Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16)
- Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17)
- Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/ cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types
- More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework.
. AOB
- none
*Emily Barabas *| Senior Policy Specialist
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 <+31%206%2084507976>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
participants (14)
-
Annebeth Lange
-
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
-
Emily Barabas
-
Jeff Neuman
-
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH
-
Kavouss Arasteh
-
lists@christopherwilkinson.eu
-
Maxim Alzoba
-
Michele Neylon - Blacknight
-
Rob Hall
-
Rubens Kuhl
-
Susan Payne
-
theo geurts
-
Vanda Scartezini