Regarding the question for discussion in the next call that I raised at the end of today’s call, here is Question 23 from the 2012 application (emphasis mine). 23. Provide name and full description of all the Registry Services to be provided. Descriptions should include both technical and business components of each proposed service, and address any potential security or stability concerns. The following registry services are customary services offered by a registry operator: A. Receipt of data from registrars concerning registration of domain names and name servers. B. Dissemination of TLD zone files. C. Dissemination of contact or other information concerning domain name registrations (e.g., port-43 WHOIS, Web- based Whois, RESTful Whois service). D. Internationalized Domain Names, where offered. E. DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The applicant must describe whether any of these registry services are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD. Additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described. Work Track 4 is generally recommending a list of “pre-approved” or “standard” services. In my redline comments on the draft Initial Report sent to the list, I asked that the active Work Track 4 Discussion on the question of whether or not to require disclosure of new services at the time of application be addressed in the section on drawbacks and benefits as follows: Requiring disclosure of new services in the application phase (as was done in 2012) or changing the AGB to provide that new services need not be disclosed, but can be added via the RSEP process after contract award. The advantages of disclosure are public knowledge of the services at the time of application. This might also be a disadvantage from the registry applicant point of view but will preserve the public interest in possible objections. Registry applicants may not be awarded contracts as quickly since evaluation may take longer, but evaluation would perhaps be more thorough and might give the opportunity for the Community to provide comments on the proposed services. The draft Initial Report states that “some members think disclosure should be compulsory” while making no reference to Question 23 as it now stands. The draft report also says that Work Track 4 has proposed language stating as follows: “Applicants will be allowed but not required to specify additional registry services”. (Additional meaning additional to the list of pre-approved services.” I personally don’t recall any review of this proposed language with the Work Track. In fact there were three different models being proposed and discussed in the Work Track. This is noted in the email I sent to the list last Friday where I forwarded documentation of the lively discussion in Work Track 4 on this issue which is not reflected in the draft Initial Report. The notes were from the mp3 of November 30 in which Leadership acknowledged this was an issue still to be defined. The issue was raised again on the list on January 17 and February 28. Excerpt follows (now with red emphasis) . “ Issue Still to be Defined – whether a new gTLD applicant should or should not be required to disclose planned new services at the time of application. This is an important question for public comment in that the current policy requires such disclosure where as several in the group commented that they disfavor public disclosure of new services and favor the RSEP process. This also relates to Question 18 of the application. Three straw models were proposed and discussed. Friendly amendments were offered, but no final recommended model was adopted by the group. Will all three models go out for public comment?” Thus, the Initial Report should be revised to accurately reflect the discussion in Work Track 4. Various other points relevant points are raised in the attached redline beginning on page 36 and continuing to the end of Section 1.7 Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D3F75D.BB0FCB30] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 1:01 PM To: 'Steve Chan'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: 'Jeff Neuman'; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC Attached are my redline comments to the draft of Section 1.7. Most of the redlines begin on page 38. These are consistent with the e-mail sent last Friday. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3F74D.1D9A72C0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 9:05 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Tuesday 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>) in advance of the meeting. * Section 1.7 (Reserved Names; Registrant Protections; Closed Generics; String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) 4. AOB For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released: 1.2: Overarching Issues 1.4: Pre-Launch Activities 1.5: Application Submission 1.6: Application Processing 1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria 1.10: Contracting 1.11: Pre-Delegation 1.12: Post-Delegation Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve Steven Chan
 Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Rubens, I don't think the transcript from the San Juan meeting supports the notion that the Work Track agreed on the idea that new services were not required to be disclosed at the time of application. I paste two excerpts below. More importantly, I think the procedural point is that there is no "consensus call" on this draft Initial Report so minority views should be aired and it's clear there was a discussion of the trade-offs - even in San Juan. (In addition to my numerous comments and emails on the topic.) The current draft of the Initial Report does not highlight those trade-offs or request public comment on this specific issue of whether services known at the time of application need to be described. Again, there are pros and cons to this approach. I look forward to discussing this further in today's call. (I do not and have never disagreed with the idea of a list of commonly requested and pre-approved services.) Anne [cid:image001.png@01D3FBF9.45B7AC90] And from page 28 of the transcript: [cid:image004.png@01D3FBF9.B64B1A00] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3FBF9.B68E6490] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:59 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 May 2018 at 20:00 UTC Importance: High Thus, the Initial Report should be revised to accurately reflect the discussion in Work Track 4. Various other points relevant points are raised in the attached redline beginning on page 36 and continuing to the end of Section 1.7 Anne, Your recollection doesn't seem to include the face-to-face session in San Juan, when the topic of registry services was discussed and a replacement model has been introduced. You can see the transcript here, starting page 19: https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/169219/1520870375.pdf?1520870375 The Adobe Connect recording is still unavailable, but the audio starts at 41:00 into the recording: http://audio.icann.org/meetings/sju61/sju61-OPEN-2018-03-10-T1620-104abc-Ton... I don't remember any interventions from you during the session. Rubens ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.