Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 03 October 2016 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter: Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw Michelle DeSmyter: Member page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw Carlos Raul Gutierrez: please mute the mics Jeff Neuman: we will kick off in a few minutes Carlos Raul Gutierrez: CLO: the new Room has not recognized you VIP status yet........ Carlos Raul Gutierrez: :) Carlos Raul Gutierrez: yes Carlos Raul Gutierrez: echo is clear and loud Jeff Neuman: I am waiting for an operator at the moment Michelle DeSmyter: thanks Jeff - I just gave them the heads up also Karen Day: terrible echo on staff Phil Buckingham: +++++1 Kavouss and all other CCWG participants jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): we are wildly in agreement :-) Steve Coates: I have an updated SOI - https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stephen+Jadie+Coates+SOI Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes doing work tht wuld be good kavouss arasteh: Secretariat, kavouss arasteh: Pls correct I did refer to CWG AND NOT CCWG avri: Yes CCWG goes on and one Sara Bockey: CCT avri: ... and on Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): So true Avri :-) Mary Wong: 13 October Mary Wong: (next Council meeting) Mary Wong: @Jeff, that is corrrect. Philip Corwin: That is correct, Jeff. Council established a small subgroup of which I am one member. Steve Chan: @ Carlos, full dosclosure: Emily prepared it. Philip Corwin: As is Carlos Steve Chan: https://community.icann.org/x/owu4Aw Donna Austin: I think its just a compilation Mary Wong: Synthesize, is the word used during the Council meeting. Steve Chan: You can find all responses that the GNSO Council received, plus the draft staff/compilation summary. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: exactly Rubens Kuhl: Draft is the operative word here... Carlos Raul Gutierrez: I recommend looking at staffs compilation Carlos Raul Gutierrez: o comments Philip Corwin: We shall try to synthesize some widely divergent views, but it shall be a challenge. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: including the ones by this PDPs leaderhsip Carlos Raul Gutierrez: @Phil just emphasize divergence Emily Barabas: Avri -- we finished 2a in the previous call, so we still need to cover 2b today Jeff Neuman: Together makes sense Donna Austin: I think that's critical to understand. What's the consequence of defining categories. Jeff Neuman: There was an IGO category as well Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, it applied to both governmental and intergovernmental organizations. As long as it's governmental, they would have a different contract. Jeff Neuman: right....so in the last round we had generic, geographic, brand, community, governmental Rubens Kuhl: What had an specific IGO angle were LROs (Legal Right Objections), where IGOs got automatic eligibility for filing a objection when though not having a trademark Rubens Kuhl: And the governmental could be generic, geographic, brand or exclusive use... it's a matrix. Rubens Kuhl: (even though not having a TM) kavouss arasteh: Jeff+1 jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I'm losing time and again my connection jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): But just to recall the GAC input where the usefulness of categories was stressed kavouss arasteh: Jorge1+1 Martin Sutton: With the process and agreement modeled around traditional open registry, selling domains, this causes barriers to new entrants. It also causes extreme issues in the post-application process for those that have ventured forth. Rubens Kuhl: Categories and multiple agreements are indeed connected. Jeff Neuman: Its also connected to application criteria jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): perhaps we should look at the different elements a category may mean: 1) a specific purpose; 2) a set of specific requirements for the applicant; 3) specific procedures to go through; 4) specific conditions in the registry agreement; etc. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Jeff Neuman: And connected to objections, etc. Jeff Neuman: That is why it is an overarching issue :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Donna Austin: geographic had a specific definitiation in the guidebook Jeff Neuman: @Donna - that definition came after it was decided to create that category jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @staff: my audio is so bad that I cannot intervene, but please take up my points in the notes - thanks! Jeff Neuman: which is sort of what we are doing now. Should we formally recognize other categories Rubens Kuhl: One curious thing is that Geographic contracts have not carried the part of terms and conditions where ICANN was allowed to redelegate the contract due to opposition from the government that authorized it at application time. Rubens Kuhl: So it's yet to be seen what happens in a Geo TLD redelegation. Phil Buckingham: dont think we should categorise for profit and not for profit . this distinction should be dealt thro/ in the financial model / evaluation /application / capability tests and fee charged Martin Sutton: The latest round experiences should be used to improve the process and encourage competition. Lessons learnt would indicate that ignoring some of the complex issues could continue to create more protracted problems post application. Steve Chan: @Jorge, we will make sure your comment is raised jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @Steve: thanks! vanda: makes sense Avri. Rubens Kuhl: Or even if those PICs actually address GAC advice or not... Donna Austin: @Rubens, and what if they don't? Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, we either decide that GAC Policy Advice is not to be accepted, and maintain status quo, or decide to accept that advice, and make the changes required to actually fulfil that advice. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Tom e need ot address Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): to address Rubens Kuhl: PICs were forced down people's throats. Phil Buckingham: @ Tom PICs currently in WT2 Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): @Phil Indeed, thanks. kavouss arasteh: We certauinly need to maintain the notion of category but not having an extended list of categories kavouss arasteh: Ingac terms, we have highly sensitive and sensitive strings which we need to maintain the bnotion of category Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Avri Rubens Kuhl: Category, type, group, class... pick a word on move on. Donna Austin: Isn't that the PIC DDDRP? Rubens Kuhl: There is the PIC DRP and there is the PDDRP. Rubens Kuhl: PDDRP is oriented towards TM RPMs, PIC DRP is generic of PICs. Jeff Neuman: @Avri - Should get Becky Burr's view of PICs in relation to the Bylaws as she definately addressed them Donna Austin: and the PIC DRP is being discussed by the RPM WG isn't it> Susan Payne: hi donna, no, RPMs are dealing with PDDRP but not PICDRP Donna Austin: thanks Susan Steve Chan: @Donna, this WG will also cover RRDRP Donna Austin: the validation is more a business model decision rather than a category, or is it? Jeff Neuman: @Donna - perhaps Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Business model decision, in our view. Jeff Neuman: BUT, we could discuss whether they should have preference over non-validated in contention Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): Just to add on PICs, it would be useful to check what the CCT Review Team has looked at in terms of consumer protection/safeguards. Phil Buckingham: + 1 Donna + Kristina Jeff Neuman: Sort of like community Gg Levine (NABP): Any thoughts on what if an applicant fits into more than one category? Donna Austin: 7 it's a smaller number jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, that depends if such classification gets any kind of priority, like community TLDs. If it doesn't translate into different agreement or different contention set resolution, that it's definitely not to be looked at. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references? Donna Austin: @ Rubens and its a highly regulated string Philip Corwin: Confirming that RPM WG is only looking at PDDRP, not PICDRD Donna Austin: @Kristina, defining the each category will be the challenge jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): and defining what the effect of being categorized... Karen Day: Agree start to look at 10 Christa Taylor: 10 and moving downwards makes the most sense Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): May as well Martin Sutton: Agree start with 10 then remove if necessary Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @ Donna: That's my point. But I don't see the value in using each category as a framework if we can't define them in a way that is clear, certain, and predictable Rubens Kuhl: HIghly regulated gets different agreement, like what happened in 2012 having different PICs than other TLDs... possibly. Kevin Kreuser: agree w/ Kristina Donna Austin: I agree with you Kristina. Berry Cobb: The group may wish to consider assigning "meta-tags" to strings as opposed to calling them categories. As Kristina points out it may be difficult to properly defined a category and even more difficult to assing a string to one category especially since it could be assigned to more than one. For example a generic string might also be a sensitive string or perhaps a closed TLD. This aligns with the frameworking of building a matrix. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Berry Karen Day: Wouldn't step 1 of the Matrix by neccesity be the definition? Rubens Kuhl: Berry, attributes would be a word for it, perhaps ? Rubens Kuhl: Non-mutually exclusive comes to mind in such definitions. Phil Buckingham: so the questions asked on application are by each TLDs "attributes " ? kavouss arasteh: The use of or reference to category seems fundamental jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): some "categories" may indeed add up: a string could be a generic term, that describes a highly regulated industry and be presented as a community string... Rubens Kuhl: A TLD can be governmental, geographic and community, like .barcelona. Or non-governmental, geographic and community like .osaka, or governmental and geographic but not community like .rio. Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Like the "tags" idea. Makes the new gTLD searchable jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): right - there may be multiple combinations... Carlos Raul Gutierrez: multiple tags jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): yes vanda: yes clear kavouss arasteh: Jorge, yes to what ? to multiple tag? kavouss arasteh: yes, tks jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated... vanda: from mround y study from lac region with mostly brands interested in next round i do believe it will be positive a separate Rubens Kuhl: Most strings can have multiple meanings like brand and generic. Apple is both a fruit and a computer company... any limitated application on one type excludes the other types. Martin Sutton: Given the unpredictable length of time before new applications may be opened, it could be an opportunity for ICANN to consider maintaining some momentum by looking at low-risk options, by opening up applications to those with less contention experienced in 2012 round, such as brands. Martin Sutton: It would be important to have a well-defined category. Donna Austin: sorry Avri, we seem to have some time delay Donna Austin: @Martin, brands needs to be defined Rubens Kuhl: To quote an example of the type of gaming that can occur, the dubious trademarks registered for the .eu sunrise is still a good example. Susan Payne: Will the WTs also have sessions? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Staff: Does this morning's announcement about the damaged equipment affect the abilty of folks to participate remotely (not in hubs)? Phil Buckingham: Isnt there a problem with RP ? Fire on ship Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): thank you. Rubens Kuhl: @Kristina: more of a guess, but it looks to affect more the Public Forum type of activity. Mary Wong: From what we hear, it seems tht remote participation via Adobe Connect should not be affected. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks Everyone...bye for now Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Thanks! Christa Taylor: Thank-you! Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Thank you everyone. Susan Payne: bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): talk soon jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): thanks to all and bye! Alexander Schubert: bye Phil Buckingham: Thanks Avri , Jeff