[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Recordings, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 ­String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC

[Julie Bisland]

Dear All,



Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes.



Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4e3e3mssdk/<https://participate.icann.org/p4e3e3mssdk/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ba32205baa7d5c6f9f2d022df27c77f6f8ad33f70eee561c5b2448cd9588aee0>



The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:  http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar



** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **



Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3



Agenda Wiki page:   https://community.icann.org/x/roJEB



Thank you.

Kind regards,



Julie

-------------------------------

Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 October 2017

  Julie Bisland:Welcome to the The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC

  Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_roJEB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=rMsh9VZz_J48OCp3snSsQytQ4EeEh7b1xMRW7hTnRh4&s=Yicn11YVUcyISXpQ0CBA7Wa4ZzWO5itTFyQuMvnff80&e=

  jeff neuman:FYI - for the next 15 mins or so I will not be on adobe, but will be listening on the phone

  Karen Day:Hi all

  Julie Bisland:thanks Jeff, I've noted this on Adobe

  Julie Bisland:Avri, we can't hear you

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bad audio

  Julie Bisland:Still nothing Avri

  Julie Bisland:she's trying again to get audio

  Karen Day:As well as accountability mechinisms no?

  avri doria:after 3 tries back,

  avri doria:i think

  Jim Prendergast:is there a specific day you are looking at?

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Maybe those are good topics for Face to Face

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:THanks Karen

  Jim Prendergast:see i t in notes

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Be there or be square

  avri doria:24th people are travelling

  Julie Bisland:Donna, no audio

  Jim Prendergast:so the plenary on 10/23 will be cancelled?

  Donna Austin, Neustar:ok, thanks Karen

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:I think Donna has a pretty good idea about reversing the order here and preparing on GAC topics.

  Steve Chan:Note, the meeting with the GAC is only 30 minutes.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:makes sense

  Julie Bisland:Anne: no audio

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:audio?

  Steve Chan:After the 30 minute GAC meeting with WT1 and WT3, the GAC will be talking amongst themselves, though it's an open session for anyone to attend.

  Donna Austin, Neustar:Given Jeff's examples, I think opening this up will create more problems then its worth.

  Phil Buckingham:That would be a great idea , Anne

  Jim Prendergast:if as Jeff said it can be gamed too easily - I think we need to be very very cautious.

  Roger Carney:@jeff @Jim, talking that one step further, I am not sure the benefits outwiegh the risks/costs

  Jim Prendergast:they way round 1 went - I would have loved to applied for a bunch of contended tlds.  Would have made huge $$$ in private auctions.

  jeff neuman:@Jim - I know, but in the brands situation I can see areas where changing a string should be allowed

  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Roger, I don't think any benefit would outweigh the risk/cost.

  jeff neuman:Lets say a string is found to be "geographic" when no one thought it would be and the GAC objected.  I think rather than the Board refusing to delegate anything, perhaps an alternative could be selected

  Roger Carney:@Donna :)

  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Roger, I meant to say I agree with you.

  Alan Greenberg:Can I please be unmuted?

  jeff neuman:I think we should separate String Similarity from String contention

  jeff neuman:They are 2 different things

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Don't think you should be able to opt out of one string contention set into another.  It would have to be an option to go to a clear string that was contemplated by your initial application as a fallback.

  jeff neuman:The first part is String Similarity (a check against existing strings)

  jeff neuman:if it is judged to be too similar to an existing string, the application dies

  Phil Buckingham:Anne , I think we could apply that ( a second choice )  to a closed brand , but would be more difficult , in terms  of potential gaming for an open TLD

  jeff neuman:I am talking about at this stage that a string should be allowed to be changed as opposed to at the "Contention phase"

  Alan Greenberg:I am muted and cannot unmute myself.

  Jon Nevett:what if more than one party wanted to swtich to the same alternative TLD?  Would that create another contention set?

  Steve Chan:Sorry Alan, just saw your note.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Rules:  1.  you have to specify your alternates up front - max 4 total.  You cannot opt into another contention set.  (3) There should still be a reasonable relationship between the TLD name and the stated Question 18 purpose of the TLD.

  avri doria:Jon, I think they would need to agree among themselves with a rule of  no new contention produced.

  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jon, I think it would create another contention set.

  Alan Greenberg:@Jeff, I did understand and I was (I thought) agreeing with you.

  jeff neuman:@Alan - yes....i was referring to some others

  jeff neuman:Does anyone agree with my example?  I am not sure how that could be gamed

  jeff neuman:I am not sure people are happy...but not sure what the alternatives are

  Jamie Baxter | dotgay:the notion .. yes, the implementation .. no

  Jim Prendergast:arent we still waiting for CPE review by board?

  Donna Austin, Neustar:yes we are Jim

  Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Jim .. yes. we are now a year into the CPE investigation with no clear sight on a result

  avri doria:i think they may provide a form of gaming.

  avri doria:i mean private auctions - personal view

  jeff neuman:how do we prevent private auctions?

  avri doria:hard to prevent

  Jon Nevett:private auctions is just one form of contention resolution -- policy question is whether we should support private resolution or not.

  Jim Prendergast:you could allow for other resolutions - forming JVs wa prohibited last round

  Phil Buckingham:exactly Jeff . so do we make ALL  auctions public ?  But what happens to the proceeds in that case ?

  jeff neuman:Are there ideas on how we could stop private contention resolution

  avri doria:never understood the preventon of partnerships and joint ventures

  jeff neuman:The only other option for contention resolution is subjective evaluation.....

  avri doria:as a contention resolution mechansim

  Jon Nevett:JVs were permitted by the way -- just couldn't replace an applicant with a JV

  jeff neuman:@Jon - right....hence why you all created so many new entities

  Jon Nevett:"It is understood that applicants may seek to establish joint ventures in their efforts to resolve string contention"

  Donna Austin, Neustar:Was there any context to the GAC input? I think the comments are expressly related to IDN ccTLD Policy. What is the EPSRP?

  Steve Chan: Extended Process Similarity Review Panel, though I can't speak to the substance of the process.

  jeff neuman:yes

  Steve Chan:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_epsrp-2Dreports-2D2014-2D10-2D14-2Den&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=rMsh9VZz_J48OCp3snSsQytQ4EeEh7b1xMRW7hTnRh4&s=u69-CaA3o7U27OTNlK2jKzyuBMwbYRNfrQMYxKZrDnM&e=

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thought so Donna

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:there is some supposed confusability with some scripts lettering. yes Jeff

  jeff neuman:it looked like .br not be

  jeff neuman:the cyrillic version of Bulgaria two characters

  Alan Greenberg:Yes, it was .br

  jeff neuman:I thought it looked more like 6r

  Emily Barabas:@Donna, the full text of the GAC comment is here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachments/20170521/3b44e88f/SubProCC2DraftGACResponse22May2017.pdf

  jeff neuman:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_epsrp-2Dbulgaria-2D30sep14-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=rMsh9VZz_J48OCp3snSsQytQ4EeEh7b1xMRW7hTnRh4&s=0iSK2gTcvtWwuHRnTQEKlR-M8n8ZpJtDjXp1GOikE5E&e=

  Emily Barabas:Unfortunately, no additional context is provided in the document related to this comment

  Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Emily

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed Alan

  Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Alan, so its a decision relating to confusability that may be relevant/applicable to our discussions.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:good progress..  thanks everyone 👋 bye for now...

  avri doria:bye



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20171010/5f561494/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attendance TRACK 3 Oct 10.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 330599 bytes
Desc: Attendance TRACK 3 Oct 10.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20171010/5f561494/AttendanceTRACK3Oct10-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Track 3 -  10 Oct 2017.mp3
Type: audio/mpeg
Size: 6921404 bytes
Desc: Track 3 -  10 Oct 2017.mp3
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20171010/5f561494/Track3-10Oct2017-0001.mp3>