<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Microsoft Theme 2.00" content="Concrete 111">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
margin-top:12.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:16.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;
font-weight:normal;}
h3
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:13.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;
font-weight:normal;}
h4
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4 Char";
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:14.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;
font-weight:normal;}
h5
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 5 Char";
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:13.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;
font-weight:normal;}
h6
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 6 Char";
margin-top:2.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;
font-weight:normal;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#00B013;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#00870F;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
color:#176050;}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;
font-weight:bold;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;}
span.Heading4Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 4 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 4";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;}
span.Heading5Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 5 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 5";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;}
span.Heading6Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 6 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 6";
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:#176050;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1944268694;
mso-list-template-ids:-1475976512;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" background="cid:image001.gif@01D64FAA.F9403E60" lang="EN-US" link="#00B013" vlink="#00870F">
<img src="cid:image001.gif@01D64FAA.F9403E60" v:src="cid:image001.gif@01D64FAA.F9403E60" v:shapes="_x0000_Mail" width="0" height="0" class="shape" style="display:none;width:0;height:0"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<v:background id="_x0000_s1025" o:bwmode="white" o:targetscreensize="1024,768">
<v:fill src="cid:image001.gif@01D64FAA.F9403E60" o:title="background_concrete" type="frame" />
</v:background></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_GoBack"></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Dear NCAP – DG Members:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Per our call today, see the Sub Pro draft Final Report text below. This text has been through our “can’t live with” exercise and should now be final for purposes of being issued for public comment. In forwarding
this text, I am not at all trying to dictate any terms of the NCAP - DG scope or timing of its work – rather just looking to cooperate as suggested by the Board in its public comment on the Sub Pro Initial Report.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Please note that the Sub Pro WG report says that unless and until the ICANN Board adopts a new framework for name collision risk assessment and mitigation, controlled interruption should apply as it did in
the 2012 round. That language is highlighted below. (This is Leadership’s assessment of the majority view.) There is also some discussion/reference to the NCAP work and expression of concern that this work will not be ready in time for the next round.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">As I understand our Sub Pro timeline, this draft Final Report is likely to go out for public comment later this month.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">From the Sub Pro Draft Final Report:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">2.7.8 Name Collisions</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines</span></b><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Affirmation xx (Rationale 1)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: The Working Group affirms Recommendation 4 of
the 2007 policy, which states: “Strings must not cause any technical instability.”</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Recommendation xx (Rationale 2)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: ICANN must have ready prior to the opening
of the Application Submission Period a mechanism to evaluate the risk of name collisions in the New gTLD evaluation process as well as during the transition to delegation phase. </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">Affirmation xx (Rationale 3)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">:
The Working Group affirms continued use of the New gTLD Collision Occurrence Management framework unless and until the ICANN Board adopts a new mitigation framework. This includes not changing the controlled interruption duration and the required readiness
for human-life threatening conditions for currently delegated gTLDs and future new gTLDs.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:40.5pt"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 4)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: ICANN
should develop a mechanism or test to determine the name collision risk for any given string. The Working Group suggests putting them into three categories: high risk, aggravated risk, and low risk. High-risk strings should not be allowed to be applied for
(if possible) or delegated, and aggravated risk strings should require the inclusion of a specific name collision mitigation framework.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:40.5pt"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Implementation Guidance (Rationale 5)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: To the extent
possible, ICANN should seek to identify high-risk strings in advance of opening the Application Submission Period, which should constitute a “Do Not Apply” list. ICANN should also seek to identify aggravated risk strings in advance
<span style="background:white">of the next application window opening </span>and whether it would, which would be expected to require a specific name collision mitigation framework. However, all applied-for strings should be subject to a DNS Stability evaluation
to determine whether they represent a high, aggravated, or low risk of name collision.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:40.5pt"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">[Implementation Guidance (Rationale 5)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">:
To the extent possible, all applied-for strings should be subject to a DNS Stability evaluation to determine whether they represent a high, aggravated, or low risk of name collision risk.]</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:40.5pt"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 4)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">:
<span style="background:white">The ICANN community should develop name collision risk criteria and a test to provide information to an applicant for any given string after the application window closes so that the applicant can determine if they should move
forward with evaluation.</span></span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:40.5pt"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 6)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: If controlled
interruption (CI) for a specific label (usually a 2nd-level domain) is found to cause disruption, ICANN may decide to allow CI to be disabled for that label while the disruption is fixed, provided that the minimum CI period is still applied to that label.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">b. Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines</span></b><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Rationale for Affirmation xx (Rationale 1)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: In its deliberations the Working
Group agreed that the policy goal continues to be what it was in 2007, which is that any string must not cause any technical instability. The Working Group thinks that still remains an appropriate objective, and therefore affirms Recommendation 4 from the
2007 policy.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Rationale for Recommendation xx (Rationale 2)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: The Working Group agreed that
the recommendation that ICANN must include a mechanism to evaluate the risk of name collisions in the TLD evaluation process as well during the transition to delegation phase is still relevant, with the addition of the requirement for such a mechanism to be
ready prior to the next application period. The Working Group agreed that the requirement for a mechanism would promote predictability for applicants and other parties. In response to concerns raised in comments, the Working Group agreed that it did not have
to recommend what the mechanism is. </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Rationale for Affirmation xx (Rationale 3)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: In its deliberations the Working
Group noted that while there was some support for some aspects of a new mitigation strategy relating to evaluation of high and aggravated-risk strings, and disabling CI, there was considerable disagreement concerning the form of a new mitigation framework.
The Working Group noted that in its Final Report, JAS Global Advisors does believe that the previous mitigation measures have worked. The Working Group noted also that no data that has been presented has shown that the previous mitigation measures haven’t
worked. The Working Group acknowledged that there are a number of groups that think that the launch of the next round should be dependent on the outcome of the NCAP studies, while noting that at the time of deliberation it was unclear whether any of the NCAP
studies would be completed by the time subsequent gTLDs are ready to launch.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">With respect to the NCAP, the Working Group reviewed the Board resolution on its creation as well as in directing ICANN org to initiate Study 1. The Working Group
agreed that it is up to the ICANN community and ICANN Board of Directors to determine any dependencies between the NCAP and the next round of new gTLD applications. To gain some clarification from the ICANN Board concerning possible dependencies with the ongoing
work of the NCAP, the GNSO Council sent a letter on 20 September 2019 requesting guidance from the ICANN Board of Directors concerning its views related to “dependencies, if any, between the NCAP and the ongoing policy work of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
PDP.” In its response on 1 November 2019 Cherine Chalaby, then Chairman of the ICANN Board, noted that the “Board has not sought to establish a new dependency on completion of the PDP work based on commissioning NCAP Study 1”, which had not yet started at
that time, but that “upon completion of Study 1, the Board can determine in consultation with the community whether additional NCAP work is necessary and, if so, which elements should be a dependency for any of the other future milestones noted in your letter.”
At the time of the Working Group deliberations on the public comments the GNSO Council had not yet sent its letter to the ICANN Board, but the Working Group agreed that it needed to plan for a circumstance where the NCAP work is either not completed or they
choose not to go on with Study 2 or 3, or there are no new recommendations coming out of Study 1.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">The Working Group notes that ICANN org, in cooperation with the NCAP Discussion Group, has since completed its Study 1, leveraging an outside consultant. The consultant
who produced the Study 1 report made the following draft conclusions relating to Studies 2 and 3: “Regarding Study 2 analyzing datasets is unlikely to identify significant root causes for name collisions that have not already been identified. New causes for
name collisions are far more likely to be found by investigating TLD candidates for potential delegation on a case by case basis. Regarding Study 3, the review of prior work has not identified any new mitigation strategies for name collisions to be tested.
Also, controlled interruption has already proven an effective mitigation strategy. Without a compelling new mitigation strategy to consider, Study 3 does not seem to be needed at this time.
<span style="background:white">All of that being said, this does not mean further study should not be conducted into name collision risks and the feasibility of potentially delegating additional domains that are likely to cause name collisions. Most notably,
the Study 3 question of how to mitigate name collisions for potential delegation of the corp, home, and mail TLDs is still unresolved. However, the proposals for Studies 2 and 3, which were developed years ago, do not seem to be effective ways of achieving
the intended goals.</span>” </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Given that the Working Group did not agree on a new mitigation framework,
<span style="background:white">the Working Group affirms continued use of the New gTLD Collision Occurrence Management framework unless and until the ICANN Board adopts a new mitigation framework.</span></span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Rationale for Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 4)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: The Working Group
agreed that ICANN should develop a mechanism or test to determine the name collision risk for any given string, putting them into three baskets: high risk, aggravated risk, and low risk. High-risk strings should not be allowed to be applied for (if possible)
or delegated, and aggravated risk strings should require the inclusion of a specific name collision mitigation framework. Although the Working Group noted questions concerning the exact measurements that will place the TLD in a risk category, the data used
to evaluate the risk, the frequency of risk assessments, and gaming via superfluous DNS requests it did not see the need to formulate guidance to address these concerns at this time. However, the Working Group reviewed the SSAC’s advice in SAC090 and agreed
that Recommendation 2, part 3 may provide guidance concerning the development of a risk mechanism or test.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">The Working Group acknowledges that the Name Collision Analysis Project work in relation to Board Resolutions 2017.11.02.29 - 2017.11.02.31 is ongoing
and that the Board advised the Working Group in public comment on the Subsequent Procedures Initial Report to work together with the NCAP Discussion Group on the topic of name collisions. Accordingly, some Subsequent Procedures Working Group members are participating
in the NCAP.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Rationale for Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 5)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: The Working Group
agreed that to the extent possible, ICANN should seek to identify high-risk strings in advance of opening the application submission period, which should constitute a “Do Not Apply” list. ICANN should also seek to identify aggravated strings in advance
<span style="background:white">of the next application window opening </span>and whether it would, which would be expected to require a specific name collision mitigation framework. However, to the extent possible, all applied-for strings should be subject
to a DNS Stability evaluation to determine whether they represent a high, aggravated, or low risk of name collision. The Working Group’s justification for including this Implementation Guidance is that high-risk strings are likely to cause technical instability
by definition, so these should not be able to be delegated. In addition, the Working Group agreed that identifying high-risk and aggravated-risk strings early in the process would promote predictability for applicants and other parties to the extent possible. </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Rationale for Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 4)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: The Working Group
agreed that <span style="background:white">the ICANN community should develop name collision risk criteria and a test to provide information to an applicant for any given string after the application window closes so that the applicant can determine if they
should move forward with evaluation. </span>The Working Group reviewed the SSAC’s advice in SAC090 and agreed that Recommendation 2, part 3 may provide guidance concerning the development of criteria and a test.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">The Working Group acknowledges that the Name Collision Analysis Project work in relation to Board Resolutions 2017.11.02.29 - 2017.11.02.31 is ongoing
and that the Board advised the Working Group in public comment on the Subsequent Procedures Initial Report to work together with the NCAP Discussion Group on the topic of name collisions. Accordingly, some Subsequent Procedures Working Group members are participating
in the NCAP.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Rationale for Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 6)</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: The Working Group
agreed that if CI for a specific label is found to cause disruption, ICANN may decide to disable CI for that label while the disruption is fixed, provided that the minimum CI period is still applied to that string. The Working Group noted that this recommendation
is one on which the Working Group’s Work Track 4 reached consensus. The Working Group agreed that there was support to include this recommendation as Implementation Guidance.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.</span></b><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">In its deliberations, the Working Group discussed those comments to the Initial Report, including from the ALAC, that said that the NCAP work should be completed
before any new round begins. Subsequent to those deliberations and to gain some clarification from the ICANN Board concerning possible dependencies with the ongoing work of the NCAP, the GNSO Council sent a letter on 20 September 2019 requesting guidance
from the ICANN Board of Directors concerning its views related to “dependencies, if any, between the NCAP and the ongoing policy work of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP.” In its response on 01 November 2019 Cherine Chalaby, then Chairman of the ICANN
Board, noted that the “Board has not sought to establish a new dependency on completion of the PDP work based on commissioning NCAP Study 1”, (which had not yet started at that time), but that “upon completion of Study 1, the Board can determine in consultation
with the community whether additional NCAP work is necessary and, if so, which elements should be a dependency for any of the other future milestones noted in your letter.” </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Since its deliberations on the comments to the Initial Report, the Working Group has continued to discuss the issue of whether the completion of the NCAP studies
is a contingency for the Working Group to complete its work. In reviewing the NCAP’s work as well as the Board’s response to the GNSO Council, the Working Group believes that the completion of the NCAP’s studies and SSAC work are not necessarily a contingency
for the PDP Working Group to complete its work, but as the Board notes, “the Board can determine in consultation with the community whether additional NCAP work is necessary and, if so, which elements should be a dependency for any of the other future milestones”.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">d. Dependencies/relationships with other areas of this report or external efforts</span></b><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;vertical-align:baseline">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The recommendations in this section seek to promote 2.7.6 Security and Stability of the DNS, a topic this is addressed more broadly in section xx..<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:windowtext"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="TableGridLight1" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#AF272F">Anne E. Aikman-Scalese</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Of Counsel</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">520.629.4428 office</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">520.879.4725 fax</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_new" title="Email User"><span style="color:#AF272F">AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">_____________________________</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><img border="0" width="115" height="46" style="width:1.1979in;height:.4791in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image006.png@01D64FAB.53C500F0"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="http://lrrc.com/" target="_new" title="Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie Webpage"><span style="color:#AF272F">lrrc.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><img border="0" width="120" height="39" style="width:1.25in;height:.4062in" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image007.jpg@01D64FAB.53C500F0"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:2.0pt;line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Because what matters</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">to you, matters to us.™</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
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.
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>