The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group will take place on Monday, 12 November 2018 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

07:00 PST, 10:00 EST, 16:00 Paris CET, 20:00 Karachi PKT, (Tuesday) 00:00 Tokyo JST, (Tuesday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST 

For other places see:


  1. Agenda review/SOIs
  2. Recap from ICANN63/WG Updates
  3. Update on Sub Group Efforts
  4. Topics for full WG consideration (several topics have been identified in the CCT-RT report and the Initial Report public comment review)
  5. AOB    




Adobe Connect Recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar


Attendance & AC chat

Apologies: Kavouss Arasteh


Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

ACTION ITEM: Track the out-of-scope items and see if there is support for future work on them.

ACTION ITEM: Add the items referred to the full WG to the agenda for future WG calls and provide the materials prior to the calls.


1.  Agenda review/SOIs:

-- Donna Austin is no longer one of the GNSO Council liaisons as she is no longer on the Council.

-- GNSO Council has appointed Elsa Saade as a liaison to replace Donna.

-- Liaison is to help the WG understand what is going on at the Council and for the Council to understand what is going on in the WG.

-- Keith Drazek is the other liaison, but as he is now the GNSO Council Chair we will confirm if he wants to continue in that role.  He is serving on an interim basis.

2.  Recap from ICANN63/WG Updates:

Work Tracks 1-4: 3 sessions:

1) finalize Supplemental Report; went out on 31 October and comments are due  12 December. Sent reminders to the SO/AC Chairs as well as the Board.

2) Discussion on the implementation aspects of the new gTLD program, and what we can do to keep progress moving.  Brainstorming session -- no deliverables.  Good to raise the topics to be on the GNSO Council agenda.

3) Breakout sessions with 3 Sub Groups to review the comments on the Initial Report:

Sub Group A: Co-Leads Robin Gross and Jeff Neuman

Sub Group B: Co-Leads Christa Taylor and Rubens Kuhl

Sub Group C: Co-Leads  Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Michael Flemming

-- Not a formal Sub Group session, opportunity for the Groups to decide how to operate.

-- Adobe Connect Recordings are available.

Work Track 5:

-- Held several sessions.

-- Sending an Initial Report out around 20 November.

3.  Update on Sub Group Efforts:

-- Sub Groups A and C met last week.

-- All three Sub Groups are meeting this week.

See the schedule at:

-- The schedule for December is still being finalized.

-- The role of the Sub Groups is to look at the comments on the Initial Report, organize them in ways that will be instructive to the full WG.  Not providing substantive thoughts about the comments, but an analysis of how we categorize the comments (level of agreement with the Initial Report) and whether there are clarifing quesitons.

-- On overarching comments that didn't fit in a section, the Sub Groups discussed moving them into a Sub Group/section or to be discussed as full WG items.  All comments will be taken into account, regardless of the format they followed.

4.  Topics for full WG consideration (several topics have been identified in the CCT-RT report and the Initial Report public comment review):

-- Sub Groups may have comments that don't fit into the Sub Group sections; so the sub Group may decide to suggest that they be taken up by the full WG.  These topics/comments will then be sent to the full WG for consideration in advance of their discussion on a WG call.See: Second tab: "General"

Comment 3: Belief that metrics needed to assess New gTLD Program (ALAC) -- Sub Group A suggested that this is a topic for the full WG to address; also is discussed in the CCT Review.

Comment 9: Comments from ICANN Org -- Sub Group A suggests to refer to the full WG.

"Although the Initial Report is quite substantial, ICANN org recognizes that due to the large number of program processes, procedures, and issues, it may not be possible for the PDP Working Group to cover all topics in its discussions. ICANN org assumes that if the PDP Working Group does not discuss a topic that it would not preclude ICANN org from suggesting implementation improvements during the policy implementation phase. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could confirm this assumption."

-- Caution because it gives a lot of latitude to implementation work that could be policy work.

-- May need to require ICANN Org to come back to the GNSO Council or to this WG or the IRT.

-- Check where we would be fine with ICANN Org deciding on implementation and where we would expect that they would be referred to the IRT.

-- Anything ICANN Org would suggest would be subject to approval by the IRT.

-- Balance needs to be struck.

-- The comment also says that they want the WG to confirm in the final report that the output of the PDP WG would only apply to subsequent gTLDs (rather than existing or legacy TLDs).  Charter has the WG only looking to subsequent TLDs, but the charter does make reference to certain strings that were not allowed in the previous round.   Unless the charter asks the WG to consider to legacy/existing TLDs, the WG should confirm that the WG recommendations only apply to subsequent gTLDs.

-- For those strings that couldn't proceed in the last round and were withdrawn that doesn't prohibit someone from reapplying if the rules are changed?

-- There are strings where people withdrew or not allowed to proceed.  There are some strings that have been applied for where there are ongoing evaluations on which our WG made a recommendation on not allowing applications.

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENTS - ICANN org should refer such questions to the Implementaion Review Team  COMMENT

Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 .. I'm with Jim

Anne Aikman-Scalese: +1 with Jim and Jamie - refer questions to IRT - new standing IRT was recommended

Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: It is well-estabablished historically that one person's implementation is another person's policy.  GDD staff should not be making that determination.  Refer any questions not discussed by the PDP WG to the Standing IRT.

Jim Prendergast: This is a perfect example of why we need to see these before the call starts - lots of different angles to think through here. 

Steve Chan: It seems that the comment from ICANN Org is referencing the IRT phase.

Maxim Alzoba: QUESTION: are we on the assumption that the next round RA is the same as 2012 ? (if yes, then RA can be changed only via the methods described in the current RA)

Jim Prendergast: At Maxim - was an example - Im sure there are others Iike PICs where came out of now where

Maxim Alzoba: @Jim, Temp Specs too ...

Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT:  It is ESPECIALLY important to refer to IRT if a topic is not discussed by the PDP WG.   So what Steve is saying should be codified.  Ceratainly not clear from the GDD comment. that this is subject to IRT review.  COMMENT

Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT:  I was advised in Work Track 4 that our charter does not permit us to make policy applicable to the 2012 round unless specifically stated in our Charter  So if we did do that, the Charter would need to be revised.  COMMENT

Comment 16: Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism -- Sub Group A suggested to refer to the RPM PDP WG.

Comment 24: From the SSAC re: dependencies -- Sub Group A suggested to refer this to the full WG.  We can comment on whether we agree or disagree that this is a dependency.

-- We don't currently have an SSAC liaison to this WG, although Jim Galvin is a member of this WG and could bring questions back to the SSAC.

Comment 30: Christopher Wilkinson -- Concerns re: jurisdiction of the incorporation of a registry and tax haven: Sub Group A suggests that this is out of scope for the full WG.

-- If Sub Group A determines that it is out of scope, it must be assigned some place else -- ICANN Org should say where it is in scope.

-- Don't see how a policy could be made -- where an entity establishes their business is up to them.

-- How does the WG address comments that are out of scope?  Could note that an issue has been raised but noted as out of scope -- to the GNSO Council or somewhere.

-- If one person raises an issue that does not mean the WG has to react to it, but if more than one person raises an issue it should be noted.

ACTION ITEM: Track the out of scope items and see if there is support for future work on them.

Comment 31: CCT-RT Recommendation 17 -- Collect data and publicize the chain of parties responsible for gTLD domain name registration:  Sub Group A suggests to defer to full WG.

-- Need the context to understand the comment.

5.  AOB:  Call scheduled for 19 November has been rescheduled to 26 November.  Call in December will be 18 December.

  • No labels