[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 11 July 2017

Tue Jul 11 16:17:37 UTC 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 July.  These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording.  Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings.

Please note that for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below and the PDFs of the sections from the Google Document are attached.  

Best,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Actions/Discussion Notes:

Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions

See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw/edit#gid=1442059046 

a. Application Guide Book (see attached PDF)

Question 1.10.1 -- Do you think it makes sense to partition the AGB into different audience-driven sections or by type of application?

Feedback to CC2 (NOTE: The notes below may paraphrase the comments.  See the attached PDFs for the detailed comments.] 

-- Comment from NCSG in general that having an effort directed to developing countries and translations could help.

-- Both suggestions make perfect sense.

-- INTA: partitioning could aid in making material accessible, but caution that different types of SGBs could lead to inconsistencies; supportive of partitioning into different audience-driven sections.

-- GAC: suggests that there be a critical assessment of whether the AGB should be used as a central document in future, or whether simpler and clearer information can be provided.

-- Nominet: No -- partitioning would increase the risk of confusion and creates uncertainty.

-- BC: Supports partitioning.

-- Jim Prendergast: Seems like an implementation issue, not policy.

-- BRG: Support partitioning -- 1) write a new AGB to remove duplication and create a step-by-step guide; 2) improve customization of documentation; 3) define acronyms on first you and provide glossary; 4) partition section to specific type of applicant.

-- John Poole: AGB needs to be rewritten.

-- Afilias: AGB must be a single, consistent set of procedures and rules applied uniformly across all applications...

-- RySG: Single AGB but should make specific note when variation exists among application types -- if no variation is noted, then all applications must follow the same process or standards in that section.

-- ALAC: Not need to fragment the AGB as it may create confusion.

Discussion:

-- Suggestion: Agree to an extent with comments on having the AGB focus on just how to do an application, which could be a separate module; need to have the other context, such as contention objection process.  Think there is not a huge amount wrong with the current AGB, but pull out into a concise module how to complete and submit an application.   Also, have an index on how to look up topics, such as geo names.

>From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: I think a searchable Guidebook on the ICANN Website makes sense

Jim Prendergast: further to my answer - I dont understand how the organization and presentation of the AGB is a policy issue for this group to deliberate or decide.

Jeff Neuman: The BRG comments make a lot of sense

Jeff Neuman: @Jim - We understand your comment, but it is a question we have in the charter

Jim Prendergast: ok

Jeff Neuman: so, do you agree with any of the comments or the positions taken

Jim Prendergast: I need to review them more thoroughly

Jeff Neuman: The Afilias position is worth noting, but could that be solved by having the single document be the "authoritative source" and the other simplifying docs  contain the appropriate disclaimers

Jeff Neuman: We can create the "Filling gTLD applications for Dummies" (assuming we can get the trademark rights for that :)

Jeff Neuman: +1 on a good table of contents and an index

Jeff Neuman: And rather than PDFs, it should be searchable text

Jim Prendergast: I like the searchable component and keep in mind that it needs to multilingual as well

Ashley Roberts: Agree with it being searchable

b. Clarity of Application Process

Question 1.3.1: How should changes to the AGB and/or the new gTLD Program be handled in subsequent application windows?

Feedback to CC2 (NOTE: The notes below may paraphrase the comments.  See the attached PDFs for the detailed comments.] 

-- INTA: urges that improvements to the AGB be mae to ensure that "all applicants for a new gTLD registry...be evaluated against transparent and predictable concideration, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process"... AGB is the proper vehicle for implementation of the GNSO New gTLD policy recommendations; and the AGB must be clear and unambiguous, not subject to change at community whim.

-- GAC: Supports any reasonable measures that streamline application procedures...[See details in the attached PDF]

-- Nominet: Confirms that the 'moving of goal posts' during the application period was unhelpful; hope that the AGB and all associated processes and policieis are firmed up well ahead of the application period opening...

-- BC: Next round we should expect the AGB to be finalized before the application period opens.

-- Jim Prendergast: If changes are made after applications are submitted there needs to be some sort of mechanism that allows impacted applicants the chance to either receive a full refund or be tracked into parallel process that deals with their issues directly without impacting the rest of the program; also issues with .mail, .corp. and .home were not addressed prior to the opening of the application window caused many issues...

-- BRG: [See lengthy comment in attached PDF]

-- John Poole: Ideally no more application windows since the last was such a disaster; if there is another 'window' the AGB should be 'trashed' -- ICANN needs to start over and do it right this time.

-- Afilias: Imperative that ICANN finalize the AGB prior to starting this Program -- to ensure fairness and predictability.

-- RySG: Where process and procedural changes are further required after the new AGB or its replacement is published, those changes should be clearly document in a medium that is easily accessed by all applicants, and ICANN should make every effort to communicate these changes directly to applicants...

-- ALAC: See response to 1.1.1 -- such operational issues are of little concern to the general public.

-- Valideus: The need for major changes to the AGB/application processes once a given application window has opened should be minimized or ideally eradicated, since it causes severe disruption to business planning and budgeting...

-- RySG: Letter received outside of CC2 on Application Change Request Process -- A formalized procedure for making changes to a new gTLD application, based on what worked during the 2012 Round, should be developed and made widely available to applicants prior to future application procedures.  On the Registry Agreement: a final or near-final version of the baseline Registry Agreement should be published and made available to new gTLD applicants in advance of any future application procedures.

Discussion:

-- GAC comment intersects with WT3 work.  Brings up the issue of GAC advice.  We are talking here about changes to the AGB itself and do not see necessarily the need for as much flexibility as the GAC comment is implying.  Dealing with GAC advice is for discussions in WT3.

-- Why the name collisions issue wasn't address depends on which side of the fence you fall on; but we do need a predictable process for how to deal with problems that come up after the application window has opened.

-- Goal is that the AGB needs to be finalized, full stop.

-- John Poole's comment: The comment that the AGB should be scrapped and start over again -- sounds like adding another two years to the process.  Not sure we'll do it better next time by doing it different.

-- Agree -- no reason to trash the whole thing, but listening to the bulk of the comments there are editorial and organizational challenges to make the information we do have more useable and audience specific.  A more surgical approach makes sense.  Maybe get professional help.

-- Process question: How do we envision coming to any policy recommendation?  At what stage would we start to make preliminary recomendations? Answer: Good question.   This is our second reading of a lot of these issues.  We will incorporate comments into the second reading and to see what the common thread is.  Take the strong trends and put them into policy recommendations.  Get a strawperson recommendation from the leadership team.

>From the chat:

Kurt Pritz: Wasn't it INTA that led the charge in changing the Guidebook after the application window was opened?

Kurt Pritz: So it is good that they are against change now

Jeff Neuman: I think you are confusing INTA with the National Advertising Assication

Jeff Neuman: (Or whatever they were called)

Kurt Pritz: I think it was all IP

Greg Shatan: Association of National Advertisers

Jim Prendergast: "another bit at the apple"

Greg Shatan: Not an IP organization, Kurt.

Ashley Roberts: I agree with the INTA comment. It seems to me fairly uncontroversial that we should have predictability with regard to the AGB, prior to the next application round commencing.

Jeff Neuman: I think the points raised by the GAC  needs discussion

Jeff Neuman: BUt that is also a topic in WT 3

Steve Chan: It seems that there might be a fair amount of overlap between this question and the overarching issues on predictability/community engagement. If that's the case, we should take care to avoid duplicative or conflicting outcomes.

Kurt Pritz: I think all of these issues were addresssed in the original Guidebook. The Guidebook was changed

Phil Buckingham: Agreed Jim . Finalised full stop.

Jeff Neuman: Totally agree on the refund issue

Steve Chan: @Jeff, I'll plug the work of the drafting team on predictability/community engagement again, in this case. I believe the goal is to establish a framework for addressing changes that might be needed in a predictable way.

Kurt Pritz: Looking at the last line of the last RySG comment - it is almost word-for-word the same as the existing policy.

Jim Prendergast: agree with the agreement(s) being finalized ahead of time as well.

Phil Buckingham:  Comments noted  for WT2 re the RA . Good suggestion to make the RA available beforehand . 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170711/f5ac7ba1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CC2 - 1.3 Clarity.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53060 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170711/f5ac7ba1/CC2-1.3Clarity-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CC2 - 1.6 Submission.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170711/f5ac7ba1/CC2-1.6Submission-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CC2 - 1.10 AGB.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35218 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170711/f5ac7ba1/CC2-1.10AGB-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170711/f5ac7ba1/smime-0001.p7s>