[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 1 - 30 May 2017

Tue May 30 21:12:09 UTC 2017

Dear Work Track members,

Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s meeting.  These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording. The meeting recording and chat transcripts will soon be available at: https://community.icann.org/x/qgDfAw.

Slides from today’s call are attached for reference.

Kind regards,
Emily

2. SOIs

- no updates

3. Topic Review and Progress

- Today we will review topics where we don't yet have draft language.

- CC2 is currently being reviewed and organized by staff, these comments will be available soon for the WTs to take into account.

- Applicant Support - slide with overview of current status. Questions: How do we want to proceed, what information do we need?

- We need a plan to address this topic, if not in this WT than in another form through the WG.

- Question - for those who applied, do we know which elements they failed on? Were certain elements particularly difficult to meet? If so, maybe we can work on those. Were there enough applicants to evaluate this.

- This is a topic that does need fixing. There is ample justification for making changes. We need to figure out to fix this or make a determination that is unfixable.

- We may need to decide how we want to interface with the auction proceeds CCWG.

Chat excerpt:

avri doria: there were applications

Rubens Kuhl: The number was so small that any information can be traced to individual applicants.

avri doria: an handful, i foeget the actual number

Trang Nguyen: Yes, the eval report provides pass/fail by category (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/sarp-results-20mar13-en.pdf[newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_candidate-2Dsupport_sarp-2Dresults-2D20mar13-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=11-CMKaodkMjZXClnNR2Gdf4GMzkBiuWz0G7_cEeZ4M&s=AOdfxKBqY5jP-utWqSAdbUxegyZzBonFBjvdJnGza0w&e=>)

avri doria: the ASP starting early might make a difference.  a lot of diffeence.

Alan Greenberg: Results of last Applicant Support Program: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/sarp-results-20mar13-en.pdf[newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_candidate-2Dsupport_sarp-2Dresults-2D20mar13-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=11-CMKaodkMjZXClnNR2Gdf4GMzkBiuWz0G7_cEeZ4M&s=AOdfxKBqY5jP-utWqSAdbUxegyZzBonFBjvdJnGza0w&e=>

Rubens Kuhl: A possible program should not restrict itself to application fee, but also include planning and ongoing operations.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): too little too late

- There were three applicants in the 2012 round. One passed all criteria, one failed all four, one passed two and failed two.

- All were "ICANN insiders."

- We have to look at non-financial support.

- There were a number of companies that signed up to offer logistical support. Did anyone use this list? It would be helpful to talk to anyone from ICANN staff who was involved with that to get more information.

- We need to do more work on this. Leads will put it back on the schedule.

- Hopefully we will get some useful input from the CCT Review report.

- Applicant support program was put together late and there was strong concern about the system being gamed.

Chat excerpt:

Rubens Kuhl: Note that .IDN would have failed restricted strings criteria, being a 3-letter country code.

Jim Prendergast: would it help to remind the larger WG that this issue is being discussed and we could use some help?

Christa Taylor: Will do Jim!

Rubens Kuhl: ASP gamed itself out.

avri doria: Personal view: in the 2012 round the anti-gaming factions were the gamers who won.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): lots fell down on As effort

Rubens Kuhl: On communications, Stakeholder Engagement capacity at ICANN grew a lot since 2012. So the same programs with the 2012 rules could have a different outcome this time.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Applicant Support

Kurt Pritz: On Applicant Support: I know this is late but you could stick it in the notes. I think this group could develop a set of policy principles guiding an applicant support implementation, e.g.,1. Applicant support should be more about coaching and mentoring than financial support2. Financial support could be awarded for the application fee and early registry fees but be focused on making the registry self sufficient3. The support program should be publicized as broadly as the program itself4. The program should take into account that applicants will be unsophisticated and evaluations should be conducted with that understandingWe could knock this out in a couple hours. After we have a simple set of principles, we can turn that over to ICANN to start implementation now for iteration and discussion with the community.

- ICANN org verified information of volunteers for the pro bono assistance program, information was posted on a directory, but ICANN org did not play matchmaker in the last round.

- Did the volunteers receive communication about the directory and role ICANN org plays? Additional communication may be helpful in the future.

- Topic: Applicant Guidebook - status summary provided on slides.

Chat excerpt:

Donna Austin, Neustar: I think the AGB was good. I don't know of any other mechanism that would be any great improvement.

- Topic: Clarity of Application Process - status summary provided on slides.

- The 2012 round was difficult to implement because of the number of moving pieces. There will be lessons learned from the 2012 round, so the clarity of the process should be better going forward.

- We need to be clear in the AGB about any policy changes.

4. RSP Program

- Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nWljRzRgDQgmSlSxyf7G6f2Dv7XDoD01D30KfWhoHNw/edit?pli=1[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1nWljRzRgDQgmSlSxyf7G6f2Dv7XDoD01D30KfWhoHNw_edit-3Fpli-3D1&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=11-CMKaodkMjZXClnNR2Gdf4GMzkBiuWz0G7_cEeZ4M&s=nrkYtpv11tG0xJs_FenZ8-HugTr93cYvhBx2EnXnrMg&e=>

- We haven't decided that there should be an RSP program and we don't know what it will look like.

- Our goal is to create efficiencies in the application process, which seems to be focused on new entrants.

- The stats we've received are over a 3.5 year period. We don't have the level of granularity in the stats on the SLAs to find the problem and why it occured and if there is anything we can do to mitigate observed problems.

- RSP and applicants alike don't understand what the requirements are.

- There is the application phase, delegation phase, and operations phase. The requirements are different in different phases. Do we need to solve all three elements in this exercise? Or does this only relate to the application phase?

- We still don't full understand the problems that we are trying to solve with respect to each phase, to the extent they are relevant to the PDP WG.

Chat excerpt:

Jim Prendergast: if breach notices were issued, they would be on the compliance page and there are none.  Unclear if compliance was involved in this

Jeff Neuman: How do you analyze the financial/business case without knowing the costs of the RSP?

Rubens Kuhl: ICANN staff mentioned that one of the reasons for not triggering EBERO was lack of registrants to be protected. If a TLD only has nic.TLD, it's really not that useful to do a transition.

Phil Buckingham:  Great points , Donna - it is a question of the cart before the horse  for instance -. We wouldnt need the EBERO if the SLAs were raised.

- From the application process, we've identified that we don't want service providers to go through the same process 30 times. This could be addressed without a RSP program, for example with a check box on the application, although such a solution would not address whether a provider could handle the overall volume, which is a different question.

- It seems that an RSP program makes sense, but it may not be for the PDP to address.

Chat excerpt:

Rubens Kuhl: Alan, there is currently an ongoing consensus call in WT4 proposing technical evaluation to be as aggregated as feasible. So even if that doesn't cover previous rounds like the 2012 one, it at least would already cover the next procedure.

Jim Prendergast: the 27 times figure is one data point.  Some others were presented by ICANN Technical staff at the DNS Symposium.  Ive only seen the presentation (and not heard audio) but the stats on page 23 are broader than the 27 times figure.  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/presentation-slam-13may17-en.pdf[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_presentation-2Dslam-2D13may17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=11-CMKaodkMjZXClnNR2Gdf4GMzkBiuWz0G7_cEeZ4M&s=ah8y3hPdX3Pv-K68U9uYEdqE5ViIinYsChqlRyOBxUM&e=>

Jeff Neuman: For the record, I think we have established a need for the program.  we just need to take Donna's comments into account when moving forward

Jim Prendergast:  I disagree with that Jeff

Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jeff, I'm not sure we have.

Jeff Neuman: Both in the Discussion Group, the Charter and previous discussions.....

Karen Day: program or not we must remove barrier of having to choose RSP before contention is resolved.

Jeff Neuman: Whether it is a "program" or just a pre-approval process, we have had a large number of calls on the benefits of this type of program/process/ or whatever we call it

Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jeff, perhaps its the terminology that you are using that we're sensitive to. I think we agreed there would be benefit in enable new entrants undergo an approval process prior to the next application window.

- Question - is it possible to clarify the timing of when these processes would occur with respect to the application window -- this would help with implementation.

Chat excerpt:

Rubens Kuhl: Trang, I believe we should allow before or during, but not after.

Rubens Kuhl: This was the topic of some CC2 comments that we need to take into account.

- Item 10 - this may not be a question for this group to address.

5. AOB

- none
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170530/70694a6f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Track 1 20170530 v4 final.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 276364 bytes
Desc: Track 1 20170530 v4 final.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170530/70694a6f/Track120170530v4final-0001.pdf>