[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 2 - 7 December 2017

[Emily Barabas]

Dear Work Track members,

Please find below notes and action items from the call on 7 December. 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 transcript or the recording. You can find the chat transcript and call recording here: https://community.icann.org/x/XAtyB

Slides are attached for reference.

Kind regards,
Emily

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

2. SOI Updates
- No updates

3. Contractual Compliance
- Recap of previous discussion on this topic – group discussed that it needs to define the scope of what it can address in policy. Scope must be limited to contractual requirements and data collection. Additional feedback was sought on these points through CC2.

- Compliance tends to operate as a blackbox. Recommendations to enhance transparency about new gTLDs would be useful.

- Recap of discussion from 25 May call:
- Public Comment raised issues in regards to predatory pricing of Registries. The opinion was raised that this was outside of role of Contractual Compliance if it is not explicit in the RA.
- Are there any areas we can ask ICANN Compliance for data to better understand the duties of Compliance and offer recommendations for improvement?
- It was suggested that we reach out to Contractual Compliance to ask them what data would help them better fulfill their role.
- Suggested approach for policy development in this area was to ask ICANN for what data they collect from Registries in order to enforce the contracts and make recommendations.

2.8.1 - Noting that the role of Contractual Compliance is to enforce the registry agreement and any changes to that role are beyond the scope of this PDP, the WG is not anticipating policy development related to this topic. The WG expects that any new contractual requirements would be made enforceable by inclusion in the base agreement. Do you agree with this approach?

- Jannik Skou, INTA, Nominet, RySG, BRG, Afilias, and ALAC agree with the WG expectation that any new contractual requirements would be made enforceable by inclusion in the base agreement.

- RySG, BRG, and Afilias said that any compliance related requirements should
enforceable by inclusion in the Registry Agreement

- INTA said that more granular data should be available from compliance on the department and complaints received regarding contractual compliance
- Comment discusses “troubling operational practices”: arbitrary and abusive pricing for premium domains targeting trademarks; use of reserved
names to circumvent Sunrise; and operating launch programs that differed materially
from what was approved by ICANN.

- Are the allegations (from the INTA comment) valid? Would this not be a first step prior to the consideration of recommendations? Any data from compliance that might provide some data for analysis
- On one level predatory pricing bad, but is that not in our domain to attempt to control. Possibly within our domain is that in their description of their business plan, if there is unusual pricing planned, that they document it. If we restrict these practices, aren’t we going against supporting innovative business models?
- Perhaps it is in scope is to add something to the contract in another area of the PDP.
- Do we have any such rules at ICANN that we need to treat everyone equally? Not aware of such requirements.
- Before we take effort to draft recommendations, why not first confirm that these allegations are correct?
- Of the list in the INTA comment there are different categories of issues. There does not appear to be anything in the rules regarding arbitrary and abusive pricing for premium domains targeting trademarks. If this is correct, it is not a compliance issue. If they have violated the approved rules for Sunrise, that could be a compliance issue. - Compliance would definitely not be able to enforce the spirit of contractual obligations, only the specific provisions included in the contract. Compliance will only be able to give us data on things that are true violations of the contact.
- It may be useful to ask compliance if there is complaints data, even if it might not be contractually restricted.
Justine Chew: Do we have reported cases on "undesired" practices? Then we can analyse why they happened.....
Justine Chew: And taking it further if necessary, to see if there has been some "unintended consequences" of not providing for terms in the RA. Althought this may be a stretch.
- Is the RPM Group addressing any of the issues? Members of this WT who are also members of the RPM WG might be able to provide insight.
- The circumstances described in the comment by INTA mirrored the one complaint PICDRP. WT3 is looking at the PICDRP. This group might want to look into the substance of the complaint.
- Important to look at the different elements of the INTA comment. Premium pricing of trademarked names is tied to the agreement. There is likely data on this specific issue.
- If we seek data from Compliance, whether there is evidence of these practices or not, the WT can still discuss practices that could take place and decide if they should be restricted from a Compliance standpoint
- Should Spec 13 registries have to go through annual audit?
TLD Rollout
- Reading slide 10 (recap, goal, and discussions)
- Requested data from GDD about delegation timeline, extensions, reasons for extensions
- 45 extension requests, 30 granted. Contenxt: out of over 1200 contracted new gTLDs.
- 15 TLDs terminated prior to delegation for lack of progress (all Brands).  Generally mutual agreement to terminate.
- Reasons for extension: change of RSP prior to delegation, assignment of TLD to other RO (and RSP), issues partnering with data escrow agent, internal turnover
- Most felt that timeframes are reasonable.
- Reviewing 2.7.1 CC2 comments
- Afilias felt escrowing data for only nic.TLD seems premature
- Jannik Skou felt that applicants should be guaranteed contract, delegation, etc. within a certain timeframe.
- BC felt that both the applicant and ICANN need to adhere to specified timelines. ICANN communications were sometimes delayed, impacting applicants' ability to move towards contracting/delegation.
-- Should there be any recommendation that ICANN should aslo adhere to timelines?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): As we are aiming for predictability  I would think we should ensure timeliness
- Given tone of this call, should be able to summarize deliberations/CC2 and come back with recommendations, possibly in February.


Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20171207/a6473daa/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 07 December 2017_WT2 - FINAL.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 258769 bytes
Desc: 07 December 2017_WT2 - FINAL.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20171207/a6473daa/07December2017_WT2-FINAL-0001.pdf>