[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 02 February

Thu Feb 2 21:19:08 UTC 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 02 February.  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 chat room or the recording.   See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. 

Please also see the attached slides referenced below.  Excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items/Discussion Notes 02 February

1.  Registrant Protections -- Background Screening 

Background Information: See slides 4-9.

Question: Are the background checks a sufficient mechanism for protecting registrants?  Yes/No/Other (slide 10)

-- Paul McGrady had a specific issue he wanted to discuss relating to cybersquatting -- item (m) on slide 8.  If you look at the public comments he had questions about the background screening that in his view was not applied.  Not sure if there was a formal dispute, but we should look at the comments that there made and whether we would need some clarification in this language.  Short answer is we don't know if the background checks were sufficient because ICANN didn't follow the AGB.  If ICANN isn't going to follow the vetting process no amount of improvements will help.  Did not file a reconsideration request.

-- Interested to know if Paul's case is the only instance of this type of difficulty.  Can we get those data?

-- The amount of information that ICANN requested created a stressful process, but not aware of any specific examples.  Could ask for as much data as possible.

>From the chat:

Phil Buckingham: Good point , Heather .. I ll follow up with the GDD 

Steve Chan: Note, there is a section of the Program Implementation Review Report (PIRR) that touches on Background Screening (section 2.2): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf

Question: Has ICANN ever come across an applicant with an individual found to be involved in any of the activities in a-m?  If so, were any of those applicants disqualified from the application process because of the background screening?  If so, out of how many found, how many were disqualified. (slide 11)

Action Item: Ask ICANN for data on the results of the background checks.  Staff will take the question back to GDD.

-- Good question to ask ICANN staff in the aggregate without getting any identifying information.  Might not get any responses from the question in the community.

-- Believe the answer is zero because ICANN presented stats throughout the process on the status.  Think that is public.

-- Change the question?  Ask how many applicants were required to provide additional information with regard to these background checks.

-- Is what we are driving at here is how seriously ICANN took the answer of "no".  Are we worried about the fact that everyone answered "no"?  Not sure where we are going with this?  More responsibility on ICANN?  On the applicant?

-- Another reason to ask the question is whether ICANN followed what was in the applicant guidebook.  Are these sufficient mechanisms?

-- If the number is zero that zero doesn't really tell us anything.  We should be asking if ICANN can produce the process flow they went through.

-- Change the first question to ask ICANN to provide us with numerical information, what areas ICANN looked at, and what checks were carried out.

-- Steve Chan (Staff): Formulate what we are trying to understand.  In terms of how to answer it would e good to get data to understand that question, but not make the data request prescriptive.

>From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: Have there been any cases where ICANN required a change request to cure any deficiencies in the background checks?

Christa Taylor: I think the business model around a TLD is completely seperate from background screening

Steve Chan: The nature of the applying entity may play a role, however.

Question: Do the requirements for background screening in regards to 1) general business diligence and criminal history ; and 2) history of cybersquatting behavior prove sufficient? (slide 12)

-- Question is: when ICANN carried out the process did anything come up?

-- One of the issues: If I am a Sr. VP of a company (owner or other principle) ABC and ABC had 10 cybersquatting cases it loses if I go on to found a company that applies for a TLD I don't fail the background because I am not implicated as an individual.

-- Also, does one person who was found responsible for cybersquatting cause a company with which he is associated to fail the background check?

-- Potentially a missing question: Have you had a contract with ICANN terminated or are being terminated for compliance issues?   Could expand on that question -- not sure where to put it.

-- It does make another good criteria to add -- substitute for (o) and change current (o) to (p) -- "Have you or your company been part of an entity found in breach of contract with ICANN?"

>From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: There were lots of ways to get around the cybersquatting background check.  UDRPs are generally against entities, not the people who are principals in that entity.  Thus, if an individual is a principal in a company that was subject to 10 cybersquatting cases, that individual would not faill the background check if he or she were part of a new gTLD application.

Phil Buckingham: when we are talking about criminal history - does that even  include a driving ban  . Needs to be  defined more clearly.next time.

Steve Coates: What is criminal in one place may not be in another.

Question: Could it be considered that the background screening is unnecessary for TLDs where Registrant Protections may not be necessary, such as Brand TLDs or those operating with a Code of Conduct exemption? (slide 13)

-- Such as where registrants are not applicable for those TLDs.

-- In ALAC the answer would be "yes" that it is a concern and should be questioned further.

-- It is not just registrants that are protected by the background screening, it is ICANN as an organization.  Don't want to enter into a contract with someone who has a conviction.

>From the chat:

Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Agree Jeff re not just protection for registrants.

2. CC2 Questions (slide 16)

-- Built on what we have already discussed.

-- Need to use the opportunity to see detailed feedback in areas not covered.

Topics to cover (slides 17-19)

-- Will there be a CC3?  The plan is not to do a CC3, but we will have a preliminary report that will go out for public comment.  Keep up a calendar indicating what we hope to cover through Copenhagen.

-- Steve Chan (staff): Can share the calendar with the full group.  On CC2, we haven't covered all the topics.  The questions will have to be agreed upon by the full group.

-- When is CC2 due to go out?  The drop dead date is before ICANN58, but we are targeting middle or late February (such 20 February).

>From the chat:

Susan Payne: do we get to do a CC3 at some point for further topics?

avri doria: hope not

Susan Payne: ok, so we definitely need to ask about closed generics then

Jeff Neuman: @susan - yes.  And if you review the questions and have additional ones, please submit them :)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170202/3dc642b9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 02 February 2017 Meeting WT2v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1196099 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170202/3dc642b9/02February2017MeetingWT2v2-0001.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-wt2/attachments/20170202/3dc642b9/smime-0001.p7s>