[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 12 January

Thu Jan 12 21:14:02 UTC 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 12 January.  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.  In addition, the discussion follows the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8GCamL3NQ/edit#gid=2486987. 

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items/Discussion Notes 12 January

Remaining Reserved Names and the Second Level [See slide 2]

Geographic and geopolitical 

-- AGB did create reservations and currently the only authorization process that has been established is through the use of RCEP (Registry Service Evaluation Process).  Probably not the most applicable process.  

-- GAC has taken the initiative of publishing a list of country and territory names -- around 16 or so names.

-- Need to discuss whether we would suggest changes to policy.

-- The ABG lists the reservations but the policy itself does not.  Should we change policy to be consistent with the AGB?

-- Any change to policy should be in line with the AGB and its lists of reservations.  Also not the current GAC listing of names with country approval.  Ensure that the list can be added to in a very easy way.  Could recommend a PDP just on this aspect, but concern that this could become a significant roadblock.

-- We are talking about the second level, not the top level.

-- At a minimum we should agree whether we will stand by the 2009 policy recommendations or note that there is a gap between what happened with the AGB.  Questions: 

1) Need to confirm our agreement with the policy on geopolitical names (not geographic) -- the controversial names, and our understanding that going forward we will only deal with country and territory names and not say that any should be reserved.

2) If country and territory names are protected are we starting from the list in the AGB, which wasn't policy.  If we stick to the list other negotiations between the governments and ICANN wouldn't apply.

3) Express whether the 2009 policy needs to be adjusted and make recommendations to the full PDP WG on what we should do with country and territory names.

-- Suggestion: No need for restrictions for any TLD, but especially for BRAND TLDs -- harmonization with .com and .net.  If we could make a clarification on that it would be beneficial.

-- Probably a good issue for a smaller drafting team to consider.  Need to handle it very carefully.

-- Need to have participation from GAC on the Drafting Team.  Can invite the GAC members on the list.

Action Item: Send a call for volunteers for a Drafting Team on this topic.  We can only issue a call to Sub Team members, but ensure that it is clear that GAC/ccNSO members on the Sub Team are encourage to join.

>From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: It should be noted that there were MANY discussions between the GAC and the Board on Geographic and geopolitical names between the 2009 recommendation and what was eventually put into the Guidebook.  But NO policy development process was ever commenced to discuss those protections during that time period.

Susan Payne - Valideus 2: we are dealing at 2nd level here though aren't we, or am I mistaken?  whereas CWG-CTN is top level 

Michael Flemming: Second level

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes understand it is 2nd level 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): but the concerns I have heard raised reflect in Top andb2nd...

Rubens Kuhl: Note that there are dissenting views regarding use of RSEP to release reserved names. ICANN is currently adopting such view, but some think it should be a different process, even in current policy guidance. 

Michael Flemming: I made a note on that Rubens, but you sum it up so sweetly.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): note in my time in suDA Board I fought to and succeeded to release Lower level names so I am not 'anti'

Susan Payne - Valideus 2: OK, thanks Cheryl, understood.  But in terms of what has been discussed in the CWG, we have only been talking about 2nd level

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): understand that Susan.  Even in our Work in the most recent CWG whose name itself is specified separation of the levels N in community understanding and and concerns has always been a 'challenge'.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Jeff 

Rubens Kuhl: .com and .net are pretty old namespaces... new namespaces might require introductory measures, like sunrise.  Legacy gTLDs are benchmarks, but a grain of salt in comparing is required. 

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Support creation of drafting team (which may not be smaller given interest), but agree on creating subteam

Rubens Kuhl: One issue in allowing Brand TLDs is what happens if the TLD is repurposed to not be a Brand TLD, which is a registry operator option at anytime without consulting, just informing, ICANN. 

avri doria: i find having difrent such rules for different categories very problematic (again personal view)

Mary Wong: For clarity (including for WT members not on the call), what is the specific focus and brief for the Drafting Team, and what will be its anticipated timeline to deliver its proposal?

Susan Payne - Valideus 2: support drafting team too.  I think it wouldmbe helpful for those who join to familiarise themselves with how we got from the policy to the AGB as not all of us are probably familiar with the full history.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): We should make clear that GAC representatives are welcome to participate.. 

gTLD Reserved Names:

-- Change policy or leave it as is? [reading policy from the chart]

-- In 2001 when .biz, .info, etc. were signed we (Neustar others) were required to reserve .com.info, .biz.travel, etc. because of confusion, but agreed that there would be no confusion in the future so no reservations.

-- Yes, we want to confirm the 2009 policy that says there should be no reservations.

-- It's impossible to reserve because of the expanding list of TLDs.

>From the chat:

Rubens Kuhl: Looking at collision lists, some popular legacy TLDs (both gTLDs and ccTLDs) deserve a bit of care. While I also support confirming the 2009 policy, this is a factor that new gTLD operators should assess and hopefully make informed decisions.   I don't see possibility of human confusion, but some name collisions can occur.  Due to suffix appending. 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and name collision needs to be avoided 

Controversial Names:

-- Current policy is that there should not be a category of Controversial Names that are reserved at 2nd and 3rd levels ASCII and IDN.

-- There is no dispute policy mandated (and their isn't one).  If we do want to confirm the 2009 policy we edit it and either remove the part about the dispute policy or stay that registries can determine the eligibility of their registrants in their own TLDs.

-- Original thinking was that there could be a global dispute policy, but since the category was never created the dispute policy wasn't created.  But a registry can make a rule to restrict controversial names in their registry.  Registries already have that right.

IOC and RCRC, and IGOs:

-- No reservations originally, but later occurred and is included in the base registry agreement.

-- Current active discussion between the Board and GAC on the reservation of country names (used within each country).

-- Perhaps we shouldn't be looking at this while there are open discussions -- but could look at it if it hasn't been resolved elsewhere.

-- For adopted policy it is just a few names.  That list could change in the near future.  There are other names that are on hold on a interim basis.

-- Suggestion: Leave it be; don't revisit it.

-- If reservations are in place we should state that there should be a mechanism for the release of those names to that specific organization.

-- There is no mechanism for release of those names when the organization is consenting to their release.

-- Allowing release to the right people is logical, but at the time they came out those people didn't care.

>From the chat:

Mary Wong: There is ongoing implementation of Board-adopted GNSO PDP recommendations regarding a few names for the Red Cross movement and names of IGOs.

Jeff Neuman: I agree on this category and the IGOs.

Mary Wong: Per Alan, other Red Cross names are still under discussion.

Mary Wong: @Michael, to add - what I said (i.e. long list currently now reserved under Spec 5) also applies to IGOs. The only reserved protections approved so far for IGOs are their names. Their acronyms are now on the list only on an interim basis.

Mary Wong: All, note that in the current implementation for Red Cross, IOC and IGOs - there will be an Exception procedure for the protected organization.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170112/2965ecda/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 12 January 2017 Meeting WT2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 246495 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170112/2965ecda/12January2017MeetingWT2-0001.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/20170112/2965ecda/smime-0001.p7s>