[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 15 June

Fri Jun 16 12:30:36 UTC 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 15 June.  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, documents, and the excerpts from the chat room below.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items/Discussion Notes 15 June

Action Items:

1.  Topics for Johannesburg: Staff will pull out the top 4 topics from the chat room and send them to the list so others can comment.  Topics that were suggested were: vertical integration (2), closed generics (2), registrant protections (1), registry/registrar standardization (1).

2.  There seem to be clarifying question for Compliance but not sure if those have been formulated.  We might need help on how to formulate those questions.  Michael Flemming will help to formulate them.

1.  Topics for ICANN59 Johannesburg

-- We are tasked with having 2 topics at ICANN59.  I think we have 45 minutes for discussion.  

Suggested topics from the chat room:

Susan Payne: vertical integration

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Registrant Protections 

Gg Levine (NABP): Registry/registrar standardization

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Vertical integration; and closed generics

Paul McGrady 2: Closed generics

Discussion:

-- I don't think it is reasonable that we would have a helpful discussion in 45 minutes.

-- The question that we've already discussed is whether there would be one registry agreement or multiple registry agreements.  This would be a chance to enage further on the questions.

-- I think applicant terms and conditions falls into the same category that we wouldn't have time to get into the topic.

-- Suggest that you have us type our number 1 topic into the chat and ask staff to do a quick count.

>From the chat:

Susan Payne: can you remind me what registrant protections covers?

Paul McGrady: +1 Kristina.  We won't even get it introduced in that timeframe

Steve Chan: @susan, in brief, things like EBERO, COI

Phil Buckingham: kristina, what topic would u like to do  one perhaps we could get concensus on at jo burg ?

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I get it. But I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion of whether we should have different base agreements until everyone has read and understood the existing RA.  And we'll use the entire 22 minutes just getting through the questions.

Susan Payne: ah yes, thanks Steve, I was having a mental block

2. Vertical Integration

Slide 2 -- Introduction

-- Not starting from scratch.  We are returning to this.  Our goal is to work on modifications that allow the realization of the benefits of vertical integration.

Slide 6 -- Recap of last call on vertical integration

-- Origins of VI

-- Status quo in 2007

-- Potential concerns and benefits of VI

-- Journey to the current state

-- Registry code of conduct and exceptions

Slide 7 -- Continuing the VI discussion

-- received some data back from compliance based on questions [see the slide]

-- Responses from Compliance (see the attached document)

[reading from the document]

Discussion:

-- If we are going to have any further discussion of the topic we need to go back to Compliance with follow-up questions.  Such as 1b -- were there 1000 complaints against registry operators?  Were there 100 complaints -- we need to know what percent were covered by those complaints.  If we are going to act on it we need complete data.

-- 1b -- said they processed less than ten complaints.  The metrics page shows about 110 in regards to code of conduct.  We are still waiting on data on how many registries are integrated.   A more detailed response would very much help.

-- A little trouble interpreting the results, perhaps lack of familiarity.  Talked to Compliance staff.  The number of code of conduct complaints is a relatively high number, but the issue for the complaint is less than 10.  Complaints that are specific to vertical integration are less then 10 and all have been ameliorated.

-- Can't get names of registry operators subject to the complaints, but can get numbers.

-- The reason we are looking at 2017 data is that is the most recent audit but also when you had the most registries contracted with ICANN.  Whether or not complaints are driven by just one registry I think there is room for us to develop possible concerns on vertical integration if there is evidence of those concerns. 

-- The data we are getting back from contractual compliance is how we need to move forward.

>From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The Affiliate definition is in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement.  Phil's summary of it was correct, but incomplete

Susan Payne: is it just me or are the answers to 1a and b rather vague and open to interpretation?  has anyone actually be found to be in breach

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Kristina 

Susan Payne: yes agree Kristina

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Susan:  Not that I'm aware of, but Compliance should be asked that. 

Steve Chan: @Susan, Kristina, no, breaches.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I think that there may be more data that we could ask for that Compliance can provide:  how many registry operators are vertically integrated; of that number, how many are within the same corporate family; how many complaints were there against ROs (overall - regardless of whether due to vertical integration); of the complaints referenced in the 1.b answer, how many ROs were those complaints against

Steve Chan: The less than 10 complaints I believe is for all time, not just a period of time.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Steve:  Really? That's 10 in 4 years. 

Steve Chan: Happy to confirm Kistina, but that's my understanding.

Susan Payne: I think it would also be helpful to know how many registries if any have required to conduct remediation in some way.  I think "no breaches" means no formal breach notice but there may have been action require

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Steve: And, to be clear, I'm not doubting the answer, I'm pleasantly surprised

Steve Chan: @Susan, I believe the answer is less than 10 complaints where remediation was required.

Steve Chan: Of course, if we have follow up questions for Contractual Compliance, staff is happy to ask on the WT's behalf.

Susan Payne: @Steve, yes I assume so.  but it could actually be zero, which would be quite informative

3. CC2 Comments for WT2 Topics -- see document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tXnl3qV0rc/edit?usp=sharing and attached PDF.

-- It is really important that we discuss these comments but we need to take the responsibility to read them.  

-- Shouldn't specifically be singling out one comment and having a detailed debate about it.  We need to read all of the comments and then have a conversation about issues raised as a whole.

>From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can we agree that we'll each read the CC2 comments so we don't need to have Phil (or Michael) read them out?

Jeff Neuman: Is the question you are asking whether all TLDs should be able to have 1 -3 registrars

Jeff Neuman: As a PDP Working Group, we do have to respond to all the comments as to how we considered them.  But we do not need to read all of the comments aloud.

Susan Payne: you might also want to switch registrar, so for the period you switch you would have to have two. limiting just to one would be very restrictive 

Rubens Kuhl: It also comes down to bargaining power in the contract: having more than one gives a brand more negotiating power in the table. 

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I respectfully disagree with Phil.  I'd like to see us use the 45 minutes in Joburg to work through the comments rather than hone in on one point made by one Commenter on one subpart

Jeff Neuman: Lets see if we can group the issues into categories of types of comments

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Jeff

Kiran Malancharuvil: Agree with grouping the issues into categories and represnting various groups of views for discussion.  Much easier

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170616/d55eee5a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Request for Data.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 251673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170616/d55eee5a/NewgTLDSubsequentProceduresRequestforData-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 15 June 2017_WT2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 235157 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170616/d55eee5a/15June2017_WT2-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CC2 - Work Track 2_8Jun2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 388594 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170616/d55eee5a/CC2-WorkTrack2_8Jun2017-0001.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/20170616/d55eee5a/smime-0001.p7s>