[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 SubTeam Meeting 18 May

Thu May 18 22:18:45 UTC 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 May.  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 chat room notes at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64073994/AC%20Chat%20track%202%2027%20April%202017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1493386831842&api=v2.  As the notes were quite extensive they were not excerpted below.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items/Discussion Notes 18 May

Meeting schedule:  Suggest we have a call each week leading up to Johannesburg at this time.  Agreed: Will meet each week at the same time for 4 weeks.  See the schedule of topics at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O_NpWTXFMNHkJARveqCapEssRt1CaEqwWe8g2_w493E/edit#gid=422424904

See slide 13 -- Questions for Discussion

-- Do we need to reopen VI issue?

-- Do the mitigations of harm work?

-- If we didn't mitigate these harms what do we need to do to change that?

-- If we didn't realize the benefits what do we need to do?

[Reading text on the slides.  See the attached slides.]

Slide 1: Introduction

Slide 4: Origins of Vertical Separation

Slide 5: Status Quo in 2007

Slide 8: Journey to the Current State

Slide 9: Journey to the Current State, Cont.

Slide 10: Registry Code of Conduct and Exceptions, cont.

Slide 11: Registry Code of Conduct and Exceptions, Cont.

Referenced Links: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting/ccer and https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting/specification-13-applications. 

Slide 12: Discussion

Slide 6: Potential Concerns and Benefits of Vertical Integration

Slide 12 -- Assumption -- VI is a reality despite no GNSO-developed policy on this subject.

-- Poll on assumptions:  Green checkmark if you agree, x if you don't agree. (8 checkmarks)

-- Have there been any serious abuses?

-- Get statistics of how many integrated entities.

-- See if there are any complaints filed with compliance or otherwise relating to a VI entity.

-- Check to see if that is one of the items that ICANN does audit.

-- Are vertical integration issues within the picket fence?  -- Would apply to registries that have already signed an agreement.   Good question.  Look at what ICANN staff found when they did the 2009 PDP.  Don't think anyone here is saying we should not allow VI going forward.

-- At the time the registry contract was proposed VI was added to be in the picket fence.  That doesn't really alter what we say in the future.  That was the one escape hatch.

-- Comment on 2012 round -- limited to 100 domains that can be reserved for promotional development purposes and they must obey the RAA requirements.  Two types of vertical integration.  What we are seeing in Africa, South America, etc. (global south) new gLTDs are not getting traction.  Although there is a requirement to only use ICANN-accredited registars there is no must-carry requirement.

-- Contained in Spec 5 -- promotional operational names -- form of vertical integration.

Slide 13: Questions for Discussion

See CRA Report at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/crai-report-24oct08-en.pdf

>From the chat:

Jeff Neuman 2: The leadership team has thought about this quite a bit and we agree that starting from scratch would not be a good idea.  The train essentially has left the station on registry/Registry Cross-Ownership

Jeff Neuman 2: Essentially Registries were not allowed to own Registrars, but Registrars could own registries

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and the letters VI still make me shudder somewhat..  The WG was an "interesting experience" 

Jon Nevett: Are these issues within the picket fence?

Michael Flemming: Exactly what I was gonna say :)

Kathy Kleiman: That would be great - tx you!

Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry): Let's stick with complaints that Compliance determined had a foundation.  Anyone can file a complaint with Compliance about anything.

Alan Greenberg: VI was explicitly included within the picket fence if I recall correctly.

Rubens Kuhl: Alan, if you want to respond to the current thread, please move ahead of me. I'm introducing a new thread. 

Christa Taylor: I believe VI was a PDP back at that time.  If it wasn't in the 'picket fence' than it wouldn't have been a PDP

Jon Nevett: I just checked and it's in the Picket Fence -- see Spec 1, Sec 1.2.6

Jeff Neuman 2:  @Jon:  I was just goiong to say that too:  restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller are affiliated.

Rubens Kuhl: We call it registrar 9998 in RA lingo. 

Michael Flemming: It used to be 9999

Rubens Kuhl: 9999 is the one for nic, www, whois etc. 

Michael Flemming: Ah, yes, you are correct.

Christa Taylor: Page 18 of the scope discussed whether this would fall within policy development (picket fence) https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf 

Kathy Kleiman: Depending on the presmise that major abuses have not taken place

Kathy Kleiman: Are there registrars on the call?

Krisitna Rosette (Amazon Registry): I don't think we can answer this without compliance data.

Michael Flemming: Yes and we have not seen any problems but agree with Kristina on getting that data.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Kristina 

Rubens Kuhl: Kathy, are there non-VI registrars on the call ? They are more likely to oppose than the ones that are already VI. 

Rubens Kuhl: What I heard from folks at VI registries, that had a registrar but registry was their primary business, is that following the equal access was so complex they saw no advantage in being one. They in effect sold their registrar business sometime after.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170518/ba36af3d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 18 May 2017_WT2_v0.1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 236159 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170518/ba36af3d/18May2017_WT2_v0.1-0001.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/20170518/ba36af3d/smime-0001.p7s>