[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] 回复： Notes and Action Items: New gTLD SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017

Wed Nov 29 06:58:51 UTC 2017

Dear All,

In regards to our previous request for further feedback, I want to
introduce some deadlines so that we may begin moving forward.

On item 1 and 2, could we ask for further input by this Friday, December
1st? We want to know if anyone has any suggestions about questions to
compliance and if there are any objections on asking the BC for further
clarity about their comment.

On item 3, we remain open to input until we start summarizing the work for
initial proposals for the plenary report.

Thank you to those who have already contributed.

Kind regards,

Michael Flemming

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Levine, Gertrude <glevine at nabp.pharmacy>
wrote:

> If I understand the question correctly, I would say, yes, we should
> address the full integration for Specification 13 .brand registries and any
> Code of Conduct exempt registries  in this Vertical Integration topic. And,
> yes, we should allow Specification 13 .brand registry and Code of Conduct
> exempt registries to operate without other registrars. My understanding is
> that the non-discrimination against registrars is intended to create
> competition for the benefit of registrants. If such registries are not
> selling domains, there is no need to hold them to this requirement.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Michael Flemming
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 22, 2017 3:25 AM
> *To:* Sophia Feng <fengshuo at zdns.cn>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] 回复： Notes and Action Items: New gTLD
> SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please note that the point we are most trying to address here is on the
> last question. On the call we had today, there was some ambiguity about the
> full intention of the CC2 question 2.6.3. in the first place. The question
> appears as if it seeks to address mainly the inconsistency of requiring
> Code of Conduct exempt registries to not discriminate against registrars
> who it has entered into an RRA with. This was reinforced with input in
> regards to the background of the question, "economic papers said things
> like allowing discrimination between registrars would help to achieve
> efficiencies -- so has our artificial imposition of limits prevented
> vertically integrated registries from achieving the benefits of vertical
> integration". But based upon responses to the question, ridding the
> requirement of registrars for these registries would be beneficial.
>
>
>
> If that is the case, then we want to *(i) seek clarification in regards
> to the question, and (ii) engage member input in regards to the CC2
> feedback*.
>
>
>
> I hope this might provide further clarification.
>
>
>
> Kindest regards,
>
>
>
> Michael Flemming
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Sophia Feng <fengshuo at zdns.cn> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Thank you to those who attended today’s call and discussion on Vertical
> Integration. While Michael and I want to engage members’ feedback on action
> items in order to move forward, we would especially appreciate feedback on
> point 3.
>
>
>
> 1. From the discussion,these following proposed questions will be sent in
> order to request further data input from ICANN Compliance. for further
> review:
>
>     1) How many registry operators are vertically integrated?
>
>     2) Of that number, how many operate multiple TLDs?
>
>     3) How many complaints were there against ROs (overall - regardless of
> whether due to vertical integration)?
>
>     4) Of the complaints referenced in the 1.b answer, how many ROs were
> those 10 complaints against? *(Does this include complaints dealing with
> 2.9 of RA?)*
>
>     5) How many of those ROs own more than one TLD or multiple TLDs?
>
>     6) How many of those ROs were required to perform some kind of
> remediation regardless if they were found to be in breach or not?
>
>
>
> 2. Regarding BC’s comment related to CC2 Question 2.6.2: BC supported
> exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term comprising the TLD
> string directly corresponds to a product name of the Registry Operator. WT2
> should seek clarifications from BC on what “ a product name of the RO”
> means in that comment.
>
>
>
> 3. Regarding the comments for CC2 Question 2.6.3,
>
> “Some have argued that although we allow Registries to serve as both as a
> registry and as a registrar, the rules contained within section 2.9 of the
> Registry Agreement and in the Code of Conduct prohibit the integrated
> registry/registrar from achieving the economic efficiencies of such
> integration by not allowing a registry to discriminate in favor of its own
> registrar. Do those arguments have merit? If yes, what can be done to
> address those claimed inefficiencies? If not, please explain. What
> safeguards might be required?”
>
> Nominet, Google and Jannik Skou suggested allowing full integration for
> .brand registries and any “single registrant” TLD. In essence, this
> proposes getting rid of the registry/registrar relationship requirement and
> the other aspects of section 2.9 for Code of Conduct exempt TLDs.
>
>
>
> *So the further question to the group is  - Should we address the full
> integration for Specification 13 .brand registries and any Code of Conduct
> exempt registries  in this Vertical Integration topic? If yes,** should
> we allow Specification 13 .brand registry and Code of Conduct exempt
> registries  TLD operates without a registrar? What are the pros and cons?*
>
>
>
> We look forwards to your feedbacks.
>
>
>
> best regards,
>
> Sophia Feng
>
>
>
>
>
>  原始邮件
>
> *发件人**:* Julie Hedlund<julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>
> *收件人**:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 at icann.org<gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 at icann.org>
>
> *发送时间**:* 2017年11月22日(周三) 06:09
>
> *主**题**:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD
> SubsequentProcedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 21 November 2017
>
>
>
> Dear Work Track members,
>
>
>
> Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s
> call.  *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.*
>
>
>
> The referenced slides are attached along with the Response from ICANN
> Compliance on PIC complaints.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 –
> 21 November 2017*
>
>
>
> *1. SOI Updates:* None.
>
>
>
> *2. Appointment of New Co-Chair:*
>
>
>
> Slide 3 -- Process for Appointment of Co-Chair
>
> -- Nominations and volunteers were accepted from 31 Oct to 10 November.
>
> -- Sophia Feng volunteered.
>
> -- Welcome to Sophia.
>
>
>
> *3. Schedule Forward to Plenary Report:*
>
>
>
> Slide 4 -- Schedule
>
> -- Objective: In order provide time for deliberations have outlined the
> steps we need to take to meet the deadline.
>
> -- What do deliberations look like? What will the format be?  There is no
> decided format for that.  should fully outline the issue and provide a path
> forward including consensus if we have it.
>
> -- Ask ourselves if this is realistic.
>
> -- By February we will present what we have as a deliberation and ask for
> consensus.
>
> -- March 9th to send proposal to overall WG.
>
>
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- Confused the term "deliberations" means discussion, not conclusions.
> You are using it as coming to a conclusion.  Don't see how we can do that
> on a single call on three different options.
>
> -- We don't need to have a conclusion on the topic.  The better term would
> be agreement on a prooposal: what the issue is, what we have talked about;
> if we don't have a path forward we need to say if we need more time.
>
> -- A "proposal" implies we've made decisions and I don't think given the
> timeframe that is somewhat unrealistic.
>
> -- There are 12 issues and in February we need to get a finalized document
> on the issues in 3 calls, that is 15 minutes per issue.  We have to come
> out of calls like this one with a straw man document with the sense of the
> group.
>
> -- We have a summary document that summarizes what we have spoken about to
> date and how we might find a path forward.
>
> -- This is an ambitious schedule: if we are going to make this schedule we
> have to continue discussions online and we need more written documents.  We
> can't expect all conversations will take place on phone calls.
>
> -- There have been enough calls that we can lay out the options and
> discuss the pros and cons; may not be tendencies toward solutions on all of
> these.
>
> -- A preliminary report doesn't have to be conclusions; it can be pros and
> cons and ask pointed questions.
>
> -- If our target is in fact a viable set of options and questions to ask,
> that may be doable.
>
>
>
> *4. Vertical Integration Continuation: Discussion on follow up questions
> to ICANN Compliance:*
>
>
>
> Slide 5: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now?
>
> -- Had two previous calls.
>
> -- Introduced history, benefits, and harms.
>
> -- Reviewed mechanism to detour abusive activity.
>
>
>
> Goal: Not to reverse VI as that is a standard.  Looking to explore whether
> the mechanism introduced have fulfilled their purpose or if additional
> mechanisms are required.
>
>
>
> Discussions: Requested data from ICANN Compliance and decided we need more
> data.
>
>
>
> Slide 6: Discussion Recap: Additional Questions
>
> -- What about audit reports, GDD.  Response: We received input on audit
> reports, but there wasn't substantive findings on compliant registry
> operators, but we will check.
>
> -- The data on audit reports is accessible; we will share after the call.
>
> -- The link to the 2017 registry audit report is here:
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-ra-
> audit-report-2017-11sep17-en.pdf
>
>
>
> From the chat:
>
> Kathy Kleiman: What about audit reports?
>
> Kathy Kleiman: GDD??
>
> Kathy Kleiman: How would we get a report from GDD on its audit reports?
>
> Kathy Kleiman: This is the most systematic review of compliance, right?
>
> Jeff Neuman: Kathy, compliance CCME back and said there were no issues
> with VI that they have found
>
> Jeff Neuman: typo: came back
>
> Trang Nguyen: Previous years' reports, including registrar audit reports
> are here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-reports-2017
>
> Jeff Neuman: But all they do with respect to this is get a
> self-certification.  I do not believe they have done anything more than that
>
> Kathy Kleiman: These audit reports don't appear to address VI
>
> Emily Barabas 2: The responses from ICANN compliance can be found on this
> wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.3.5+Registrar+
> Non-Discrimination
>
> Emily Barabas 2: (see bottom of page)
>
>
>
> *5. Vertical Integration: CC2 Comments:*
>
>
>
> Slide 7: CC2 Comments
>
> -- Goal of CC2 Comment Review is our second pass through the WT2 topics.
> The goal is to review the feedback provided and discuss this input and the
> material of the topic in the WT2.
>
>
>
> Slides 8-9: Question 2.6.1
>
> -- Nominet, BRG, and RySG stated that they did not identify any issues.
>
>
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- The reason we asked the initial questions is because the audit is a
> self-audit.
>
> -- Once you get into sub-topics that are related you might get some more
> information.  Not too much interest from the community on wholesale changes
> to vertical integration.
>
>
>
> Slides 10-12: Question 2.6.2
>
> -- Nominet, Afilias, RySG, BRG, and Valideus did not identify any other
> circumstances where exemptions should be granted.
>
> -- BC supported exemptions where the RO can demonstrate that the term
> comprising the TLD string directly corresponds to a product name of the
> Registry Operator.
>
> -- RySG, BRG, Valideus supported greater flexibility for registry
> operators wishing to seek an exemption and stated that existing process of
> obtaining an exemption to the Code of Conduct results in some ambiguity
> under the Registry Agreement.
>
>
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- I see this for non-trademarked products, such as Microsoft Office where
> they can get Code of Conduct exemptions.  Not a generic term but is one
> that they use that can't be trademarked.  Or one that doesn't qualify for
> Spec 13.
>
>
>
> From the chat:
>
> Jeff Neuman: I see this for non-trademarked products
>
> Susan Payne: Funnily I think they mean in the trademark sense, but where
> they don't qualify for spec 13
>
>
>
> Slides 13-17: Question 2.6.3
>
> -- Nominet supported allowing full integration for .brand registries.
>
> -- Jannik Skou supported allowing full integration for .brand registries
> and any "single registrant" TLD.
>
> -- RySG and BRG suggested that the PDP examine whether there remains any
> consumer protection benefit to limiting registry-direct sales.
>
> -- Google encouraged the PDP to examine whether to permit closed TLDs to
> self-allocate all domain names and recommended extending carve outs granted
> to .brands to other TLDs that qualify for a Code of Conduct exemption.
>
> -- INTA stated that it does not support dispensing with the Code of
> Conduct requirements altogether, but there may be justification for
> permitting registries to seek an exemption to the Spec 9 Code of Conduct on
> a case-be-case basis.
>
> -- ALAC supported retaining the non-discrimination rule.
>
> -- John Poole opposed vertical integration.
>
>
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- One aspect of what this question is asking is do we need section 2.9 of
> the Registry Agreement -- the definiing principle.  Registry has to use an
> ICANN-accredited registrar.
>
> -- Before we started on vertical integration economic papers said things
> like allowing discrimination between registrars would help to achieve
> efficiencies -- so has our artificial imposition of limits prevented
> vertically integrated registries from achieving the benefits of vertical
> integration.  Was for non-brand or open registries, not .brand or closed
> registries.
>
> -- Second the comment that it is not very efficient.  The question is
> universal across the brand owners -- consider whether vertical integration
> is possible for .brand TLDs.
>
>
>
> From the chat:
>
> Jeff Neuman: One of the things I think we should do on the last question
> is talk to Donuts, Google, Afilias, and other vertically integrated
> registries and registrars
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): makes sense Jeff
>
> Jeff Neuman: Once we get the list of the vertically integrated entities,
> we can talk to them
>
> Gg Levine (NABP): Maybe allow it for registries that are low-volume?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20171129/a2c6bbde/attachment-0001.html>