[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 22 February 2018

Thu Feb 22 17:18:22 UTC 2018

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 recording.

Please see the link to the referenced document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDzPUL5NlsgbnbnjVRMLCfRDz8AA37_LgeZtrXCVpkY/edit# and excerpts from the chat room below.

Best,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 22 February 2017 

Action Item:  Seek clarification from BC on what "a product name of the Registry Operator" means in their CC2 comment to Question 2.6.2.

Notes:

1. SOI Updates

2. Vertical Integration

-- Progress document: compilation of all of the topics and to get feedback on the mailing list.

-- Leading up to ICANN61 we ask WT members to make suggestions on the document.

Page 13: Registrar Non-Discrimination (4.3.5) & Registry/Registrar Standardization (4.3.8)

Next Steps: Further work necessary before recommendations:

-- Sent questions on vertical integration to ICANN Compliance as a follow-up to the first response: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735941/New%20gTLD%20Subsequent%20Procedures%20Request%20for%20Data.docx?version=2&modificationDate=1518698389000&api=v2

-- Seek clarification from BC on what "a product name of hte Registry Operator" means in their CC2 comment to Question 2.6.2.

-- Re: comments for CC2 Question 2.6.3 -- WT should further discuss and seek inputs from teh group on whether the WG should address the full integration for Specification 13 .BRAND registries and any Code of Conduct exempt registries in this Vertical Integration Topic.  

-- Since there hasn't been input from the RrSG on this section we should get their input; we could put this in as a question to the community in the Initial Report and ask for comments.

-- The issues that arose from an increase in variability of registries and their RRAs with registrars warrant additional WT consideration; but noting opposition to standardization across agreements.

>From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Spec. 13 is silent on the criteria that apply to those registrars, other than they have to have signed the 2013 RRA

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Don't we already have RrSG input - from CC2?

Trang Nguyen: Section 5 of Spec 13 says: "Subject to the requirements of Specification 11, Registry Operator musteither (i) provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all ICANNaccredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with the registryregistraragreement for the TLD; provided that Registry Operator mayestablish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to register names inthe TLD that are reasonably related to the proper functioning of the TLD, or(ii) designate no more than three ICANN accredited registrars at any point intime to serve as the exclusive registrar(s) for the TLD. "

Emily Barabas: CC2 Comments: 

Emily Barabas: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tXnl3qV0rc/edit#gid=603723260

Trang Nguyen: ROs that are granted Spec13 also have the Code of Conduct exemption. Section 2 of the Code of Conduct says: "If Registry Operator or a Registry Related Party also operates as a provider ofregistrar or registrar-reseller services, Registry Operator will, or will cause suchRegistry Related Party to, ensure that such services are offered through a legalentity separate from Registry Operator, and maintain separate books of accountswith respect to its registrar or registrar-reseller operations."

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can we please check RrSG CC2 comments first?  No need to ask if they've already answered.

Emily Barabas: See 2.6

Emily Barabas: There is not a comment on this topic from RrSG

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): In that case, the most efficient thing would be for the WT to reach its views,  and note in the Preliminary Report that we seek further input from the community.

Jim Prendergast: is this a policy recommendation?  Im not so sure that ICANN wants or should be in the business of dictating terms of contracts between parties that ICANN is not party to.

Michael Flemming: Steve, do you have this page from the Issues Report?

Steve Chan: You can see the excerpt for the relevant section here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735941/Section%204.3.8.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1518687583000&api=v2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20180222/e49a425f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20180222/e49a425f/smime-0001.p7s>