[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 18 January 2018

Thu Jan 18 12:52:12 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 chat transcript or the recording.

Please see below the links to the referenced documents and excerpts from the chat room.

Applicant Terms and Conditions

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyeCn0QHyFu8cvmAuZ8_sUUIuGMzeh8XyaLMhDI5Msk/edit[docs.google.com]

Reserved Names

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h4aqPkeTg0-8tMatrEHFMMZsaZNC6qfTR04uDuQHLz0/edit[docs.google.com]

Best,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

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

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 – 18 January 2017 

1. Proposals on High Level Agreements and further deliberations Reserved Names Applicant Terms and Conditions

-- We have provided some summaries of our progress.

Section 3 (reading from the section):

-- Clarify the language in this section.

-- We are saying that the decision to review a decision - I think we need to link the rejection to the 3 categories - laws, bylaws, or etc. 

-- Need to state the concept that while ICANN has authority to reject application it needs to do so under the applicant contract, bylaws, etc.  The concept is that we don't agree with the language that is in the applicant terms and conditions and should be limited to certain circumstances.  Be clear about discretion is limited to certain circumstance.

-- The Work Track should agree on wording. 

-- See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8GCamL3NQ/edit?ts=5a5726be#gid=2486987

Section 6:

-- Wt2 can say that there needs to be an appeals mechanism, but some WT members oppose the covenant not to sue.

-- The mechanism of the IRP is a good model.

Section 14:

-- Could probably have some language that describes the role of a terms and conditions document is, but doesn't override everything in the AGB and ICANN's Bylaws.  Changes to the AGB will reference the predictability framework.

-- First 3 bullets are consensus decisions.

-- 4th bullet implies that it is a minority decision.  If the changes are policy changes they have to go back to the GNSO.

High-Level Agreement so Far:

-- Maintaining the reserved names list in the top level: Appears to be consensus to maintain the top level reserved name list.  While there is no consensu on whether any specifc changes in the top level reserved name list should be recommended, it would be beneficial for the WT to further review the Top Level Reserved Name List.

>From the chat:

Sophia Feng: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LyeCn0QHyFu8cvmAuZ8_sUUIuGMzeh8XyaLMhDI5Msk/edit

Sophia Feng: here is link to this document

Jim Prendergast: can I suggest that one of the post call action items that is sent int he summary a link to the doc asking WT members to review and propose edits. 

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): For the record, we oppose the covenant not to sue - regardless of any appeals mechanism.  

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I suspect several entities will @Kristina, and that may be clearer post public comments after the Initial Report

Jeff Neuman: I believe our Prelim Report needs to state that some members of the Working Group oppose the covenant not to sue as a concept.  If, however, such a covenant not to sue remains, then we recommend..........

Heather Forrest: There was a presentation to SO/AC leaders yesterday on the new IRP and what SO/ACs will need to do to participate in that process. I wasn't able to participate due to time zone but think we need to consider these Ts and Cs in light of that new process

Steve Chan: WT3 is definitely considering appeals mechanisms as part of its topic on Accountability Mechanisms (probably a topic that is not correctly labeled)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): The IRP is certainly a good bst practice model in my biased (personal) view

Jeff Neuman: THe new IRP is a little bit better, but it will not be sufficient to challenge substantive decisions of evaluators

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The comments I made earlier w/r/t the .ISLAM and .HALAL IRP Final Declaration apply to Section 14, too.

Steve Chan: Would a reference to the Predictabilty Framework, from the overarching issues, make sense here?

Heather Forrest: +1 Kristina - decisions such as these on validity are critical to this group's evaluation

Jeff Neuman: Sure

Steve Chan: Or perhaps this particular concerns might feed into the Predictability Framework?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): We could do that Steve...

Justine Chew: Section 14 -- unavoidable changes should not prejudice applicants who have submitted their application(s), and if prejudice arises some allowances should be granted to such applicants.

Jim Prendergast: no objections here

Jeff Neuman: At the end of the day, I think  that fourth bullet will go away and just reference the other work under the predictability framework

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): makes sense Jeff

Jeff Neuman: [which goes into the things that Alan talked about]

Jeff Neuman: @Jim - I think you are right

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The other issue with "a few" is that "a few" has one meaning if the few = all SGs and Constituencies (for example) and another meaning if "a few" = 2 people in their individual capacity.  Suggest rephrasing for that reason, too.

2. Reserved Names (4.3.1):

-- Release of certain reserved names: Whether we have a policy recommendation on this issue.  Make sure we don't lose that issue.

-- Staff notes that there is still ongoing policy development on IGO acronyms.  The policy posted there are exception procedures.  

-- For any category that doesn't have an exception there should be a process developed.

-- During the policy discussions on IOC names there was a discussion on whether we want an exception, and the decision was no.  Interesting that the most recent policy is to add an exception.

>From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: AS a preface to this section, we know that there is a new consensus policy just announced on IGO / INGO names and so we will make sure that that consensus policy is incorporated into our prelim report

Jeff Neuman: sorry initial report

Michael Flemming: I think that everyone is fully aware, but just to make sure there is no confusion. Geographic Names at the TOP LEVEL are being discussed in Work Track 5, not Work Track 2.

Steve Chan: Here is the announcement Jeff just referenced: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-01-16-en

Heather Forrest: Raising for completeness the same comment here as I made in this week's WT5 meeting - it's important that we focus on the rationale of reserving names (as was done in the RNWG Final Report)

Michael Flemming: RNWG = Reserved Name Working Group

Steve Chan: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8GCamL3NQ/edit?ts=5a5726be#gid=2486987

Julie Hedlund: @Sophia: Unless we share screen we can't show it.  But members can open it.

Jeff Neuman: Adobe Connect has some limitations

Steve Chan: The document is uploaded to the AC room and can be displayed, but probably diffcult to read there.

Jeff Neuman: Lets make sure to capture Heather's comment on making sure the rationale is provided from the original 2007/2008 RSWG where we recommend the reservations are maintained

Steve Chan: The link shared above is for second-level reserved names.

Steve Chan: Here is the link for the top-level: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8eVeeh5-N0/edit?ts=5a5726eb#gid=0

Heather Forrest: Thanks Jeff :)

Jim Prendergast: today’s announcement contains a definitive list of terms that must be reserved. but no list like that was provided in the AGB. I can’t remember if we talked about having icann develop and publish a definitive list but that would seem to make sense to synch the two major categories of reserved names. (at 2nd level)

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): +1 Jim

Jeff Neuman: Good point Jim

Jeff Neuman: One I know that many registries were asking ICANN to do for a long time :)

Steve Chan: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedNames.xml

Michael Flemming: @Heather, some CC2 comments addressed this area. But, when you say questioned in regards to its choice, I don't believe we have had a Registry chime in on.

Heather Forrest: @Michael - thank you. I was just curious, but the fact that Registries haven't raised it as a problem suggests that it isn't a problem, or it isn't high priority

Heather Forrest: To the comment about IANA transition, there were some very interesting discussions in the Reserved Names Working Group in 2007 about reservations for ICANN-related names, and why these should be treated differently than any other brand or corporate name

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): "Very interesting discussions," indeed.  :-)

Heather Forrest: I recall a very rational argument raised by Mike Rodenbaugh, I think

Jeff Neuman: But also we are talking about both top level and second level here

Jeff Neuman: Alan you may be right at top level, but second level is a different story

Kathy Kleiman: Perhaps you can put this out for review by the whole subteam?

Jeff Neuman: EIther way, we need to discuss it further

Kathy Kleiman: on the list...

Jeff Neuman: @Kathy - yes, it needs to be discussed by all

Alan Greenberg: @Jeff, the PDP was exclusively discussing 2nd level.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20180118/aa83ab4a/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/20180118/aa83ab4a/smime-0001.p7s>