[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 01 March 2018

[Julie Hedlund]

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 – 01 March 2017 

 

Action Item: Inform the Work Track on the list that the following data would be useful to collect:  a) How many TLDs have just nic.TLD delegated and b) Of those TLDs with just nic.TLD delegated, how many of them have either a spec 13 designation or a Code of Conduct exemption.

 

Notes:

 

1. SOI Updates: No updates.

 

2. TLD Rollout & Contractual Compliance:

 

Please refer to Sections starting on page 9 & 14: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDzPUL5NlsgbnbnjVRMLCfRDz8AA37_LgeZtrXCVpkY/edit#heading=h.rj6tr7jwqxy8

 

a. TLD Rollout  (4.3.6)

 

Summary:

-- 9-month delegation once they have approval.  

-- Asked (in CC2): “The Applicant Guidebook specified timelines by which applicants had to complete the contracting (9 months) and delegation (12 months) steps of the process. However, this requirement only means that the contract needs to be executed and nic.TLD be delegated. Are these timeframes reasonable? Is there still a need for these requirements? Please explain.” 

-- There is no requirement in terms of usage.  Asked "An applicant granted a TLD string must use it within a fixed timeframe which will be specified in the application process.  Is this okay or does it need to change?"  Not much interest in the WG to define usage.

 

High level agreement so far:

-- The Work Track generally agreed that if delegation deadlines remain in place for subsequent procedures, the timeframes used in the 2012 round remain appropriate. 

-- Work Track members supported making a recommendation that the ICANN Organization should be responsible for meeting specific deadlines in application and delegation processes, noting that this issue may also be covered under the topic of Predictability. 

 

Next steps:

The Work Track may want to further discuss or seek input on the following questions:

-- Is a delegation deadline necessary in subsequent procedures? Is it an appropriate measure to prevent incidence of squatting/warehousing?

-- Is the definition of “use” of a TLD from the 2012 round still appropriate or are adjustments needed?

This will help the group determine whether to recommend keeping or editing Implementation Guideline I or to replace it with new Implementation Guidance. 

 

Discussion:

-- Question: Do we have any idea how many TLDs only have NIC.TLD?  Answer: Can easily find out.  But harder to determine whether this means it isn't being used.

-- Not sure there is any merit to say that you must have something more than NIC.TLD.  Look at why are we allowing it.

-- Be careful about making assumptions about those that only have NIC.TLD.  Don't know were business plans might be in development.

-- Is a deadline necessary?  What problem is it trying to solve?

-- Can we define "use" in a practical way?

 

>From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: Perhaps some useful data we can get would be:  (i) How many TLDs have just nic.TLD delegated and (ii) Of those TLDs with just nic.TLD delegated, how many of them have either a spec 13 designation or a Code of Conduct exemption

 

b. Contractual Compliance

 

-- The Issue Report did not raise any specific issues under this topic, but that concern was raised in public comment about some specific operational practices.

 

High level agreement so far:

-- Work Track members seemed to support recommending that Contractual Compliance publish more granular and meaningful data on the activities of the department and the nature of the complaints handled. 

 

Next steps:

-- The WT/WG should determine to what extent the following issues are in scope for this particular topic, as the role of Contractual Compliance is simply to enforce contracts: “arbitrary and abusive pricing for premium domains targeting trademarks; use of reserved names to circumvent Sunrise; and operating launch programs that differed materially from what was approved by ICANN.” If in scope, for this topic or otherwise, the WT/WG will need to determine if it wants to make recommendations on these issues. 

-- The WG/WT may also want to seek additional input on how representations made by the applicant should be integrated into the Registry Agreement in subsequent procedures, noting that these discussions may be dependent on, or make sense to take place in the context of other conversations underway in the WG. 

 

Discussion:

-- From the RPM PDP WG (concerns from Brand owners): Should there be any policies that would address IPR concerns, or is there a tool for Contract Compliance re: violating the spirit of the RPMs.  Not talking about regulating pricing, but if pricing is used as a tool to circumvent RPMs.  

-- Think about the questions we can ask in the Initial Report to get more information, but avoid duplication work going on in the RPM.

-- Our issue is not what goes into the TMCH.  Our narrow issues are around the edges.  Whether registries are pricing trademarks higher because they are trademarks or using that to circumvent the RPM.  Are registries marks that they know are in the TMCH at a higher price, thus circumventing the RPM?  Or because they have other purposes, but not in the trademark sense.  We work with the RPM PDP WG to make sure we are coordinating and not duplicating work.

-- Need to get a better sense of how wide-spread this practice is.

-- Consider giving ICANN Compliance some way to sanction registries that are found to have committed fraud in relation to circumventing RPMs for trademark owners.

 

3. ICANN61 Meeting:  Considering discussing Vertical Integration.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20180301/ab8d6558/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/20180301/ab8d6558/smime-0001.p7s>