[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 13 December

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Sub Team Members,

 

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 December.  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 recording.  Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings.

 

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

 

Action Items/Discussion Notes 13 December

 

1. Frequency or Duration of Future WT3 meetings

 

-- Keep calls every other week for 60 minutes?

-- Not sure if we need an increase in frequency, but focus on doing more on the mailing list.

-- Continue to plug on and see how we go.  Too much on at the moment with other calls.

Agreed: Keep to the current every other week schedule of 60-minute calls, but focus on getting work done on the list.

 

2.  Recap & Reminders of Hyderabad Discussions

 

a.  Council of Europe Report on Community -Based gTLD Applications: https://community.icann.org/x/Wz2AAw and https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806b5a14 -- Brought up again at the IGF and the GAC is discussing it

b.  Role of Independent Objector -- session moderated by Robin Gross -- Community is calling for a major overhaul of that role

 

3. Update from Full WG since Hyderabad – Jeff Neuman

 

-- Goal for the full WG is to finalize the response to community comment 1.  Try to come up with community comment 2 -- more specific questions in each of the work track areas.  Focus on early next year.

 

4. Recap and positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections

Content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and 3.5.3 -- agreement with the existing language?

 

-- Keep it on the list for additional comments.  Do another review of the decisions.

-- Send it back out to the list for comments.

-- At-Large and ALAC funded by ICANN to submit Limited Public Interest Objections.  Rejected because they didn't have standing.  Could require clarification.

-- Language of "generally" versus "universally" -- resistence to objection.  Something strong than "generally", but not as strong as "universally".

-- The only ALAC objection was to .health.  Lobbying by groups who did not want to file their own objections.

-- Disagree about manipulation.

-- Do we want feedback on a per-objection basis, or on all of them?  Tailor some CC2 questions towards those that did face objections.

-- Costs associated with filing objections -- deal with as a whole or by type? Better dealt with at the end than with each objection.  Deal with at the end with some general principals applicable to all

-- Should find factual basis for gaming.  Add for CC2 questions.

-- Circulate to the list the questions address today and ask if there are language tweaks.

 

>From the chat:

Kurt Pritz: @ Alan: I think the distinction is that the Independent Objector was automatically granred standing; the ALAC was funded but also had to qualify as having standing as an injured party

Jeff Neuman: ok..then I am in favor of abolishing that right.  

Alan Greenberg: Clearly!

Jeff Neuman: The ALAC should have no different objection rights than any other AC (other than the GAC) or SO

Alan Greenberg: We had the same rights. Only the funding was different.

Alan Greenberg: But in any case, I was simply raising the issue to be discussed.

Alan Greenberg: @Kurt, yes that is correct.

Kurt Pritz: Not sure how to introduce this: It was cleared to me that the objection process was used (gamed) by some applicants to delay other applications. It was thought that the loser pays mechanism would prevent much of this gaming but it turned out not to be so.   Side issue: initial evidence of gaming: Just checking: out of about 275 objections, the objector prevailed about 30 times, about 11%. In an evenly constructed process, I would think objectors would prevail 50% or more of the time. In loser pays, I would think objectors would prevail much greater than 50% of the time. 

Mike Rodenbaugh: Fees can be dealt with on omnibus basis.  Seems no reason why they would be structured differently depending on objection type.

Jeff Neuman: Yes, deal with at the end with some general principles applicable to all

 

5. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3; See Wiki:  https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.4.3+Objections 

 

-- Re: standing -- is what was used in the past still relevant for future rounds?

-- Not sure there is an issue with standing rules.

-- Look into this more before the next call.

-- Request for Paul McGrady to lead the discussion on the list on what to aim for.

 

>From the chat:

Rubens Kuhl: LRO standing for IGOs/INGOs is something peculiar.  But removing it might cause issues with GAC of where they would go. It was not used, although could have been used by ECO. 

Paul McGrady: Just to confirm @Rubens.  This is a hot topic right now in GNSOland.

Rubens Kuhl: ECO later sent a letter to ICANN questioning that application, but that was too late and out of process. We can just acknowledge that as an useful quirk and keep it on. It's weird but not too weird. 

Greg Shatan: That would be helpful.

Rubens Kuhl: I have an issue with SCO standing, but we are talking LROs. Just to put a marker down. 

Kurt Pritz: The legal rights objection was lightly, if at all, used. It is cheap insurance for the gTLD program. I think we should leave it as is. 

Paul McGrady: +1 Kurt.  I see no reason to wade into the mess if we don't have to.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agreed Jeff

Rubens Kuhl: "If ain't broke, don't fix it"

Mike Rodenbaugh: The LRO was used in several instances, which bear reviewing and considering whether changes are appropriate.  .Merck.  .DelMonte.  .GCC

Rubens Kuhl: Merck is Kramer x Kramer, corporate world version. No happy ending possible. 

Kurt Pritz: @ Mike - those were the legitimate uses of the process and it worked fairly well

Paul McGrady: @Mike, were the examples you gave related to standing? or just the LRO generally?

Mike Rodenbaugh: LRO generally.  Though GCC has a standing issue.  Specifically, GCC was not on the WIPO trademark list until after the applications were revealed.

Rubens Kuhl: It could be close to UDRP prevail rates, I believe. 

Mike Rodenbaugh: GCC did not work well at all.  In fact the Board stopped the LRO from being heard, even though it was fully briefed by the parties.  Because of intervening GAC Advice.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20161213/f705f76f/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-wt3/attachments/20161213/f705f76f/smime-0001.p7s>