[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 11 October

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Sub Team Members,

 

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 October.  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 11 October

 

1. Update from Community

 

·         Jeff Neuman: regarding Board letter, WG responded that it did not have consensus, other SGs/Cs also responded, GNSO Council is drafting a response to the Board.

·         Steve Chan (staff): The current draft will be circulated to the full WG list

 

2.    WT Crossover issues and CCT issues lists (request membership input)

 

·         No additional input received.

 

5.  Objections -- Morality and Public Order / Limited Public Interest – begin deep dive.

 

Action Item: WG members should start developing a list to tighten the quick look process in 3.5.3, AGB Module 3: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/objection-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf. 

 

Discussion Notes:

 

·         Jeff Neuman: Worked on a response to .health when at Neustar. Challenged on different grounds.  Prevailed on limited public interest and community grounds.  Quite expensive.  Independent objector not accountable to anyone and made crazy accusations.  Independent objector was trying to make the criteria in the guidebook to fit his biases.  

·         Karen Day: Questioning whether or not the historical documents are available somewhere?  If we can't look at those, how can we proceed to evaluate it -- if we have to rely solely on decisions.

·         Steve Chan (staff): I am not sure.  Perhaps other staff may know.

·         Karen Day: Jeff and Avri -- beyond particular members who were involved in these cases, what are your suggestions for how we would evaluate these matters?  Is our next step to go out and contact people involved?

·         Steve Chan (staff): There are a few things that the Work Track could look at.  There is the recommendation and if it is satisfactory.  In addition, look at the application and process for the objection.  Also, the outcome of the objection.  Could determine if the recommendation was sound and the process of the objection, as well as the Independent Objector.

·         Karen Day: When for many of these cases such as mutual funds and retirement, we don't even have decisions on those to know if the guidance was met or the procedures worked as they were supposed to.  Looking for input as to what to use for criteria.

·         Jeff Neuman: One thing we could do is to send out a list of questions to the applicants whose strings were challenged and to the Independent Objector.  These weren't the type of strings we expected to be challenged under public interest/morality and public order.  We should ask the community, applicants, and objectors how these felt about these items.  

·         Karen Day: I tend to agree with that when you look at the strings and you look at who the objectors were.

·         Greg Shatan: I think we need to be a lot more clear about what the intentions were.  I think there is a natural tendency to look for any advantage as a potential tool to do so.  It seems human nature applied.  We may need to look at penalties or a filter.  The Independent Objector was suboptimal in my opinion.  

·         Jeff Neuman: I do think the financial penalty was pretty harsh if you lose, which is why a lot were withdrawn.  I think ICANN started a process to handle exclusive generics and after that the applications were withdrawn as these companies had no desire for a generic term.  Which is the one where the objection prevailed?  It was .hospital.  Not sure if that is still being appeal.  In every other case the independent objector lost.  I think there was a built in disincentive to file these to go through to the end except for the Independent Objector since his fees were paid for by ICANN.

·         Karen Day: In regard to what Greg raised, in the AGB it was stated that in 3.2.2.3, which talks about due to the inclusive standing base the quick look procedure designed to eliminate frivolous objections.  Could the quick look be strengthened.  Go back to the original intent, where we have listed the specific international standards that would prevent strings like .murder.  Then if the Independent Objector's objection is not tied to one of these it gets kicked out before anyone spends any money.

·         Rudy Mendoza: Sounds like a good idea.

·         Greg Shatan: I think that is heading in the right track.

·         Jeff Neuman: I think the problem was the vague reference to "International Law".  A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law.

·         Karen Day: 3.5.3 -- a list.  See the actual objection as written -- have it state that it is based on...see: AGB Module 3: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/objection-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf.  Don't know if that was the procedure that was taken.

·         Jeff Neuman: In the objection to dot health, they did reference a vague notion of a violation of International law....but obviously it was too far-fetched and they lost.

·         Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Perhaps a better checklist is essential to go with an objection.

·         Mary Wong: I believe that list of treaties was added as a result of the work of the Rec 6 Working Group on this objection process, and I think it may be a non-exhaustive list.

·         Karen Day: Suggest we could use our list to start working on a list to tighten the quick look process.  If we tighten it that would only allow for those remote, valid reasons for objections.  Put these together?  Move forward with look specifically the objections but not the Independent Objector until after we've dealt with the four types of objections.

·         Mary Wong: For instance, it's not possible to really state, exhaustively, what the applicable principles of public international law are. However, it MAY be possible to specify that an objector must state the actual principle (treaty, customary law, cases) that they are invoking with some specificity and documentation.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20161011/8ed30593/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/20161011/8ed30593/smime-0001.p7s>