[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 SubTeam Meeting 10 April

Mon Apr 10 21:18:44 UTC 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 10 April. 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.  

In addition, the referenced slides are attached along with excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference.

 Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items/Discussion Notes 10 April 2017

1. Community Issues:  Community Objections, Community Applications, Community Priority Evaluations (CPE)

a.  Council of Europe Report: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806be175[rm.coe.int].  Review of presentation from last call and discussion on issues raised in report.

-- Similar to GAC advice, but doesn't constitute GAC advice per se.  No endorsed by the CoE.

-- Need to give the CoE report strong consideration even if it is not GAC advice.  See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-icann-15mar17-en.pdf.

-- CoE Report Recommendations at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806b5a14)

1) Clear consistent definition of "community" (slide 7):

-- Agree that there is a need for clarify.  Probably the number one irritant.  Some were clearly community and some were not.

-- Recommendations go to the issues that caused concern.

-- Right of assembly and association as a fundamental right -- affects our definition.  Previously, the test defined what was considered a community.  To consider for future rounds whether a points-based test is the right way to do this.

-- One of the problems is there was no clarity on how wide the community had to be.  Too much discretion on those judging.

-- What is the public interest objective we are trying to achieve?  Want some level of certainty.  Sets a level of expectations and controls on what a TLD can do.

>From the chat:

Paul McGrady: GAC Consensus Advice applies to the Board unless the Board votes it down.  There has been no notice of an up or down vote yet by the Board, so the best we can say about the content in the Copenhagen Communique is that it might be binding on the Board someday.

avri doria: Right but if we know something is advice, or likely to be advice, we ought to consider it carefully and deal with the issues brought up. Saves the end game difficulties we wish to avoid.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): depends from my POV

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I guess it was not under the heading of GAC Consensus Advice - it was just a recommendation for full consideration:

Paul McGrady: @Avri - agree that it behooves us to take it seriously in our process, but we also can't let the GAC instruct policy to the GNSO.

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): from the GAC:  "Community-based gTLD applications: Following the Council of Europe's submission to theGAC at ICANN 57 of their report “Applications to ICANN for community-based new gTLDs: Opportunities and Challenges from a Human Rights Perspective”, a presentation of thereport's recommendations was provided by one of the authors. The GAC expresses support for these recommendations going forward for further consideration by the NewgTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group."

Paul McGrady: Robin - is it a new right or is often already the right of likeminded people to assemble?

Paul McGrady: This is great.  It sounds like there may be some different views on how to fix it, but it doesn't sound like anyone is saying the way we did it last time doesn't need fixing.

Emily Barabas: For more detail on the CPE, see AGB beginning on p193, section 4.2.3: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf

Steve Chan: Regarding the last bullet, registration requirements related to communities is captured in Spec 12 of the Registry Agreement and PICs are in Spec 11.

2) Community Priority Evaluation (slide 8):

-- Always keep the big picture in mind when considering the details.

-- If we decide that there are certain types of applications we want to prioritze -- how do we do that (subject that comes later).

-- Need a definition of "community" in any case.

Consider reducing the costs for CBAs for future gTLD rounds:

-- May be a Work Track 1 topic re: differential fees.  Is this a category where we would recommend them.  Consider whether to have means testing, but differentiate communities that are for profit and those that are not-for-profit.

-- Have clear timelines and definitions of the terms.  

-- How can we encourage more community applications?

>From the chat:

Rubens Kuhl: I think this a topic for applicant support... 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup

Paul McGrady: But the "true communities" vs "not true communities" sorting that was just suggested begs the question.  If they are "not true communities" they presumably they won't get past our (soon to be) revised definition and test.

Alan Greenberg: I think that community appications and applications from developing economies are really two different issues. Perhaps some overlap.

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): right Alan - Applicant Support does not currently apply - but should it for non-profits or other types of community applicants we want to encourage as a matter of  public interest?

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): OR should we think about Community Applicants who meet certain guidelines getting support from Auction Proceeds?

Either re-evaluate the scoring system and points to lower the bar or develop a new process altogether for assessing community applicants:

-- Do we agree with this recommendation?

-- Calling it "lowering the bar" is a prejudicial way to do it.  No nuances could be captured -- make the test and results more reasonable and statistically valid.

-- When you talk about special rights it really is a redress in many cases for persecuted communities.

-- Different understanding of what we are trying to achieve.

-- It is not only the nuance, it is also a set of what are reasonable expectations.  Don't know if we will need examples or ranges.  One thing that may be useful is to go through the CPE responses and what things did people lose points for.

-- Board has requested a complete review of how the CPE judgment was done.

>From the chat:

Rubens Kuhl: The only supported application for the 2012-round still in play happens to be a self-defined community application that failed CPE, .kids. 

Paul McGrady: Supporting non-profit applications is very different than picking winners and losers based upon whether or not they are commercial communities.

Emily Barabas: For a summary of Community Applications, outcomes, and related reconsideration requests, see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735963/Community%20Applications%2028-3-17.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1490693082000&api=v2

Trang Nguyen 2: The review that Avri just mentioned is the subject of this Board resolution: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-09-17-en. There was a question regarding this review at the second Public Forum in Copenhagen and John Jeffrey's response can be viewed here: http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/60/I58CPH_Thu16Mar2017-Public%20Forum%202-en.pdf (page 11 of the transcript).

Full registry conditions...should be published (slide 8, last bullet) -- This one is already accomplished.

b.  Do “costs" of community applications outweigh any “benefits” from the mechanism?

-- Don't think we achieved what we were trying to achieve because some thought applications that should have gone through didn't.

-- Don't know how we measure the cost.

-- Seems like circular logic if we can't agree what we are supporting.  We need to define.

>From the chat:

avri doria: that the benefits of supporting communities is an essential part of the requirements of a corporation in the public interest.  that overweighs most cost.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20170410/1ad27997/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SubProWT3_CommunityAppIntro_7March2017 copy.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 220870 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20170410/1ad27997/SubProWT3_CommunityAppIntro_7March2017copy-0001.pdf>
-------------- 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/20170410/1ad27997/smime-0001.p7s>