[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Work Track 3 - 23 May 2017

Tue May 23 16:49:31 UTC 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Please see below the notes and action items captured by staff in the meeting today. 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 chat room or the recording. Call recording and chat transcripts will soon be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/IdTRAw.

Slides from the meeting are attached for reference.

Kind regards,
Emily

===========================

Notes:

2.     SOIs & Plenary Update

- Gg Levine -- updated SOI: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606347

- Full group update:

- After a slow start on Drafting Teams, a full group call was devoted to discussion of one of the DT topics: TLD Types. Conversation moved to the list and also touched on application rounds or other mechanisms.

- Leadership group is looking at how to move work from the Sub Teams to a close. First pass examining the topics (known as the "blue sky" or pros/cons phase) is nearly complete, CC2 comments have been received. The second cycle will aim to make deliberations more concrete. In the third cycle, we gauge consensus.

- Following these three cycles, the outputs will be considered in the full Working Group.

- As WT 3 starts to go through CC2, does the WT see places where it is completely stuck and needs input from the plenary? WT should write these issues up in a single page to share the full group for feedback and input.

- CC2: Deadline for comments was 22 May. 21 comments received, a few more are expected. Staff is organizing comments for further review and analysis. The staff report is planned for 12 June. Comments available at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/2017-May/thread.html.<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/2017-May/thread.html>

3.     History of Community Priority

- Staff and WT leads reviewed transcripts from discussions in 2005-2007. Slides offer some takeaways from the discussion. No additional questions or input from the group.

- Review of current policy -- Implementation Guidelines F and H.

- Review of provisions for Community Applications in the 2012 AGB -- Module 1, 2.3 and Mondule 4, 4.2.

4.     Questions to evaluate intial WT positions:

   a.     Should Communities receive differential treatment in any subsequent procedures?

- Likely that the provisions from 2012 will stand.

- Many of the goals of community priority were laudable, but the reality has been less than satisfactory. Without contention, the issues of whether something is community is not very controversial. With contention, there are many potential problems. There were many issues with contention sets in the 2012 round. Same issue is raised with potential rounds just for communities, and the risks of gaming may be higher.

- Can anyone think of a way to seperate communities from non-communities effectively and accurately?

- Are these policy or implementation issues?

- Would need to review the policy to see how abstract or flexible it is to accomodate changes to implementation. This issue should be treated more like a policy issue than an implementation issues, and considered by the wider community.

- Policy and implementation are bound together, and we will be considering the provisions of the AGB to the extent that they are tied to policy.

Chat excerpt:

Annebeth Lange: Won't the ongoing discussion on categories on the list go into this as well?

Robin Gross: If we do want to continue the preference given to "communities", we need to arrive at a shared definition of "community".

- Would anyone on the list like to circulate a proposed definition of community for group discussion?

- Core values and ideas still apply, but might have been watered down in implementation. It is important for policy and implementation to stay closely connected. A large part of CPE process was created after applications were submitted. It is important that the process is established before the next application window.

- Community applicants approach this process in a different way than other applicants. It requires community engagement, which can take years.The time requirements and other external factors that play into developing an application must be taken into account in policy and implementation.

Chat excerpt:

avri doria: draftng team from the Work Track to work on defintion might be useful.

avri doria: from a personal perspectiive (without chair hat) : i supported communities in the orignal policy of 2007 and still support the notion.

Trang Nguyen: @Jamie, are you referring to implementation in the context of the criteria and evaluation methodology in the AGB, or in the context of execution (applying those criteria)?

- Jaime responding to Trang -- if evaluators were only using the AGB, the results would have been different. Applicants only had access to the AGB, and the evaluators came later and developed process after the fact. New procedures were published after the application, applicants could not change applications at that point. There needs to be transparency about the process before applications are submitted.

Chat excerpt:

Annebeth Lange: +1, Avri

Gg Levine (NABP): +1, Jamie

Jim Prendergast: The character limits on responses alos impeded community applicants ability to explain their community approach.  But thats probably implementation

Annebeth Lange: +1, Jamie

- A lot of time and energy was put into answering question (18 or 20?) but this was not taken into account in scoring. It should be considered in the evaluations process in a tangible manner.

- Does anyone believe that community application should not receive priority?

Chat excerpt:

Robin Gross: I'm not convinced we should have communities

Phil Buckingham: I personally think that there should be no priority  given for any applicant  for R2  -, but need  also  to eliminate contention sets  - as money always wins at the end of the day . We must have a level playing field  from the outset

Annebeth Lange: I think there should be communities, but: Could post-delegation procedures stop gaming? If you claim to be a community and it turns out you are not after the delegation.

Greg Shatan: Annebeth, I was thinking along the same lines. It might just inspire new gaming, but anything that keeps "community" from simply being gamed to get priority would be welcome.

Gg Levine (NABP): It seems practical that the will of the many (community) would supercede the will of one (individual applicant).

Robin Gross: I don't think there would be agreement on what kind of "community" should be given preferences.

Gg Levine (NABP): Robin, do you mean if there is contention by two communities for the same string?

Robin Gross: I mean as a general concept.  The idea that some groups are more valued than others.  I don't think this WG or the icann community generally can come to agreement on whom to privilege in this process.

ACTION ITEM: Robin will write up additional discussion of her response on the mailing list.

   b.    Should Communities have a separate or priority application process?

   c.     Should Communities TLDs have a unique contract?

   d.    Can Communities be accommodated solely via implementation updates?

   e.     Is policy revision necessary?

5.     Topic Introduction: Accountability Mechanisms

- See slides.

Chat excerpt:

Jamie Baxter | dotgay: based on the inconsistencies and concerns of the current round, and as already advised by GAC, an appeals mechanism for CPE must be available.

6.     AOB  / Next Meeting

The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 06 June 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20170523/c4cbf778/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SubProWT3_23May2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 240818 bytes
Desc: SubProWT3_23May2017.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3/attachments/20170523/c4cbf778/SubProWT3_23May2017-0001.pdf>