[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 28 March 2017

Tue Mar 28 19:03:31 UTC 2017

Dear WG Members,

Please see attached the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 28 March.  These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording.  The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes will be provided separately.

The referenced slides also are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included for ease of reference.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Actions/Discussion Notes

1. Debrief on ICANN58 sessions, Work Track Updates

Work Team 1 (Sara Bockey)

-- Deep dive on RSP Program, Clarity of Application Process. Upcoming WT1 call will review comments in the ICANN58 F2F and do a deeper dive on these topics.

-- New application window is getting more attention, we may see some new participant and greater participation. 

Work Team 2 (Michael Flemming)

-- Upcoming - discussion of closed generics - potential benefits and potential harms.

--IETF is discussing special use names, we should mark that as an issue.

Work Team 3 (Robin Gross)

-- Upcoming - CPE and Community Objections deep dive.

--  (Jeff Neuman) Coming out of ICANN58, increased focus from governments on COE report. We should do a deeper dive into those and make sure we understand the recommendations. CC2 questions with respect to communities will provide communities an opportunity to share their experiences. 

>From the chat:

Karen Day: Just wanted to add that WRT 58 - the big topic of interest from both our PDP sessions and the GAC are the community applications and the COE report.  And also the Geo names will will be impacted by our upcoming discussions on Freedom of Expression

Work Team 4 (Cheryl Langdon-Orr)

-- Name collisions was discussed at ICANN58 and will continue in the call next week. CC2 questions were edited and pruned down. Cheryl and Avri attended APAC Space meeting. Cheryl promoted participation in discussions about IDNs. 

Geo name webinar - details at https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Geographic+Names+Webinar+and+ICANN59+Session 

-- We need to make sure we are clear that this is only about the top level. There was discussion between the GAC, GNSO, and others about geo names at the second level at ICANN58. As we promote the webinar, we need to highlight that the focus is the top level. 

-- All are invited. If WT members know individuals who need an individual invitation to be presenter, please let the co-chairs know. 

2. CC2 Status

-- Outreach to SO/ACs; wide distribution.

-- Reached out to the global stakeholder distribution.

-- Translation ongoing to the comment period.

-- Promoting CC2 to get geographic diversity and applicants to the first round.

-- Promotion through social media channels.

-- Thanks to ICANN staff to get this done so quickly after ICANN58.

-- Please spread the word through your constituency and stakeholder group.

-- Short answers are fine.

3. Review of recommendations from CCT-RT (See attached slides) -- Full CCT-RT report is available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.pdf

-- Call with the leadership of the RPM to decide issues we need to address.

-- Go through the CCT-RT recommendations -- and submit a comment on the work that should be delegated to us. 

-- Need to be explicit about this in any final report.

-- Be very careful to communicate what we can do with each recommendation and if we need to act on them.

-- Figure out what the CCT-RT wants to do.

-- Might want to consider having someone from CCT-RT to give perspective on these recommendations.  Before we reject them we need some idea from the CCT-RT.

-- Read the CCT-RT report.

-- We are looking at questions that we are asking them to clarify.

-- Might be best when they have come out with their report.

-- Will ultimately go to the Board.

-- Call with CCT-RT on RPMs to see which PDP WG would tackle those.

Recommendation 10 (Slide 2)

-- Interesting as it was recommended to either our WG or the RPM WG.  Discussion in Copenhagen: While certainly the RPM WG deals with RPM, but costs may not be in their purview.

-- Looking through sunrise processes and registrations in general.  There were a small number of brands that registered in a large number of TLDs.  See if there is policy needed on cost review.

-- Don’t know whether these would be assigned to the full WG or a Work Track.  Might be a hybrid approach.

>From the chat:

Michael Flemming: I know I promised not to ask too many questions, but I feel this one is of importance. Will we be assigning these recommendations to individual WT/Full WG or will we just do this on the full WG level?  Thanks.

Michael Flemming: I will leave it be for now.  Just that the key word is "consider" here.  And how much of we can do with that from a policy standpoint.

Recommendation 14 (Slide 3)

-- Listed as a prerequisite.

-- Is there any kind of incentive for industries to register in that TLD.

-- Interesting in that not sure from a policy perspective we would want to have incentives, such as a monetary incentive.

-- On safety and security of user information there is a note in the text on looking at things like new regulations.

-- While it may not be possible we will have to have a good response as to why.

-- Point out that the way some of these recommendations are written some say “consider” and some are a mandate; we need to be careful to communicate what we can do with each recommendation – do we have to act on it?

-- Consider having someone from the CCT-RT come and talk with the WG go over the perspective behind the recommendations.  Also, read the transcript from the Wednesday afternoon meeting that occurred during ICANN58 (15 March) and read the report.

-- Stages: 1) looking at questions and asking them to clarify; 2) respond to questions when they come out with their draft, which may be a better time to have the in-depth discussion.  Still more stages where we can comment.

>From the chat:

Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, correct. The study found a link between restrictions and level of trust.

Donna Austin, Neustar: I'm not sure it is possible to 'create incentives to encourage' such things.  So I think I'm agreeing with Michael.

Greg Shatan: Not possible or not desirable?

Victor Zhang: thanks, I think this must be handled before the Next Round ~

Donna Austin, Neustar: These seem also to be taken from the GAC safeguards associated with regulated sectors,

Christa Taylor: +1 Greg - the insight would be really helpful

Michael Flemming: +1

Christa Taylor:+1 Greg - the insight would be really helpful Michael Flemming:+1 to Greg, we need background for each of

these recommendations

Michael  Flemming: Still,  Jeff,  having  a  separate  session  or presentation that presents each of  these recommendations that are directed at our group would do well.

Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jeff, there is a lot of information in  the  body  of  the  report.

Greg Shatan: I was there, and I still feel that we  need more conceptual understanding of why they say what they say.

Jeff Neuman: Emily - Also the link to our working session

Karen Day: +1 Greg. I came away similarly scratching my head at what they are trying to get at with a lot of these.

Recommendation 33 (Slide 4)

-- Have questions about this one – not clear how our WG would be doing this.

-- Think they are trying to basically look at the theory that those TLDs with restrictions would have more trust – would like to compare the TLDs with restrictions and those without.  Not sure we would be in a position to do this.

-- Not a prerequisite.

-- May require ICANN to collect the data and provide it to the WG, but timing may not make sense.

Greg Shatan: Note that Rec 33 is sent to ICANN Org and future CCT-RTs  as well as us....

Trang Nguyen: I believe this recommendation requires ICANN org to collect the data and provide to the PDP WG. However, the timing  doesn't  make  sense -- or rather the priority level

Donna Austin, Neustar: It looks like a tough one to gather data for.

Greg Shatan: I think one would need to define concretely what you  are actually  measuring.

Recommendation 34 (Slide 5)

-- This is high priority.

-- Includes the category 1 restrictions.

-- Question whether it is this PDP or RPM.  Probably intended for us.

>From the chat:

Michael  Flemming: This  says  PDP  working  group,  but  does  that mean us?

avri doria: I believe so, but we can confirm.

Michael Flemming: We need to, because the Review looks at RPM PDP  Working Group,  Subpro, and  others.

Karen Day: I believe that those which do not specify a particular PDP are up for debate as to which PDP

Emily Barabas: Some of the recommendations are directed to a PDP WG, but do not specify which group.  These are included in the slides, as well as those that are specifically for this PDP.

Recommendation 35 (Slide 6)

-- High priority but not a prerequisite.

-- Not sure this is something for us, other than the analysis of data.

-- Ask a clarification question.

>From the chat:

Trang Nguyen: All of the data collection is directed at icann org

Recommendation 36 (Slide 7)

-- Public comments on impact of registration restrictions on competition.

-- Restrictions in Spec 11 on highly regulated strings.

-- We need to do some research about the terms "undue preferences" – refers to communiques from the GAC; should use “unjustified” rather than “undue” – having an impact on competition.

-- Impact of next gTLD registration restrictions.

-- Need clarity on this interpretation (see Kristina’s comments), particularly on the word “undue”.

-- “restrictions on competition” what is this in reference to (see Greg’s comments) – Need clarification too; could refer to closed TLDs favored some registrants over others; no reason to have those.

>From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Rec. 36 seems inconsistent with Rec. 14.  Am I misunderstanding?  OK, thanks.  I'll read that section of the report.

Greg Shatan: We need more clarity on what. the "restrictions on competition" are.  Not sure that "restricts competition."

Recommendation 38 and 39 (Slides 8 and 9)

--- ccTLD Team trying to evaluate the voluntary PICs and their effectiveness.

-- Background: The CCT-RT was trying to evaluate PICs and whether they have any relation to increasing trust and competition.  Trying to understand the rationale for TLDs to agree to PICs. Many TLDs did PICs because they felt the were forced to.  Relates to recommendation 39.  If we have PICs in the next application window we should make sure that there’s enough time for the PICs to be reviewed by the community and the GAC to provide advice.  Provide a mechanism for PICs to be reviewed.

-- Kristina’s question below: Don’t think they are recommending that PICs should not be permitted.  Note Greg’s comment re: “voluntary” PICs.  See clarity in our comments to the CCT-RT.

>From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): So is CCT effectively recommending that voluntary PICs *should not* be permitted if not included in the original application?

Greg Shatan: This refers to "voluntary" PICs, so we wouldn't be mandating them necessarily.

Michael Flemming: All we would need to do is say "If there are volunteer  pics,  then  please  state  the  goal".

Donna Austin, Neustar: We can set objectives, but that doesn't mean they will be met.

Recommendation 43 (Slide 10)

-- Considerable discussion at working session at ICANN58.

-- Set objectives for applications from the Global South including defining it.  Need measurable goals although CCT-RT weren’t looking for an actual number.  Just some way to assess whether having a Global South financial program meets a goal.  Whether these programs are effective.

-- Difficult to tackle.

-- Would like to know what they mean by the "Global South" and what they mean by measurable goals.

-- If we set objectives and we don’t meet them people will assume that it is a failure, but don’t necessarily agree.

-- Need clarity on whether “needs to” = “should”.

>From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Does "needs to" = "should" in the must/should/may scheme?

Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree Jeff, a lot of potential difficulties with this one. 

difficulties with  this  one.

Christa Taylor 2: A difficult one considering the difficulty of determining the 'middle' applicant

Christa Taylor 2: yes

Recommendation 46 (slide 11)

-- Revisit the applicant support program.

-- Applying for and running TLD is a lot more than $185,000.  Cover overall costs including subsidies for “underserved communities”.

-- Considering in Work Track 1.

-- Inconsistent terminology – ask whether the terms are interchangeable: “underserved communities” versus “Global South”.

-- In 2011 asked registries if they wanted to be included on a list to participate in a program to provide other forms of support.  Nothing was done with the list.  Question: Did ICANN refer the community to these registries did anyone contact the registries?  Answer: ICANN did not try to play matchmaker and no one directly contacted the registries.

-- Subsidies are different from price regulation.

-- Costs could be considered with competition.

>From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Is "underserved communities" different from "Global South"?

Michael Flemming: On this one, I really think we are limited at looking at costs that are outside of the scope of ICANN. Back end costs, etc. are determined by the provider.

Christa Taylor 2: I think Global South was from AMGlobal's focus in S. America vs. other geographic areas.

avri doria: and do they mean to include both? 

avri doria: underserved communities is a term a lot of us try to use instead of Global south, in general

Michael Flemming: Being willing to participate in a subsidized program or volunteer to do is different than price regulation. So, that would be something to explore.

Greg Shatan 2: Isn't Rec 46 only about application costs, not operation costs?

Robin Gross: underserved communities does sound more descriptive and  accurate

Christa Taylor 2: Same with volunteers who would support potential registries - it was posted on the ICANN site

Michael Flemming: I think the costs of a back end could be associated  with  application  in  this  case.  As the way these recommendations are written, I wouldn't  doubt  if they  wanted  to include  that.  Key thing to ask for is clarity.

Trang Nguyen: ICANN did not play matchmaker, only provided the forum for those wishing to provide pro bono services and those looking for them to be listed. Certainly, the program can be evolved. not directly.

Recommendation 47 (Slide 12)

-- Required by the Bylaws – could we create more structure on how GAC provides advice and early warning and a template on how that advice is provided.

-- Part is to ensure that the advice from the GAC is actionable.

Recommendation 48 (Slide 13)

-- Something we are already doing: reviewing the community applications and address the concerns raised by the different groups.  Make sure these are considered in policies for next round.

-- Make sure we understand the concerns and ask questions on if it isn’t clear.

Recommendation 49 (Slide 14)

-- Already discussing and addressing.

-- Come up with clear processes for these types of disputes going forward.

Recommendation 50 (Slide 15)

-- Low priority and shouldn’t be for this WG.  We may not be around at this point.

-- While we are looking at these and pulling out issues, it is not the review the CCT-RT is looking for: a catalog for all decisions made for next CCT-RT.

-- Agree that as a prerequisite all of our core recommendations would be a higher priority.

>From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can't we persuade some law student somewhere to write a law review article that covers rec. 50?

Michael Flemming: We should submit those as a part of the Public Comment, no?

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Michael: I'd rather we got their response before public comment so our public comment is appropriately directed.

Trang Nguyen: Public comment is currently slated to close on 27 April.

Questions:

-- When do we have to have the clarifying questions back to the CCT-RT?  How do we plan to convey them?  When do they plan to release this draft?

-- Rather than sending a written request for every question just reach out to the CCT-RT and ask them to present the materials and provide background.  A lot of the clarifications are probably in the background of the report.

-- The expectations that we need to set also need clarification.

Action Items: 1) We should invite members of the CCT-RT to come to the next full WG meeting.  2) Once we get the background we need to put our request for clarity on the questions in writing and submit as a comment so it will be clearer in their final report.

4. CC1:

-- Drafting Teams – 1) Different TLD types (10 people + Chairs) 2) predictability and community engagement (1 person + Chairs) 3) applications assessed in rounds (6 people + Chairs).  Have not started these yet, but do need to get going, at least 1) and 3).  Do we need an introductory meeting for each?  Do we want to have a lead editor?  Is there anyone from the teams that wants to be a lead editor?  Could at least start on the Google Drive documents.

-- Staff have created mailing lists for all three of the Drafting Teams.

Action Items: 1) staff can send around a kick-off email; 2) staff can create the forms for the Google documents.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170328/cee58bd7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SubPro CCT-RT recommendations 27-3-17.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 206324 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170328/cee58bd7/SubProCCT-RTrecommendations27-3-17-0001.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/attachments/20170328/cee58bd7/smime-0001.p7s>