[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 16 April 2018

Mon Apr 16 21:52:02 UTC 2018

Dear WG Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 16 April 2018. 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.

For reference see also the attached referenced documents.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items:  

WG members should review the Initial Report excerpts and provide comments/edits in email to the WG list, with references to the relevant sections.
Staff will explore other possibilities for WG members to provide comments/edits.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates.

2. Initial Report Excerpts:

-- Sent overarching issues.

-- Goal is to get all sections out by 20 April.

-- People have sent in comments, some of which are opinions on the substance in the report – ask that you make sure those go into the public comment forum.  We aren’t changing the substance of the report, unless we missed something that was discussed.

Discussion:

-- May not be realistic to submit comments in email; wonder if it would be feasible to allow edits to be made in the Google doc.  Putting the comments in the email allows others on the list to see it.  But staff could handle it in another form.

-- Concern about holding substantive comments to the public forum.

-- All of these issues were discussed by Working Group members.  They were debated.  The work of the Work Tracks has resulted in this Initial Report, which isn’t arranged by Work Track but more logically.  Each of these subjects have been thoroughly discussed, debated, and subject to comments by the Working Group.  The Initial Report is a presentation to the public on the work we have been doing, preliminary recommendations, and questions.  There may be yet another report for comment.  It is not the Final Report.  At this point we had to put the marker down and consider substantive comments in the Public Comment period.

-- The Work Track leads have reviewed the content, and the WG member can help make sure we haven’t missed anything that was raised in the deliberations of the Work Tracks or WG.

-- Could be helpful to include page numbers and also links to the work tracks.

-- We are preparing a document under the PDP rules that must be called an “Initial Report”.  It has to have a public comment period.  We are asking WG member to look at this draft to make sure we have accurately and appropriately covered the material that the Work Tracks and WG have discussed.  This is not closing an opportunity for input.  Wanted everyone in the WG the opportunity to review and comment on the products from the Work Tracks.

-- Were there was no consensus on certain topics we’ve included questions.  Need WG members to help with these questions: are these clear, do they need more/less context, do we need to add questions?

-- Should not appear that any recommendations or suggestions were rejected.

-- May I suggest a path forward:  To the extent that WG members are submitting substantive comments/answers to questions, would it be possible to have staff arrange for the submission of those comments/answers, with the commenter's permission, once the public comment period opens with the significant caveat that it's the commenter's responsibility to make sure her/his comments/answers are submitted during the public comment period?

-- Procedurally the question will be whether Working Group members agree with the characterization of the document as an Initial Report.  A lot depends on the introductory paragraph in this report.  It may be wise to allow a dissenting statement to be made by those who object to this process.  This is in addition to suggestions on individual sections.  We all need to keep in mind that we have strongly encouraged early GAC participation in PDPs. Don’t know how we can get past these objections without allowing a dissenting statement on the process.

-- Concern about using the phrase “the Working Group recommends”.  Suggest "No member of the Working Group objected to the structuring of the next application process in a "round".  This seemed to be the favored approach.  Other options discussed were as follows:" -or-  "The Working Group is leaning toward a recommendation that" - or give that explanation in the Intro.

-- Don’t use recommends that often, but when we do it was the leaders/co-chair judgment that it was appropriate, but if there is other language to use let us know.  Or if you disagree, speak up.

-- The question is whether these are in fact "Recommendations of the WG" when the requirements in the PDP Manual for Initial Report require a Consensus Call".  Approach will be to include a preamble in the document to explain that a consensus call was not taken, but will be in the Final Report.

Comments on Excerpts:

-- If there are sections that say “none” or “not applicable” that means that nothing came out of the deliberations, not that the information was somehow missed or deliberately not included.

-- Can link the sections to the work track, but the material has been provided by a number of sources.

-- 1.2.1 – Continuing Subsequent Procedures: In the options section, the WG didn’t come to any consensus.  If we have a preliminary recommendation then you may not see the options under section c.

-- On rounds, there was discussion of specific rounds/batches.  Should be smaller, quicker, and focused.

-- Predictability 1.2.2.1: process for application – discussion included that documents created after the CPE should never have been included.  This is be reflected in the deliberations.  Key difference is that this was additional guidelines that were used by the evaluating team.  They were not published until after the application process.  Makes it unfair for the applicant when the only expectation was that they would be evaluated on the Guidebook.  This is a practice that shouldn’t happen as it does not align with goals around predictability.  ACTION: Staff should revise the deliberations of that section.  Helpful to get this in an email and note where it should be included.

-- Predictability framework questions: WG members should consider whether there are questions to add (page 9 of the attached document).

-- I cannot see whether specific reference is made to GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, Expedited PDP.  If not, it should be added.  Also, reference the consensus policy adopted by the Board.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180416/5d5aa36d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Initial Report Excerpts_1.2 Overarching Issues_13Apr2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 772868 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180416/5d5aa36d/InitialReportExcerpts_1.2OverarchingIssues_13Apr2018-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SubPro Initial Report_Sections_16Apr2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 158954 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180416/5d5aa36d/SubProInitialReport_Sections_16Apr2018-0001.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/20180416/5d5aa36d/smime-0001.p7s>