[council] [Ext] Re: Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG

Wed Jan 20 20:17:08 UTC 2021

Dear Emily, 
Thank you. 

⁣Maxim Alzoba

On 20 Jan 2021, 22:38, at 22:38, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org> wrote:
>Dear Maxim,
>
>Please find attached an updated version of the report in which Minority
>Statements are included as full text rather than appended by reference.
>This updated version will also be posted on the GNSO website.
>
>The final Annex of this report, Annex J (27 pages long), is the full
>Final Report of the Working Group’s Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at
>the Top Level. The original page numbers, as included in the WT5
>report, are also included in the Annex, in order to ensure that the WT5
>report Table of Contents can be used to navigate the document.
>
>Kind regards,
>Emily
>
>From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>
>Date: Wednesday, 20 January 2021 at 17:30
>To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
>Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent
>Procedures PDP WG
>
>Hello Emily,
>
>The document has obvious issues with the pages numbering (for example
>we see page 27 in the end).
>
>For some unknown reasons we see a URL instead of the Minority
>Statements.
>
>I suggest we have a full document with the correct page numbers
>prior to the discussion at the GNSO Council meeting,
>(Council does not discuss URLs, mostly processes and documents).
>
>Sincerely Yours,
>
>Maxim Alzoba
>Special projects manager,
>International Relations Department,
>FAITID
>Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
>
>
>On 18 Jan 2021, at 23:18, Emily Barabas
><emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>> wrote:
>
>Dear Councilors,
>
>Please find attached the Final Report of the New gTLD Subsequent
>Procedures PDP Working Group, which will be discussed under agenda item
>6 of the 21 January GNSO Council meeting.
>
>Below, you will find a message from the Working Group Co-Chairs
>regarding the Final Report.
>
>Kind regards,
>Emily
>
>
>Dear Council Members,
>
>The Working Group for the PDP on Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs
>(SubPro) proudly submits its Final Report to the GNSO Council for
>consideration.
>
>We are happy to report that all but one of the topics received a
>designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus.  Annex C of the
>Final Report provides further detail about the Consensus designations
>for specific outputs under each topic.  Within each of the outputs
>within the topics that received less than Full Consensus, to the extent
>there were more than one Output for that Topic, the table in Annex C
>sets forth those outputs within the topic that achieved Consensus or
>Full Consensus.  For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for
>the Topic is “Consensus.”  That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6,
>2.7 and 2.8 had “Full Consensus”, but Output 2.3 had Consensus.
>
>The PDP Working Group Leadership would like to draw the Council’s
>attention to a few of the items which may require future thought and/or
>discussion.
>
>
>1.  Mitigating DNS Abuse.  As you are aware, by Letter dated 27 April
>2020, the SubPro PDP Working Group referred the issue of DNS Abuse in
>all gTLDs back to the GNSO Council.  As stated in that letter, and
>repeated in Recommendation 9.15, the Working Group acknowledges ongoing
>important work in the community on the topic of DNS abuse and believes
>that a holistic solution is needed to account for DNS abuse in all
>gTLDs as opposed to dealing with these recommendations with respect to
>only the introduction of subsequent new gTLDs. In addition,
>recommending new requirements that would only apply to the new gTLDs
>added to the root in subsequent rounds could result in singling out
>those new gTLDs for disparate treatment in contravention of the ICANN
>Bylaws. Therefore, this PDP Working Group is not making any
>recommendations with respect to mitigating domain name abuse other than
>stating that any such future effort must apply to both existing and new
>gTLDs (and potentially ccTLDs).
>
>
>1.  Closed Generics.  The Working Group had “Full Consensus” on the
>fact that we were unable to come to an agreement on what, if anything,
>should be done with respect to Closed Generics in subsequent rounds
>(see Topic 23).  This topic was debated for may hours, was the subject
>of several requests for comments by the community, and had multiple
>proposals that were discussed, debated and ultimately dismissed.  The
>fact is that there are compelling arguments both for and against
>allowing them in subsequent rounds, and no right or wrong answer.  The
>Working Group believes that if this issue were to be considered in
>future policy work, it should also involve experts in the areas of
>competition law, public policy, and economics.  In addition, it should
>be performed by those in the community that are not associated with any
>past, present, or expectations of future work in connection with new
>gTLD applications or objections to new gTLD applications. Absent such
>independence, any future work is unlikely to result in an outcome any
>different than the one achieved in this Working Group.
>
>
>1.  Public Interest Commitments / Registry Voluntary Commitments. 
>Although the substantive proposals in Topic 9 garnered Consensus
>regarding PICs and RVCs, the ICANN Board raised some questions in its
>comments to the Draft Final Report about whether requiring PICs/RVCs in
>subsequent rounds (other than those that were grandfathered) are in
>line with the 2016 ICANN Bylaws.  This issue, we believe, is not one
>that can be answered by a PDP Working Group, but rather by the ICANN
>Board itself with input from the entire community.  Therefore, those
>recommendations should be read in a manner that assumes that in fact
>PICs and RVCs can be implemented in the contracts and enforced by
>ICANN.  There is some discussion of this in Topic 9, and proposed ways
>to implement those PICs/RVCs in a manner that we believe would be
>compliant, but this may need further discussion within the community as
>a whole (Not in a PDP).  If for any reason the PIC/RVC Recommendations
>cannot be implemented with the current Bylaws, the community may either
>want to engage in a discussion to revise the Bylaws, or alternatively,
>revise the recommendations to ensure that they are enforceable.
>
>
>1.  Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets. 
>Topic 35 was the only topic to receive the overall designation of
>Strong Support but Significant Opposition.
>
>*   Although many of the elements in those recommendations did get
>Consensus support, there was not consensus on:
>(a) whether the auctions of last resort should be done as a sealed bid
>auction where bids are submitted towards the beginning of the process,
>or
>(b) whether private auctions should be allowed to resolve contention
>sets.
>
>*   There was consensus on allowing other forms of private resolution,
>such as combining applications, creating new ventures, etc.
>*   But there was no consensus on whether private auctions, where each
>losing applicant splits the proceeds from the winning bid, should
>continue to be allowed in subsequent rounds.
>
>Our plan is to hold a webinar for the Council and community to attend
>to discuss these matters further. The webinar will be held prior to the
>February Council meeting.
>
>On behalf of the entire Working Group, we would like to thank the 200+
>members of the group for the thousands of hours of meetings, Adobe
>Connect and Zoom Calls, and In-Person meetings over these past four to
>five years.  We also want to thank not just all of the Constituencies
>and Stakeholder Groups that actively participated, but also the ALAC
>and GAC for all of their input, dedication and support.  Finally, we
>could not have done this without the support and expertise or Steve,
>Julie and Emily from ICANN Org.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>SubPro PDP Chairs
>
>
>Emily Barabas
>Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
>www.icann.org
>[icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.icann.org/__;!!PtGJab4!vUe2pw2_tzQDCeofm56B-j6brcVso_4pv4RQIv5Lk1MVVeaZW3yfD3prlMgDEupOIaIthm0RKQ$>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>council mailing list
>council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
>_______________________________________________
>By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
>(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service
>(https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link
>above to change your membership status or configuration, including
>unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery
>altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.