[council] Notes for GAC Bilateral with GNSO on CCT-Review Team Topic

Tue Jun 15 16:27:08 UTC 2021

All,

In order to help us with our discussions with the GAC tomorrow, I have been asked by GNSO Council Leadership to forward you my thoughts as the GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC on The CCT-RT Recommendations.  These are my thoughts as both the Liaison and the former SubPro Co-Chair.

     *   GAC Comment:  The GAC would like to make sure that all of the Pre-requisite and High Priority items from the CCT-RT Report are fully implemented prior to the launch of the next round.

        *   The ICANN Board explained the status of each of the recommendations at:  https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/specific-reviews/cct.  It also states "Fourteen (14) recommendations, in whole or in part, were passed through to the community for consideration: Recommendations 9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35."  It is critical to note that for each of these the ICANN Board told the GAC to talk to the GNSO about the status.

        *   My Proposed Response for the ones referred to the GNSO:  In summary, the GNSO has addressed (or is in the process of addressing) each of these recommendations as detailed below and which are in bold.

              *   Rec 9:  Consider whether costs related to defensive registration for the small number of brands registering a large number of domains can be reduced.  SubPro PDP considered this issue but chose not to make any new recommendations.  It was pointed out to the group that the original data collected by the CCT-RT when just a few TLDs were launched.  Subsequent launches of new gTLDs had much fewer Sunrise registrations and when these registrations came up for renewal many of the brands deleted a large number of registrations upon renewal of those second level names as they determined it was not needed to register their names in every TLD.

              *   Rec 10:  Deals with collection of personal data.  My Comments:  This is really being dealt with in all of the ePDPs.

              *   Rec 12:  Create incentives to having restricted TLDs and meeting consumer expectations with respect to TLDs.  My Comments: The SubPro PDP considered this issue and chose to adopt the PICs that were developed as a result of previous GAC Advice during the 2012 gTLD round.  SubPro did not have consensus to require that all TLDs had restrictions, nor was it able to come up with incentives that would have an actual impact on changing open TLDs to restricted models because it was recognized that those business models were difficult to maintain from an economic perspective.

              *   Rec 16:  Further data collection efforts including expansion of DAAR.  My Comments: We are aware of discussions that have taken place between the RySG, the RrSG and ICANN Org on improving DAAR and the data reported on.  There have been some updates to DAAR as a result.  The topic of DNS Abuse in general is still a topic being discussed by the Council and the Community.

              *   Rec 19-20:  Deals with collection of DNS Abuse data and assess efforts to combat abuse.  My Comments.  Collection of Data is addressed by ICANN Org.  Rest of DNS Abuse topic is pending with the Council.

              *   Rec 25: Allowing for Voluntary PICs that go through community review  My Comments: This topic was thoroughly addressed by the SubPro PDP.  The recommendations contained within SubPro essentially adopted most of CCT Recommendation 25.

              *   Rec 27, 28:  Deals with RPM Review; My Comments:  New gTLD RPM Review has completed and was approved by the GNSO and sent to the Board, who recently completed a public comment period.

              *   Rec 29:  Set metrics/objective for applications from the Global South.  My Comments:  SubPro PDP made recommendations on the development of metrics and the work that needs to happen in the IRT to further drill down on such metrics.

              *   Rec 32-35:
                 *   32 deals with the Applicant Support Program. My Thoughts.  This was thoroughly addressed in the SubPro Final Report both in terms of financial and non-financial aspects of the Applicant Support Program.  Recognized the need for a specific separate IRT on just this program.
                 *   33 deals with the GAC providing a rationale for its consensus advice and potentially use a template.  My Comments:  SubPro recommended a number of things in line with this recommendation and included them in its Final Report.
                 *   34 deals with Reviewing the Community Application process - My Comments:  SubPro addressed this recommendation.
                 *   35 deals with string contention, plurals/singulars, and inconsistent decisions.  My Comments:  SubPro has addressed this recommendation and made proposals to deal with these issues.

     *   The GAC has also consistently asked for a "cost-benefit" analysis to be performed on actually having additional rounds.

My Comments:  The GNSO can make the point that the PDP considered whether there should be additional new gTLDs added to the root, and the PDP Working Group unanimously concluded that it should.  The PDP also considered the policy costs/benefits of the program still came to this conclusion. The GNSO Council also notes that The CCT-Review Team concluded that the new gTLD Program did in fact increase competition within the gTLD market place (one of the Core Values of ICANN in the Bylaws).

Again, these are just my thoughts, so feel free to use (or not).  I hope this information helps.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[cid:image001.png at 01D761DC.5979C190]
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
http://jjnsolutions.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210615/ae2c763a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67520 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210615/ae2c763a/image001-0001.png>