[CPWG] CPWG 5 Sep 2018 Call -- Update on inputs to Initial Report on the New gTLD SubPro PDP

[Justine Chew]

Olivier, Jonathan, colleagues,

My apologies as I am unable to join the CPWG 5 Sep call because of a clash
with another PDP WG call.

I am thus proffering a written update on the sections which I am involved
in along with a couple of suggestions for consideration/discussion:-

*1) Section 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6ATn0/edit#heading=h.xa8q4lfmg32r>*
We have had some inputs from various people to this topic (aka Batching
Applications) -- while a majority seem to favour continuation of rounds
(applications vs assessment) mainly for the purpose of allowing correction
of deficient program policies and/or implementation hiccups, as well as
effective contention identification/resolution and CPE, a minority does not
believe rounds are necessary to achieve the intended outcomes.

*Option 1 'Lowest common denominator' for full consensus*
Last week I mentioned the possibility of approaching drafting a response on
the basis of a 'lowest common denominator'. How this might work, is to ask
whether the minority view foresees that the harm in NOT having rounds (if
any) outweighs that of continuing the program in rounds, as ultimately, I
heard that even the minority view agrees that there needs to be some way to
seamlessly introduce corrections to deficient program policies and/or
implementation hiccups.

*Option 2 Majority with Minority Views*
Or alternatively, we could attempt a statement which presents a majority
view (still consensus, though not full consensus) and a minority view.

I am wondering which option would CPWG members prefer to move forward with?

*2) Section 2.5.4 Applicant Support
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6ATn0/edit#heading=h.2f9cd5dl0p3z>*
We have had some input from a number of CPWG members (and non-members too I
think) and I believe they all generally point to the conclusion that the
ASP is still very much needed but that it was too inaccessible in the 2012
rounds. I am grateful that *Tijani Ben Jemaa* has kindly agreed to take the
lead in raising to the CPWG's attention any issues pertaining to Applicant
Support for discussion at this 5 Sep call.

Separately, I am happy to inform that as of today, two of the three 2012
round Applicant Support applicants' representatives have responded to my
request for feedback on their experience with the ASP in the 2012 round
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6ATn0/edit#heading=h.bl7avcpehx50>.
I believe the co-penholders for this section are still reviewing these 2
responses at this point.

*3) Section 2.8.1 Objections
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6ATn0/edit#heading=h.d7zml899mrar>*
I have completed my input to the preliminary recommendations and questions
under the topic of Objections and currently await comments to the same. The
inputs touch mainly on the GAC Advice mechanism (Alan Greenberg also
commented), the role of the Independent Objector, and objections by ALAC /
Community Objections. I have not provided input to String Objection or
Legal Rights Objection as I believe these are beyond the scope of At-Large.

4) *Section 2.9.1 Community Applications (CPE)*
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6ATn0/edit#heading=h.eoofdjvtbott>
This topic has also received input from a number of CPWG members and I
understand the discussion is now centered around the need for a more
workable definition of 'community'.


*Another Suggestion, relating to CC2*
Another suggestion that I would like to propose for consideration is to
look back at ALAC's New gTLD SubPro CC2 comments, and extract comments for
topics which fall outside the sections being addressed by the CPWG
currently AND where those comments remain relevant, that they be included
in ALAC's statement to the (present) SubPro's August Initial Report.

The reason I am proposing this is two-fold: (1) for a more complete
statement and (2) I believe there are comments in CC2 which are worth
repeating for our present purposes.

I would be happy to undertake said extraction in the event there is
majority support for this suggestion.


I bid you all a good meeting.

Regards,

Justine Chew
----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180905/1e312360/attachment-0001.html>