[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017

Thu Oct 5 22:05:27 UTC 2017

Dear Work Track members,

Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today.  These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB.

Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 2017

1. Name Collisions:

Source data from GDD Technical Services, that acts as the basis for the information being presented by Rubens, is available on the Name Collisions Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Yz2AAw

Slide 5: What's in today's agenda and what's still ahead:

-- Results from GDD inquiry on reported collisions

-- Whether 2012-round gTLD should keep readiness after 2 years of delegation

-- Whether SubPro gTLDs should have readiness or not, and length of such readiness.

Slide 6: Report collisions from 2012-round:

-- No life-threatening collisions;

-- 18 unique TLDs represented in 34 occurences

-- Median of 3 occurences per TLD

-- Median of 22 days between delegation and report

-- 23 cases reported as service disruption, etc.

Slide 7: Reported collisions from 2012-round (cont.):

-- In 24 cases the registry was not contacted -- determined by ICANN Org that it was not necessary.

-- In 5 the registry was put in contact with the reporter, in 1 registry stopped controlled interruption, in 1 no action.

-- Few data on outcomes -- all 5 known outcomes the network was updated.

Slide 8: Two-year readiness for current new gTLDs:

All 2012-round gTLDs were required to pass a controlled interruption period and be able to respond within two hours for life-threatening reports for first 2 years of delegation.

Options:

 a) 2012-gTLDs should extend readiness beyond the 2-year period

b) 2012-gTLDs should only have such readiness in those 2 years as currently foreseen in the framework

b) 1 year

Poll:

Option a: No one.

Option b: 6 in favor

Option c: 1 in favor

>From the chat:

Sarah L Verisign: Rubens can we get back to you on this later this week rather than saying now?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): Sarah this is a temp taking not deffinative pol

Jon Nevett: we should do a cost differential before voting

Sarah L Verisign: I understand but I need to discuss this with other folks before making even a temp position

Jon Nevett: what is the cost of the readiness -- if not a lot, not big deal

Jon Nevett: if it is a lot, then it gets passed on

Alan Greenberg: Cost is lower for orgs that have multiple TLDs, since cost of readiness for 10 is no larger than 1 and TLDs come on line at different times.

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Alan that every new gTLD is different.  Initial evaluations on name collision risk could make a big difference here.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO ): thus my 'personal' comfort with the status quo on this at 2y

Alan Greenberg: My intervention was really in relation to THIS question, not just the 2012 gTLDs.

Slide 9: Framework -- Two-year readiness for SubPro gTLDs:

Question: Should gTLDs in subsequent procedures be subject for such 2-year readiness for life-threatening collisions?

Options:

a) Same 2-hour for life-threatening collisions readiness for first -- years. (Assume keeping 2 years.)

b) No need for readiness.

c) SubPro gTLDs should have readiness covering more conditions with -- hours/days SLA

Poll:

Option a: 4 in favor

Option b: 1 in favor; 3 against

Option c: None

-- Should there be different responses for different types of TLDs?

>From the chat:

Dietmar Lenden - Valideus: 2 years would appear fair for all applicants past and present

2. Registry Services:

ACTION:  Send slides 12-16 to the list and ask the list to consider and discuss on the list the three straw-persons, contrasts, and slide 16.  Take up this conversation at this point in the agenda next week.

Slide 12: Straw-person #1

Slide 13: Straw-person #2

Slide 14: Straw-person #3

Discussion on Straw-person #1:

-- Change in SP#1: When registry services are proposed that is when the community has the opportunity to comment and provide input.  You don't know the impact that the services may have.  Don't want to discourge proposals for new services.

-- On the registry services policy -- they don't have to get input from the community except when ICANN makes a finding that a concern has to be evaluated.  Then the community comments on that concern via the report of the RSEP panel.  We can go beyond that for new gTLDs.

-- With respect to input on new gTLD applications, the community doesn't have a formal process but many of us review the applications.  There are informal methods and if there is an irregularity there are ways in ICANN to raise an issue.

-- If an applicant knows that if an applicant specifies a registry service and that it will go through more evaluation, that is a disincentive to provide that registry service early on.  Then after signing the contract they will file an RSEP.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171005/caf714d9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SubPro WT4 Meeting #19.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 585231 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171005/caf714d9/SubProWT4Meeting19-0001.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-wt4/attachments/20171005/caf714d9/smime-0001.p7s>