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

Tue Oct 10 21:31:18 UTC 2017

Dear all,

Cheryl has asked that we consider an be prepared to discuss Slides 12, 13, and 14 in the attachment in our October 12 call – three Straw Proposals re new registry services in applications.

Regarding the three Straw Proposals as to whether or not a registry operator needs to describe new services in its application, one item we have not fully considered is that the GAC is still likely to have input at the application stage.  If the GAC has input, I don’t think we want to foreclose the GNSO or other policy (e.g. ALAC) input to the Board.  There is also the Objection process to be considered and new registry services could be relevant to evaluating an Objection.  (This is also why the Answer to Question 18 – purpose of the TLD is relevant.)

One risk we face in Straw Proposals 1 and 3 (by not requiring new services to be listed in an application) is that the Community (including the GAC)  may want more involvement in the RSEP process.  For example, if no disclosure of new services is required in the application, should a public comment period for new services proposed via RSEP be mandatory?   (This is a transparency issue.)

The RSEP process is detailed at the link below.  It says that the new service may or may not call for public comment if it “sets new precedent or has substantial effect on ICANN, third parties, or the DNS.”  So at present ICANN org  determines this I guess.  To my mind there is a question whether a change in the application process that does not require a description of new services would necessarily implicate a reexamination of the RSEP process detailed here:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/workflow-2012-02-25-en

There is a comparison statement on Slide 15 which points out that Straw Proposal 2 requires all services to be described in the application.  However, the second part of Straw Proposal 2, establishment of a “fast-track” for pre-approved services definitely contemplated that pre-approved services can be named and that would certainly allow for a friendly amendment to Straw Proposal 2 to state that all new services should be detailed but that pre-approved services can just be listed.

So it seems that #1 and # 3 don’t require any listing of pre-approved services or new services.   This would leave any new services to the RSEP process and leave pre-approved services undisclosed in the application.    But the RSEP process doesn’t require public comment if ICANN org determines that is not needed.

Straw Proposal  # 2 requires listing of new services and assessment of any security/stability concerns, but could either specify (a) no listing of pre-approved services or a (b) simple listing of said pre-approved services (to be determined)  without a lot of detail.

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>

_____________________________

[cid:image001.png at 01D341D4.67202B30]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 3:05 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 October 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.

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171010/4aec112a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6514 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171010/4aec112a/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SubPro WT4 Meeting #19.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 583461 bytes
Desc: SubPro WT4 Meeting #19.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171010/4aec112a/SubProWT4Meeting19-0001.pdf>