[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 11 April 2016

Mon Apr 11 20:06:24 UTC 2016

Dear PDP WG members,

Please see below the discussion notes and action items captured by staff from the meeting on 11 April.  These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript.  The MP3 and transcript are provided separately and are posted to the calendar at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar.  Please also reference the chat room, which has been captured and provided by the GNSO Secretariat via separate email.

Please note for review/comment that there are two Google Docs as follows (and referenced below):

1. New gTLD - 2007 Principles and Recommendations — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15_0TRWzFIaLgO3QlfYH_0ZtOlMKm7SEjsHif4Oi2iZM/edit?usp=sharing. 
2. Subject 1 Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future - Pros and Cons — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/111-IBO9zKMXPorvBxoot8uTdLPyjPesYCha6D0slKoM/edit?usp=sharing.

These also are on the wiki at the WG Documents at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001970. 

Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Discussion Notes/Actions: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 11 April 2016

1. Any Other Business:

Action Item: Jim Prendergast  re: ICANN workshop on new gTLDs at the WSIS.  Request for Steve Chan to check and report back. 

2. Catalog of Advice and Statements from 2012 round of New gTLDs

Jeff Neuman: Capture all of the different pieces and things we learned that we didn't foresee in the original process so as not to lose the statements filed.  Example: Plurals issue -- groups not satisfied with how it was implemented.  Request for GAC statements, but focus beyond the GAC, such as BC letter on plurals vs singular; statements on changing contacts midway, etc.  
Paul McGrady: Annotate the Applicant Guidebook.  Provide links in the various sections.
Jeff Neuman: Or group by subject matter.
Alan Greenberg: Annotating the AGB may be the appropriate place.

Action Items:
 1) Get a Word version of the AGB and put into Google Docs; 
2) Need volunteers from each group's representative (Advisory Committee, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituency, etc.); 
3) Co-Chairs will propose a way forward on this.

3. Continuing the discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report

Recommendation 12 
Susan Payne -- yes still relevant.  
Liz Williams -- Should never be a prohibition on the opportunity to take legal or other action.  
Jim Neuman -- The point of the exercise is to make sure we have established a baseline and then when we have a procedure map it back to the concept.  

Recommendation 13
Liz Williams -- Question: Should there be an EOI whilst the PDP goes on? How do you assess demand?  Did some work on potential demand.
Carlton Samuels -- Was there ever a direct connection between round and demand?  How was demand was established?
Jeff Neuman: What is a definition of a round?
Alan Greenberg: Think we need to stick with rounds for at least one more round.  Unwise to eliminate at this time.
Jeff Neuman: These are issues we need to look at.  This is one of those concepts that the groups will look at and is not a given.  Keep this bracketed until we've done more work and look into GAC advice.
[Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.]

Recommendation 14
No comments.  Jeff Neuman: Fairly innocuous proposal.

Recommendation 15
No comments.

Recommendation 16
Jeff Neuman: The heart of the multistakeholder group model.  Seems obvious to keep going.

Recommendation 17
Jeff Neuman: I am not sure that this was done.  
Carlos Raul Gutierrez: As long as compliance is not done at arm's length from GDD it is going to be almost impossible to terminate the contracts.
Alan Greenberg: Compliance reports direct to the CEO, not to GDD.
Jeff Neuman: The group that works on Track 2 will work with Compliance to ensure that this concept is clear.
[Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.]

Recommendation 18
Jeff Neuman: I think that is in all the agreements now.  I think that is a clear concept and not controversial.

Recommendation 19
Jeff Neuman: Everyone should pay attention to this one.  It has formed the basis for a number of rules.  An exception was grant for the BRAND registries for the second part of it.  It was the topic of a lot of discussions.  The goal is not to reopen the debate here, but it is one the Track 2 group will discuss and whether the principle is still relevant.
Susan Payne: This will inform part of the discussion as to whether there are different types of registries with different roles.
Jeff Neuman: It can play into the discussion of whether there could be different classes of new gTLDs.
Alan Greenberg: This was ultimately not followed and we will have to redo the wording.
Jeff Neuman: I think the first part was followed (only ICANN accredited registrars with the exception of the promotional names).  The second part of that (not descriminate among accredited registrars) some may argue was not followed in all circumstances.
[Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.]

Recommendation 20 — Replaced recommendation 11.  
Jeff Neuman: Gave rise to a community objection whether or not it was a community application.  One of our tracks will look at objections and communities so we'll be looking at this concept or what could be done to ensure it is implemented in accordance with this concept.

Action Item: Staff will update the Google Doc — DONE — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15_0TRWzFIaLgO3QlfYH_0ZtOlMKm7SEjsHif4Oi2iZM/edit?usp=sharing. 

4.  Discussion on Subject 1 (Time Permitting): Pros and Cons — Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future?

Action Item: Staff will create a Google Doc with the Pros and Cons — DONE — See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/111-IBO9zKMXPorvBxoot8uTdLPyjPesYCha6D0slKoM/edit?usp=sharing. 

5.  Differentiation with TLDs -- Whether it is good or bad to have Categories

Categories from 2012
Open registries
Geographic
Brand
Intergovernmental organizations
Community registry

Brainstorm on types of categories and characteristics
Validated registry -- not another brand but not open to everyone (qualification criteria that must be verified)
Not-for-profit or non-profit gTLDs, NGOs
Highly regulated

Capture for next meeting -- pros and cons of differentiation and difficulty of drawing boundaries/judging them
Liz Williams: @ Susan ... so that is just domain name regiistration policy.  We really shouldn't be tying ourselves in knots about the REGISTRY label.  We should only focue on whether an applicant has articulated their domain name registration policy...so much easier and must less problematic for evaluation panels AND for future changes to use of registry
Liz Williams: @ jeff...yes and I'll be preparing for that by illustrating the negative effects (in this round and in previous rounds) of trying to force applicants to declare that they are "something" and then having to prove it for the evaluation process.  total madness ensues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20160411/893c459d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/attachments/20160411/893c459d/smime-0001.p7s>