[Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 03 October 2016

Tue Oct 4 12:52:05 UTC 2016

Dear All,

Please find below notes and Actions Items from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 03 October 2016.

Kind regards,
Emily

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

Agenda:

1. Welcome/Review Agenda
2. SOIs
3. Update from WT Leaders
4. GNSO Council letter - Update on GNSO Council call
5. Continued discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1
6. Work Track Coordination
7. AOB

Notes and Action Items:

1. Kavouss Arasteh: Expressed appreciation to the CWG and everyone involved in the IANA Transition.

2. Steve Coates has an updated SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stephen+Jadie+Coates+SOI

3. Update from WT Leaders
- Sara Bockey (WT1) - Initial discussions have been taking place around accreditation. Support for applicants from developing countries will be addressed in the upcoming call.
- Michael Flemming (WT2) - The group has started discussing the base registry agreement, and has started looking at pros and cons for single agreement vs. agreements by category. The next topic will be terms and conditions.
- Karen Day (WT3) - The group is starting to discuss objections. The next meeting will be a deep dive into limited public interest objections.
- Rubens Kuhl (WT4) – The group is in an information discovery phase. They are seeking to interface with UASG, hoping to get information from ICANN staff on 2012 round, but ICANN staff has not been forthcoming with information. The group has started working on outreach questions and will likely continue working on developing those questions next week.

4. GNSO Council letter
- Update on GNSO Council call- Many SG/Cs responded directly to the Council. This working group also sent a letter to the Council explaining that the group did not reach consensus on the topic.
- This was a big agenda item, but there was very little time for it to be discussed on the GNSO Council call.
- Resolution: a small group from the Council will compile all statement that will be sent to the Board.
- The goal is to finalize the letter for the next meeting to send to the Board. - Summary of input received: https://community.icann.org/x/owu4Aw
- Kavouss Arasteh: Will the small group response reflect that the Subsequent Procedures PGP WG has not reached consensus on this issue?
- Mary Wong (staff): The small group will synthesize all of the feedback received and reflect this in its response to the Board.

5. Continued discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1

- Sections 2b and 2c: These question address which categories should or should not be included in the list.
- Question raised by the IPC: if we have types, is there something distinctive about the way each type will be handled?
- Donna Austin: It’s critical to understand: What's the consequence of defining categories? How do we move forward if we define categories? A brand has not been defined in terms of policy. Is this something the group needs to address, regarding whether Specification 13 still holds? We already have 1500 applicants that have gone through an initial process. What disparities are we creating by introducing categories at this point? How much of the conversation from the 2012 round do we reopen again? This is a complicated issue, and we need to understand the consequences and determine a path forward.
- Jeff Neuman: It is complicated, but if we all accept the fact that there are categories, we can develop a checklist to use as we go through the different issues to identify where there are differences that we need to consider and what the consequences will be. There are categories and they are not going away. 1500 applications in the first round shouldn't dissuade us from making a change going forward. (Kavouss agreed)
- Donna Austin: What is the benefit? Challenge: how do we define categories? Maybe is useful to review previous discussions on categories and see what information is still relevant. Do we need to have the category discussion before we have a substantive discussion about registry agreements in sub team 3?
- Martin Sutton: With the process and agreement modeled around traditional open registry, selling domains, this causes barriers to new entrants. It also causes extreme issues in the post-application process for those that have ventured forth.
- Avri Doria: In 2012, a list of possible categories came up, but we waited to see what emerged in practice. She sees at least four that we have to deal with (standard, community, geographical, brand). The closed generic ended up emerging as an issue-based category. Sensitive strings and highly regulated emerged in the context of PICs. Closed generics also emerged. As we walk through the issues, we should walk through the impact around those possible categories, without making a final determination on categories. If they didn't emerge in the last round, we shouldn't create them.
Jeff Neuman: There was an IGO category as well
Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, it applied to both governmental and intergovernmental organizations. As long as it's governmental, they would have a different contract.
Jeff Neuman: right....so in the last round we had generic, geographic, brand, community, governmental
Rubens Kuhl: What had an specific IGO angle were LROs (Legal Right Objections), where IGOs got automatic eligibility for filing a objection when though not having a trademark
Rubens Kuhl: And the governmental could be generic, geographic, brand or exclusive use... it's a matrix.
- Jeff Neuman: There was GAC advice sensitive strings. Certain applicants had to accept PICs. No policy process has looked at whether that was the appropriate way to address the issue, and whether this is an appropriate category. We owe it to the GAC and the Board to weigh in on this issue.
- Jorge Cancio: Perhaps we should look at the different elements a category may mean: 1) a specific purpose; 2) a set of specific requirements for the applicant; 3) specific procedures to go through; 4) specific conditions in the registry agreement; etc.
- Tom Dale: ALAC had asked the Board to examine the PICs. The Board responded that this PDP group is considering the PICs along with the CCT-RT. This would be a logical part of our work.
- Avri Doria: There is a segment of the community that is unhappy with the PICs and feel that PICs were forced on people. Another question to address: to what extent are PICs enforceable? There is a whole set of issues that need to be discussed under PICs. This is somewhat separate from the discussion of categories itself.
- Jeff Neuman: PICs will be addressed in WT 2 and 3: WT 2 will address the topic from the agreement and enforcement perspective, WT 3 from a dispute resolution perspective. It’s for us to consider whether there is this extra category of sensitive strings, and if so, how and where is this category treated differently.
- Tom Dale: Just to add on PICs, it would be useful to check what the CCT Review Team has looked at in terms of consumer protection/safeguards.
- Donna Austin: If we determine if the PICs are unenforceable, what is the consequence for registries that already have PICs from the last round.
- Jeff Neuman: I think the question is not whether PICs are enforceable but who can enforce and how. Obviously, ICANN can enforce, but are third party actions appropriate. Another question is about time-based PICs.
- Avri Doria: Yes, it is about how PICs are enforced, and also if a PIC is content related, how does that work? PICs never went through a policy process. It will go through one here. There are many issues, especially in the context of the new bylaws.
- Kavouss Arasteh: Suggested moving the discussion forward because time is limited.
- Avri Doria: Avri is not worried about spending extra time on this issue because it is important to address. Seven possible categories emerged during the 2012 round that we definitely need to look at more closely: standard, community, geographical, brand, closed generic, sensitive strings, highly regulated. Do we have more than 7 possible categories going forward in our discussions? Not sure about validated, IGO, and non-profit as special types. These did not emerge in the last round but that we included in CC1 questions. Do we work with 7 or 10?
- Jorge Cancio: I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input.
- Donna Austin: 7 it's a smaller number
- Jorge Cancio: I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input
- Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, that depends if such classification gets any kind of priority, like community TLDs. If it doesn't translate into different agreement or different contention set resolution, that it's definitely not to be looked at.
- Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references?
- Kristina Rosette: If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references?
- Donna Austin: @Kristina, defining each category will be the challenge.
- Kristina Rosette: @Donna:  That's my point. But I don't see the value in using each category as a framework if we can't define them in a way that is clear, certain, and predictable
- Avri Doria: There appears to be agreement to start with a list of 10.

Section 2d:
- Avri Doria: All three responses feed into the matrix approach, listing categories, issues distinct to those categories.
- Kristina Rosette: Concern about where we are going and how long and it will take there if we discuss categories before defining them. We seem to be moving forward with discussing broadly defined categories. Need to define what they are and what they are not.
- Avri Doria: This seems reasonable.
- Karen Day: Wouldn't step 1 of the matrix by necessity be the definition?
- Berry Cobb: Meta-tags may be a better way to consider possible strings rather than just looking at categories. Using the word categories is a difficult place to start, because strings may belong to more than one type.
- Kavouss Arasteh: The use of or reference to category seems fundamental.
- Jorge Cancio: some "categories" may indeed add up: a string could be a generic term, that describes a highly regulated industry and be presented as a community string.
- Rubens Kuhl: A TLD can be governmental, geographic and community, like .barcelona. Or non-governmental, geographic and community like .osaka, or governmental and geographic but not community like .rio.
- Avri Doria: We need to come some with some definitions, we have 10 categories/meta-tags, we have a column for aspects of application process, then we can come back to this in a more structured way.

[Action Item: Staff will do an initial draft the groupings in the matrix and begin defining groups (Steve Chan)]

Section 2e:
- Avri Doria: There are a range of responses on this topic, ranging from all applications going through at the same time to allowing certain types of applications to go first.
- Jeff Neuman: This has been discussed in other fora regarding the brand only round. There are arguments on both sides (pro/con) that should be aired in this group.
- Avri Doria: There have also been proposals for rounds/windows only for developing economies or only IDNs.
- Jorge Cancio: As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated.
- Donna Austin: This is another place where category definitions are needed before we can move forward with substantive discussion. Concern with moving forward with a specific category round: there might me a sense that some of the demand had been alleviated and therefore no hurry for additional procedures. If there was a targeted round, there would need to be a commitment that the rest would follow shortly thereafter.
- Avri Doria: There is also a concern that if there is a targeted round, will everyone try to squeeze their application into the type in this round? This feeds into the question from the Board. Agrees that it makes sense to revisit after we have done further work defining the categories.
- Jorge Cancio: As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated.
- Vanda: from mround y study from lac region with mostly brands interested in next round i do believe it will be positive a separate.
- Rubens Kuhl: Most strings can have multiple meanings like brand and generic. Apple is both a fruit and a computer company... any limitated application on one type excludes the other types.
- Martin Sutton: Given the unpredictable length of time before new applications may be opened, it could be an opportunity for ICANN to consider maintaining some momentum by looking at low-risk options, by opening up applications to those with less contention experienced in 2012 round, such as brands. It would be important to have a well-defined category.

6.    Work Track Coordination
- WT leads are coordinating on issues of overlap between the sub teams
- The group should try to coordinate CC2 questions into a single request for input, so that four sets of questions don’t go out separately.

[Action Item: Staff will send poll regarding this group’s attendance (in-person and remote) for Hyderbad]

From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday 4 October 2016 at 03:36
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Mp3, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 03 October 2016

Dear All,

Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page:

MP3:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3

<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-03oct16-en.mp3>

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/

Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Michelle

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

Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 03 October 2016

 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 03 October 2016 at 20:00 UTC.

Michelle DeSmyter: Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/_we4Aw

Michelle DeSmyter: Member page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: please mute the mics

Jeff Neuman: we will kick off in a few minutes

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: CLO: the new Room has not recognized you VIP status yet........

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: :)

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: yes

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: echo is clear and loud

Jeff Neuman: I am waiting for an operator at the moment

Michelle DeSmyter: thanks Jeff - I just gave them the heads up also

Karen Day: terrible echo on staff

Phil Buckingham: +++++1 Kavouss  and all other CCWG participants

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): we are wildly in agreement :-)

Steve Coates: I have an updated SOI - https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stephen+Jadie+Coates+SOI

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes  doing  work  tht wuld be good

kavouss arasteh: Secretariat,

kavouss arasteh: Pls correct I did refer to CWG AND NOT CCWG

avri: Yes CCWG goes on and one

Sara Bockey: CCT

avri: ... and on

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): So true  Avri :-)

Mary Wong: 13 October

Mary Wong: (next Council meeting)

Mary Wong: @Jeff, that is corrrect.

Philip Corwin: That is correct, Jeff. Council established a small subgroup of which I am one member.

Steve Chan: @ Carlos, full dosclosure: Emily prepared it.

Philip Corwin: As is Carlos

Steve Chan: https://community.icann.org/x/owu4Aw

Donna Austin: I think its just a compilation

Mary Wong: Synthesize, is the word used during the Council meeting.

Steve Chan: You can find all responses that the GNSO Council received, plus the draft staff/compilation summary.

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: exactly

Rubens Kuhl: Draft is the operative word here...

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: I recommend looking at staffs compilation

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: o comments

Philip Corwin: We shall try to synthesize some widely divergent views, but it shall be a challenge.

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: including the ones by this PDPs leaderhsip

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: @Phil just emphasize divergence

Emily Barabas: Avri -- we finished 2a in the previous call, so we still need to cover 2b today

Jeff Neuman: Together makes sense

Donna Austin: I think that's critical to understand. What's the consequence of defining categories.

Jeff Neuman: There was an IGO category as well

Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, it applied to both governmental and intergovernmental organizations. As long as it's governmental, they would have a different contract.

Jeff Neuman: right....so in the last round we had generic, geographic, brand, community, governmental

Rubens Kuhl: What had an specific IGO angle were LROs (Legal Right Objections), where IGOs got automatic eligibility for filing a objection when though not having a trademark

Rubens Kuhl: And the governmental could be generic, geographic, brand or exclusive use... it's a matrix.

Rubens Kuhl: (even though not having a TM)

kavouss arasteh: Jeff+1

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I'm losing time and again my connection

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): But just to recall the GAC input where the usefulness of categories was stressed

kavouss arasteh: Jorge1+1

Martin Sutton: With the process and agreement modeled around traditional open registry, selling domains, this causes barriers to new entrants. It also causes extreme issues in the post-application process for those that have ventured forth.

Rubens Kuhl: Categories and multiple agreements are indeed connected.

Jeff Neuman: Its also connected to application criteria

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): perhaps we should look at the different elements a category may mean: 1) a specific purpose; 2) a set of specific requirements for the applicant; 3) specific procedures to go through; 4) specific conditions in the registry agreement; etc.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes

Jeff Neuman: And connected to objections, etc.

Jeff Neuman: That is why it is an overarching issue :)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed

Donna Austin: geographic had a specific definitiation in the guidebook

Jeff Neuman: @Donna - that definition came after it was decided to create that category

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @staff: my audio is so bad that I cannot intervene, but please take up my points in the notes - thanks!

Jeff Neuman: which is sort of what we are doing now.  Should we formally recognize other categories

Rubens Kuhl: One curious thing is that Geographic contracts have not carried the part of terms and conditions where ICANN was allowed to redelegate the contract due to opposition from the government that authorized it at application time.

Rubens Kuhl: So it's yet to be seen what happens in a Geo TLD redelegation.

Phil Buckingham: dont think we should categorise for profit and not for profit . this distinction should be dealt thro/ in  the  financial   model /  evaluation /application / capability tests and fee charged

Martin Sutton: The latest round experiences should be used to improve the process and encourage competition. Lessons learnt would indicate that ignoring some of the complex issues could continue to create more protracted problems post application.

Steve Chan: @Jorge, we will make sure your comment is raised

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): @Steve: thanks!

vanda: makes sense Avri.

Rubens Kuhl: Or even if those PICs actually address GAC advice or not...

Donna Austin: @Rubens, and what if they don't?

Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, we either decide that GAC Policy Advice is not to be accepted, and maintain status quo, or decide to accept that advice, and make the changes required to actually fulfil that advice.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Tom  e need ot address

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): to address

Rubens Kuhl: PICs were forced down people's throats.

Phil Buckingham: @ Tom  PICs  currently in WT2

Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): @Phil Indeed, thanks.

kavouss arasteh: We certauinly need to maintain the notion of category but not having an extended list of categories

kavouss arasteh: Ingac terms, we have highly sensitive and sensitive strings which we need to maintain the bnotion of category

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): makes sense to me Avri

Rubens Kuhl: Category, type, group, class... pick a word on move on.

Donna Austin: Isn't that the PIC DDDRP?

Rubens Kuhl: There is the PIC DRP and there is the PDDRP.

Rubens Kuhl: PDDRP is oriented towards TM RPMs, PIC DRP is generic of PICs.

Jeff Neuman: @Avri - Should get Becky Burr's view of PICs in relation to the Bylaws as she definately addressed them

Donna Austin: and the PIC DRP is being discussed by the RPM WG isn't it>

Susan Payne: hi donna, no, RPMs are dealing with PDDRP but not PICDRP

Donna Austin: thanks Susan

Steve Chan: @Donna, this WG will also cover RRDRP

Donna Austin: the validation is more a business model decision rather than a category, or is it?

Jeff Neuman: @Donna - perhaps

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Business model decision, in our view.

Jeff Neuman: BUT, we could discuss whether they should have preference over non-validated in contention

Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat): Just to add on PICs, it would be useful to check what the CCT Review Team has looked at in terms of consumer protection/safeguards.

Phil Buckingham: + 1  Donna   + Kristina

Jeff Neuman: Sort of like community

Gg Levine (NABP): Any thoughts on what if an applicant fits into more than one category?

Donna Austin: 7 it's a smaller number

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input

Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, that depends if such classification gets any kind of priority, like community TLDs. If it doesn't translate into different agreement or different contention set resolution, that it's definitely not to be looked at.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references?

Donna Austin: @ Rubens and its a highly regulated string

Philip Corwin: Confirming that RPM WG is only looking at PDDRP, not PICDRD

Donna Austin: @Kristina, defining the each category will be the challenge

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): and defining what the effect of being categorized...

Karen Day: Agree start to look at 10

Christa Taylor: 10 and moving downwards makes the most sense

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): May as well

Martin Sutton: Agree start with 10 then remove if necessary

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @ Donna:  That's my point. But I don't see the value in using each category as a framework if we can't define them in a way that is clear, certain, and predictable

Rubens Kuhl: HIghly regulated gets different agreement, like what happened in 2012 having different PICs than other TLDs... possibly.

Kevin Kreuser: agree w/ Kristina

Donna Austin: I agree with you Kristina.

Berry Cobb: The group may wish to consider assigning "meta-tags" to strings as opposed to calling them categories.  As Kristina points out it may be difficult to properly defined a category and even more difficult to assing a string to one category especially since it could be assigned to more than one.  For example a generic string might also be a sensitive string or perhaps a closed TLD.  This aligns with the frameworking of building a matrix.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Berry

Karen Day: Wouldn't step 1 of the Matrix by neccesity be the definition?

Rubens Kuhl: Berry, attributes would be a word for it, perhaps ?

Rubens Kuhl: Non-mutually exclusive comes to mind in such definitions.

Phil Buckingham: so the questions asked on application  are by each TLDs  "attributes "  ?

kavouss arasteh: The use of or reference to category seems fundamental

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): some "categories" may indeed add up: a string could be a generic term, that describes a highly regulated industry and be presented as a community string...

Rubens Kuhl: A TLD can be governmental, geographic and community, like .barcelona. Or non-governmental, geographic and community like .osaka, or governmental and geographic but not community like .rio.

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Like the "tags" idea. Makes the new gTLD searchable

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): right - there may be multiple combinations...

Carlos Raul Gutierrez: multiple tags

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): yes

vanda: yes clear

kavouss arasteh: Jorge, yes to what ? to multiple tag?

kavouss arasteh: yes, tks

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated...

vanda: from mround y study from lac region with mostly brands interested in next round i do believe it will be positive a separate

Rubens Kuhl: Most strings can have multiple meanings like brand and generic. Apple is both a fruit and a computer company... any limitated application on one type excludes the other types.

Martin Sutton: Given the unpredictable length of time before new applications may be opened, it could be an opportunity for ICANN to consider maintaining some momentum by looking at low-risk options, by opening up applications to those with less contention experienced in 2012 round, such as brands.

Martin Sutton: It would be important to have a well-defined category.

Donna Austin: sorry Avri, we seem to have some time delay

Donna Austin: @Martin, brands needs to be defined

Rubens Kuhl: To quote an example of the type of gaming that can occur, the dubious trademarks registered for the .eu sunrise is still a good example.

Susan Payne: Will the WTs also have sessions?

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Staff:  Does this morning's announcement about the damaged equipment affect the abilty of folks to participate remotely (not in hubs)?

Phil Buckingham: Isnt there a problem with  RP  ?  Fire on ship

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): thank you.

Rubens Kuhl: @Kristina: more of a guess, but it looks to affect more the Public Forum type of activity.

Mary Wong: From what we hear, it seems tht remote participation via Adobe Connect should not be affected.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thanks Everyone...bye for now

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Thanks!

Christa Taylor: Thank-you!

Robert Burlingame (Pillsbury): Thank you everyone.

Susan Payne: bye

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): talk soon

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): thanks to all and bye!

Alexander Schubert: bye

Phil Buckingham: Thanks  Avri , Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20161004/6b0b08c8/attachment-0001.html>