[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 24 April 2017

Julie Hedlund julie.hedlund at icann.org
Mon Apr 24 21:51:20 UTC 2017


Dear WG Members,

 

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 24 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 or recording.  The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes will be provided separately.

 

The referenced document also is attached and excerpts from the chat room are included for ease of reference.

  

Best regards,

Julie

 

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

Actions/Discussion Notes

 

1. Work Track Updates

 

Work Track 1 -- Christa Taylor:

-- Sent agenda for 25 April at 0300 UTC.  Continuation of RSP and costing discussions.

 

Work Track 2 -- Phil Buckingham:

-- Discussing closed generics and what to do about them in the future.  Presented pros and cons.

-- We have another on Thursday 27 April @21.00 UTC . -- -- We will continue with closed generics to start to get some consensus within the group on what we are all agreed is a complex and contentious subject.

 

Work Track 3 -- Robin Gross:

-- Good discussions on community applications and priority evaluations.

-- Don't have a shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve with the concept of community applications.  Need to come back to this concept.  Is this groups of groups?  Or is there some kind of social good to achieve?

-- Next meeting on 02 May on 2000 UTC.  Discuss more about freedom of expression and geographic name issues.

-- Question: Do we know what we mean by "community"?  Language, country, etc.? Answer: That is an issue that we need to focus on -- we don't have a common understanding of what we mean by "community".

-- On geographic names there are many activities so it might be good to avoid overlapping or duplicative discussions to avoid conflict of definitions, objectives, etc.  Helpful for their to be sharing of information and coordination.

 

Work Track 4 -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr:

-- Met last week on name collisions.  That is a continuing conversation.  Encourage more to join the Work Track call on 04 May.

 

>From the chat:

Alexander Schubert 2: Thanks Kavouss: Community definition was WAY too narrow in the last round...Geographic names: Currently only GNSO and GAC are working on it. No one else. The CCTN WG just eliminated itself - and I don't see resurrection is an option.

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC:   "social good" is a very narrow subset of freedom of expression and association in a community.  It's questtionable whether ICANN wants to be in the business of determining what is and is not a purpose of "social good".

Annebeth Lange: Well, the UCTN will produce a Final Report after having gone through all the input to the Interim Report.  The comment period ended 21st April for the UCTN. THe staff is working on a summary of the comments.

 

2. Community Comment 2 – extended. Announcement here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-04-24-en

 

-- GAC asked for an extension.  Extend for everyone.  Working backwards from ICANN59 so that a summary of the public comments could be drafted prior to the document deadline.  May 22nd was the most we could extend the comment period -- a 3-week extension.  Comments are due from everyone by May 22nd.

-- Announcement went out and the extension will be announced to the SOs and ACs.  See: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-04-24-en.

-- Please make sure your communities can get comments in by that date.  Don't wait for the deadline if your comments are ready.

 

Overall comments on the draft document: 

 

-- Where the comment wording is the same for several recommendations just note to which recommendation that wording applies, rather than repeating for each recommendation.

-- Question: In terms of longer term impact not sure if that is a normal part of an IRT.  Answer: The WG comes to its own conclusions but do have to take all views and recommendations seriously.

 

>From the chat:

avri doria: Kavouss understood you thought a group parallel to the gTLD-IRT could do it.  That is possible but someone else would have to charter it.

hadia Elminiawi: So basically I wanted to ask if our group has to adhere to or follow or the recommendations, or do we have the choice to see things differently.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I like the idea of identifying the comment requests, stating them at the beginning, and identifying the recommendations to which they apply. The recommendation-specific requests would then be only that - recommendation-specific.

 

High-Level Feedback Section:

 

-- Be more clear "To what extent is it appropriate for the Working Group..."  change to "To what extent the Working Group could recommend..." Not making ourselves subordinate to that group.  That second sentence has been deleted and the third sentence talks about how to interpret.

-- Per "is inconsistent or conflicting..." change so that we could do something that may be different from what they produced.  May be "different" is a better word?

-- Looking at the overview of the relationship of the two groups.  The CCT-RT recommendations go to the Board.  They don't have the power to tell a WG what to do in a PDP, but the could ask the Board to reject a recommendation from a PDP WG.  If we recommend something different than they recommend we should justify it to the Board and explain why.

-- We can consider if implementable or not.  Language "expected to implement all parts of the recommendation..." not up to them to determine what we should have to do.

-- In this case the CCT-RT is using the language "should" "must" and "may" -- what we are asking is if they are going to use such words be consistent and clear in their usage.

 

Recommendation 10:

 

-- What is logic for "small number of brands registering a large number of domains can be reduced"?  Seems to be a speculation about defensive registrations.  The issue really is the issue of defensive registrations.  Could be two sides to costs -- lower cost per registration or lower the need, but this is part of the substantive discussion.

-- In looking at cost they are not looking at just price but also lowering investment.  Clarify: Is there any substantive reason to refer to a small number of brands registering a large number of domains.  Look back at the draft report on the context.  Also clarify costs and fees in terms of investment.

 

>From the chat:

Kavouss Arasteh: yes Greg but why with reduced price?  Still I do not understand why price should be reduced.

Paul McGrady: +1 Greg

Kavouss Arasteh: we should follow the principle of equiutable access 

Kavouss Arasteh: Please register my objection with the concept of reduced costs.

Greg Shatan: i didn't say prices should be reduced. I just said that the issue of "cost" could refer to both price per registration and to reducing costs by reducing the need to engage in defensive registration.  That said there has been some inequitable pricing aimed at getting higher prices for defensive registrations.

Alexander Schubert 2: Vanda: I think for the majority of run of the mill gTLDs defensive and speculative registrations are the main revenue stream. Sadly.

Vanda: you right, but is not reducing price that this will change.

Greg Shatan: Vanda, you may be right when it comes to "penny pricing.". But I  don.t think using price as a barrier to abusive registrations is the solution, since the practical effect (and possibly the intent) is to milk brand owners like cash cows. Alexander, you may be right.  Which would be quite sad.  Either way those sales are to registrants with little or no intent to use the domains for websites, emails, etc.  At that point it's just speculators and suckers....

Vanda: Greg. me neither. price is not a barrier itself in a razonable prices but reducing prices can growth the defensive application, but also price is not the key point to reduce defensive applications.

 

Recommendation 14:

 

>From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Yes, you did.  My point is that it wasn't clear to me how it's consistent and I doubt I'm the only person who may not be sure.

 

Recommendations 33-38 -- no questions or comments on the draft.

 

Recommendation 39:

 

-- Wording presumes that PICs will be available early enough that the GAC and others can comment on them.  That suggests that the PICs can be changed from the original application, but it's not clear.  If they are saying the PICs can be changed because of the comments then they need to be more explicit. 

-- Also assumes that PICs will be similar to the last round and that is not clear either.

 

>From the chat:

Paul McGrady: a predictable process with knowable deadlines and subject matter guidelines

Kavouss Arasteh: PICs  may normally be changed.

Alan Greenberg: But if they are "normally changed", the intent of the Rec is minimal

Vanda: Alan + 1

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC: What if PICs arise in response to GAC Consensus Advice?  We don't want a TLD to be "hung up" because it is unable to make a new PIC of record.

Jon Nevett: Anne +1 -- consensus advice or otherwise. an applicant may not know of concerns with a name, so would be impossible to address in the application.

Robin Gross: The rules are supposed to be knowable and predictable according to the principles.  If PICs can be changed, that would violate this predictability requirement.

Paul McGrady: +1 Robin

avri doria: what about if a review period is required for some change procedure.

Jon Nevett: I am thinking about adding PICs to address a concern vs. changing them

hadia Elminiawi: +1 Robin

 

Recommendation 43 and 46 -- no questions or comments on the draft.

 

Recommendation 47:

 

-- At ICANN57 amended Bylaw providing rationale for GAC advice.  Discussing in the GAC WG and will be finalized in ICANN59.  Maybe mention.

-- Why we expect the Board provide a template for GAC advice?  If there is a template it should be mutually agreed. (Comment related to the substance of the recommendation.  Could be a good comment from the GAC to the CCT-RT.)

-- Comment is that there should be a predictable process for GAC advice.

 

Recommendation 48, 49, and 50 -- no questions or comments on the draft.

 

3. Geographic Names Webinars:

 

-- 25 April -- 1500 UTC for 120 min and 2200 UTC for 120 min.

-- Presenters have sent in their materials and they are on the wiki.

-- Format: Each presenter will present and then have a Q&A period.

-- Can comment and chat in the chat room and this will be captured.

-- Please RSVP if you haven't already.

 

4. Update on Drafting Teams:

 

-- Staff sent drafts to each DT.

-- Fourth category is combined with others -- predictability -- DT is looking at that the mechanisms to address change are predictable.  Only one volunteer for that DT.

 

5.  Next PDP WG Call:

 

-- Next week on 02 May at 0300 UTC not in two weeks as that is the GDD summit.

-- Reconsider the 0300 UTC time -- is it possible to make it 0400 UTC?  Very difficult issue.  Trying to make sure it is a convenient time for the Asia Pacific WG members.  Will look back at attendance records to see if there is something we can do.

-- Trying to be open and attract more people from other regions.  Good to know how many we would lose on a rotation.  Make sure how we balance making it better for one group makes it worse for another.

 

>From the chat:

Greg Shatan: It would be nice to know if we are getting a high percentage of APAC participants are making the APAC friendly call,

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that said for me 0300 or 0400 is little difference

Greg Shatan: Let's just make sure they are raking advantage of this, not in sheer numbers but in percentage.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170424/701c233f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SubProCommentsonCCT-RTRecommendations (4)[1].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 26251 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170424/701c233f/SubProCommentsonCCT-RTRecommendations41-0001.docx>
-------------- 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/20170424/701c233f/smime-0001.p7s>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list