[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 07 March 2017

Tue Mar 7 22:02:16 UTC 2017

Dear WG Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting 07 March.  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 are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 07 March

1. SOIs - No changes

2. CC2 - Second Reading: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qutP4I6fpyTtH4uSgLqsSFDn7082Guexr7gU8YD78Zg/edit#

General Comments:

-- Will not start the comment period until after ICANN58 is over.

-- Should the discussions next week present us any substantive changes recommend a third reading of at least those substantive.

First paragraph: Need to insert the date.

1. Background paragraphs -- no comments.

2. Community Comment Request -- no comments.

Last paragraph -- no comments.

Annex A -- Work Track Subjects -- no comments

1.1 (Registry Service Provider) Accreditation Programs

1.1.1 - Changed to "Benefits [and] risks..." Rewrite and deletions -- no comments.

1.1.2 - Addition of requirements -- no comments.

1.1.3 - One word change -- no comments.

1.1.4 - Clause at the end added "Please explain." - no comments.

1.1.5 - no changes

1.1.6 - no comments

1.1.7 - no comments -- change to "periodic", change to a RSP

1.1.8 - no comments.

1.1.9 - New sentence and deletion

1.1.10 and 1.1.11 - no comments.

1.2 Applicant Support -- no comments.

1.3 Clarity of Application Process

1.3.1 - rewrite - no comments

1.4 Application Fees - no comments

1.5 Variable Fees

1.5.3 - This is the suggested language: "Should the application fee be variable based on the volume of applications received from a single applicant" If so, how should the fee be adjusted and what are the potential impacts from doing so?

1.6 Application Submission Period -- no comments

1.7 Application Queuing 

1.7.2 - Don't know what it means "IDNs or some other group of applications"?  Example: brands.

ACTION ITEM: Change "group of applications" to "categories".  Also, add for example.

1.8 Systems, 1.9 Communications, and 1.10 Applicant Guidebook - no comments

2.1 Base Registry Agreements

2.1.3 - Understand what is meant by "explicitly identified"?  Some sections of the application would be explicitly identified as such.

2.2 Reserved Names - 

-- Still waiting on output from the CCWG-UCTN so we thought it might be premature at this stage since they are doing work on this.  The interim report has been published for comment.: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-uctn-interim-paper-2017-02-24-en.

-- We most likely won't get any input from CCWG-UCTN.

-- Don't need to add a question at this point.

-- Will be taking the CCWG-UCTN final report into consideration.

>From the Chat: 

Alexander Schubert: In WT2 I still miss any question about 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names .....

Heather Forrest: To put a finer point on Alexander's comment, the group as a whole has not agreed because the scope of the group's work was very narrow. Certainly the participants have views that need to be discussed here in the PDP.

jeff neuman: But we will address that issue when the CWG is done.

Donna Austin, Neustar: should there be a note mentioning that country and territory names have been left out of this exercise for x reason.

Alexander Schubert: Footnote that we deal with it later!

ACTION ITEM: Add a general note in the preamble that some of the work is dependent on other outcomes.

2.3 Registrant Projections - no comments

2.4 Closed Generics - no comments

2.5 Applicant Terms and Conditions 

2.5.1 Two Options -- why do we need two options?  The options are for us to pick on, not to keep both in the document.  Option 1 is from Paul McGrady. [Reading the text.]  Option 2 is more brief. [Reading the text.]

-- Paul McGrady: Option 2 seems to presuppose the answer.  Don't think it reflects reality.

-- Do options relate to 2.5.1 or 2.5.2?  Relates only to 2.5.1.

ACTION ITEM: Go with option 1.

2.5.2-2.5.4 - No comments.

2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9  - no comments.

3.1, 3.2, 3.3 - no comments

ACTION ITEM: Renumber 3.3.5 to 3.3.4 and 3.3.6 to 3.3.5

3.3.6 -- "Should the claim to support a community affect other parts of the application process." Don't understand.  Read this as saying if it isn't community application should there be a different form of application.  But, it also should a community application go through CPE anyway?  Meant to say "Should a claim to support a community affect other parts of the evaluation process?"

-- "Should" causes difficulty.  Maybe "Does" or "Do"?

ACTION ITEM: Change to "Do you think a community application should be structured or evaluated differently than other applications?"

3.4 String Similarity

3.4.6 is new.

-- Draw attention to the CWG on Auctions.  Trying to do some definitions.  Do we need to reference that work?

>From the chat:

jeff neuman: the CCWG on Auction Proceeds is not discussing how auctions work or why they exist. It is only talking about the use of funds.

Greg Shatan: Actually, they're talking about the mechanisms for deciding how to spend the money. Others will then decide how to spend the money using those mechanisms.

3.5 Accountability Mechanisms - no comments

4.1, 4.2, 4.3.1 - no comments.

4.3.2 Financial Evaluation

Trang Nguyen: 4.3.2.3 The AGB criteria did not include evaluation of an applicant’s business model. Meaning, Q18 was not evaluated. And the projections in Q46 was not evaluated against the proposed business model in Q18.

ACTION: Change to "In the prior round, detailed business plans were provided, but not evaluated."

4.3.2.5 -- Comment: Not sure we want to ask this questions because it seems loaded.  Should we drop it?  No objections to dropping.

ACTION ITEM: Drop 4.3.2.5 and renumber.

4.3.2.6 - at application time, at contract signing time, or at both  times?

ACTION ITEM: Add "or at both times"  Also, change on 4.3.1.1 and on the background screening question (anywhere this construction appears in the questions).

4.3.3 - Why is there a general question?  It was a general question relating to that category.

4.4 Name Collisions - no comments.

4.5 Security and Stability - no comments.

Miscellaneous Questions -- why call them that?  Can we call them something else?  Could call them "General Questions".  These were not specifically part of any of the work tracks.  Suggestion is "Additional Questions"?

ACTION ITEM: Change to "Additional Questions".

-- Question 4: What is "data points"?  What do we mean? 

>From the chat:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): data points refers to any discreet unit of information, usually in an analytical context.  It is an Observation 

Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON: "data points" is quite common as a stan ding expression, I believe.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): can be single or multiple measures 

Alexander Schubert: Noun 1. data point - an item of factual information derived from measurement or research

Rudy Mendoza: agreed

Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON: yes, please keep it.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): can also be seen as a term in multifactorial statistical analysis.

4. Any Other Business 

-- WG Chairs trying to create an over the Internet intersessional between ICANN58 and ICANN59 to discuss.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170307/9738e5b1/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/20170307/9738e5b1/smime-0001.p7s>