[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 13 November

Mon Nov 13 21:57:01 UTC 2017

Dear WG Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 November. 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.

For reference the document under discussion is at: Applications Assessed in Rounds (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7dKOw/edit?usp=sharing) 

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Actions/Discussion Notes

1. SOIs:

-- Heather Forrest: Updated SOI to reflect taking up the position of GNSO Council Chair.

-- Phil Corwin: Became an employee of Verisign.  Stepped down from the GNSO Council.  Will update SOI.

-- Phil Marano: Has an updated SOI, which may have got lost in the ICANN 60 mix.  https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Phillip+Vincent+Marano+SOI

-- Christopher Wilkinson: No longer have a relationship with EURID.  Have updated the SOI.

2. Update from ICANN60:

Work Tracks 1-4:

-- There were a number of sessions where the topic of subsequent procedures and additional rounds came up.

-- Two sessions on Subpro: 1) issues from Work Track 1-4; open items such as applicant support programs, outreach, notion of communities, need for financial evaluations/business model evaluations, etc.

-- Work Tracks will take up issues raised at ICANN60 in upcoming meetings.

-- Work Tracks 1 and 3: Topics covered in the GAC, including applicant support programs and outreach, importance of communities/dividing up communities.

-- Meeting with ALAC to talk about applicant support and role of communities.  See the recording of this session: http://sched.co/CbIx.

-- Continue to liaise with the other organizations and advisory committees for upcoming meetings.

3. Update on Work Track 5:

-- Met at ICANN60; talked about how WGs operate, scope, and terms of reference.

-- Not an official work track meeting.  Call for Volunteers is still open until 20 November.  Over 100 participants signed up, and 50 or so as observers.  Work Track 5 Members list is here: https://community.icann.org/x/UplEB

-- Meeting on 15 November at 2000 UTC.

-- Working on a draft response back to the ccNSO, ALAC, and GAC on their conditions.

-- Annabeth Lange sent an email urging people to attend the Communications Tools Classroom session tomorrow at 21:00 UTC on 14 November.  A second webinar on tools has just been scheduled for Tuesday 21 November at 10:00 UTC.

4. Discussion on Working Group Timeline for Work Track 1-4:

-- March 2018: Work Tracks complete preliminary recommendations.

-- April 2018: Complete and publish Initial Report for public comment.

-- June 2018: Public comment closes.

-- July 2018: Complete report of public comments.

-- November 2018: Final Report considered by full WG for consensus call.

-- December 2018: Deliver final Report to GNSO Council.

-- Any recommendations coming out of the WG need to be assessed on the level of consensus in the Final Report.  For the Preliminary Report we will discuss if there are preferred options and request input on them in the Public Comment forum.

5. Timeline for Work Track 5:

-- No official meeting yet.

-- Work Track leaders did discuss a goal timeline.

-- Goal to get a Preliminary Report out in June 2018 and to aim for a Final Report either in conjunction with the report on Work Track 1-4 recommendations, or shortly thereafter.

6. Drafting Team Discussion continued – Applications Assessed in Rounds (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7dKOw/edit?usp=sharing) 

-- Agree on predictability; no undefined gaps, choice of application must address potential impact; should not negatively impact stablity/quality, or operational effectiveness/feasibility.

-- Need to consider: method or data to help estimate demand; scaling to accommodate application volume; discussions about CDAR report impact; process if applications exceed threshold in a given period of time.

Questions/Discussion:

-- Problem statement does not express the problem.  More reference to evaluation of the last round.

-- Essential that the next opening to gTLDs should be restricted to those who were underrepresented in the first round.

-- Work Track 1 is looking at applicant support and outreach.  Will come back to the issue of whether there should be prioritization.

-- Problem statement seems one sided. Does not acknowledge concerns that could come from a continuous flow type of model or how the periods are beneficial.

-- Things like community prioritization don't work unless you have rounds.  On "prioritization" difference if used with community applications as opposed to having rounds for particular categories.

-- Have been opportunties to raise the issue of different groups or types having a distinct round, but we are lacking a specific demand and won't see that until a window opens up.

Rounds versus First Come, First Served (see Pros and Cons on page 4):

-- Coupled with the issue of pricing.  If costs are too low then first come, first served would be more problematic since it would encourage speculation -- would have it in rounds or first come, first served. Alternatively, if the cost was high enough that you don't see the speculation issue then could go to a first come, first served, approach.

-- Need to look at whether FCFS would lead to speculation.

-- Wondering whether even if it is FCFS or rounds the underserved regions from the last round will want to be address in future processes, such as ability to reserve or place a hold.

>From the chat:

Heather Forrest: Re 'rounds', do we have more current info on delegation rate than https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-gtlds-06oct10-en.pdf?

Paul McGrady: @Jeff, also need to discuss if we will have reviews between rounds or if the reviews will be while rounds are ongoing - noting the delta between 2012 and 2017 & counting

Paul McGrady: It would also encourage squatting.  A brand owner launching a new brand would have to file their gTLD application on the same day that they file their first trademark application- spending the money on a new gTLD when they aren't even sure that the relevant PTO will grant them the trademark.

Alexander Schubert: Competition! Competition drives innovation - FCFS eliminates competition. 

Kurt Pritz: While I think that all of the concerns regarding FCFS raised by Jeff and others can be addressed, I think data from the most recent round is required to resolve them. Now that the last round is several years in the review mirror, the data we have is stale - i.e., the market has evolved considerably and in ways unknown to us. We have to have a couple rounds in close succession to develop the information needed to launch a FCFS operation. 

Alan Greenberg: @Jeff, my line dropped, but my answer is that it might depend on whether the list  of applied for names, and by whom is released.

Jeff Neuman: Thanks Kurt.  We have to design certain models to see whether the concerns can be addressed.

Aslam G Mohamed: Whatever the model it should prevent squatting and support the brand owner getting the relevant gTLD.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20171113/9f4f6838/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/20171113/9f4f6838/smime-0001.p7s>