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

Mon Sep 11 16:46:04 UTC 2017

Dear WG Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 11 September. 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.

See the referenced documents: Drafting Team Discussion – Different TLD Types: Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1329336410; Community Comment 1 is available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59645660 

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Actions/Discussion Notes

1. Work Track Updates:

ACTIONS: 1) Put this [discussion on applicable law, see below] out on email for Work Track 2, to see if this is something they want to address. 2) Work Track 1 to consider if this relates to outreach and attracting applicants.

Work Track 1: Sara Bockey:

-- We are going to be finishing up the review of community responses -- next meeting RSP program accreditation program feedback.

-- Reviewing all of the recommendations and feedback and starting to compile recommendations for the WG to review.  Some might be implementation and some might be in the form of a decision tree.

Work Track 2:  Michael Flemming:

-- Meeting weekly.

-- These week discussing closed generics at 0300 Thursday, 14 September.  

-- Anticipating two meetings per topics, next are applicant terms and conditions, registry/registrar separate, non-discrimination, defining the public interest (PICs) and the contractual compliance.

-- May not get everything done by ICANN60, but will try.

Discussion:

-- Re: Applicable Law: From the point of view of Work Track 2 -- Is it necessary to refer to any government or not?  What are the advantages/disadvantages?  Is this being discussed in Work Track 2?   Response: That issue has not come up in Work Track 2 or in the Discussion Group.  It might be best discussed in the Accountability Work Stream 2.

-- No one has raised this issue, but one wonders if this might be relevant in attracting new applicants.  If there is any impediment to applying based on jurisdiction?

>From the chat:

Rubens Kuhl: Jurisdiction is something that should be homogenous among incumbent registries and subsequent procedures registries.

Michael Flemming: I think I may have some answers on that but could be open for discussion.

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: Agrree with Alan.....it might be something to really consider

Rubens Kuhl: California law is only foreseen in the registrar agreements. 

Rubens Kuhl: Registry agreements are silent on law, so anyone is free to choose and pick which one they prefer. 

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Registries use their jurisdiction's law with the accredited Registrars (with them). 

Work Track 3 -- Robin Gross:

-- On the last call completed community responses review on community objector process.

-- Tomorrow will be talking about the handling of GAC advice and early warning.  May also discuss the string similarity issues.   The next WT3 call is: Tuesday, 12 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes

-- Here's the details:  In preparation for our next call, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 @ 20:00 UTC, please see below for our proposed agenda.Thanks, Robin__________________________ 1.Welcome & Review of Agenda2. Updates to SOI3. Plenary Update4. CC2 — GAC Objections — Q 3.1.10 – 3.1.11 (see attached)5. CC2 — String Similarity — Q 3.4.1 - 3.4.6 (see attached)6. AOBDiscussion on GAC Early Warnings and GAC Advice in New GTLD program3.1.10 - Do you feel that GAC Early Warnings were helpful in identifying potential concerns with applications? Do you have suggestions on how to mitigate concerns identified in GAC Early Warnings?3.1.11 - What improvements and clarifications should be made to GAC Advice procedures? What mitigation mechanisms are needed to respond to GAC Advice? How can timelines be made more precise?Discussion on String Similarity3.4.1 - There was a perception that consistency and predictability of the string similarity evaluation needs to be improved. Do you have examples or evidence of issues? 

Work Track 4 --- Rubens Kuhl:

-- Registry Services -- review proposals and continue discussions on the list.

-- Next call will discuss financial evaluations.  The next cal is Thursday September at 2000 UTC.

2. Full PDP WG Update:

-- Avri Doria, PDP WG Co-Chair, has been nominated to the ICANN Board starting at the end of the Annual General Meeting (ICANN60).  Will be fully active until the end of IcANN60.

-- Will see if there is interest in joining the leadership team for the PDP WG, either as a Co-Chair or as a Vice-Chair.

>From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): It seems that if the person who volunteers has been involved all along, that person could be Co-Chair.

avri doria: it includes attedning all WT meetings and leadership meetings.

Jim Prendergast: We definitley need a replacement co-chair - just for workload purposes

3. Procedural Next Steps for the WG:

-- Each Work Track makes its recommendations.

-- The full PDP WG considers the recommendations from each Work Track.

-- Incorporating themes from the issues to give us ideas on where we think we can reach consensus, or not.

-- In the preliminary report we are likely to solicit additional feedback on the recommendations.

-- Goal is to have a much more concrete work plan in the next couple of weeks.

-- Leadership call with the RPM and Subpro PDP WG to talk about dependencies.  The charter of the Subpro PDP WG calls for us to incorporate recommendations from the RPM PDP WG and to fill in any gaps.  The timeframe for the RPM PDP WG has been extended for about 7 months.  They are in the process of requesting a data collection exercise that could extend their work by a number of months.  So, they may not have their recommendations until late 2018 or early 2019 for us to consider.  The Subpro PDP WG may have to put out its report without the RPM recommendations.  Some discussion on reducing the scope of Phase I of the RPM PDP WG, but that is still being discussed.

-- One of the principles that we have been operating on is when there is existing policy and we haven't gotten consensus to change it then we can wait until later.

4. Work Track 5: Geonames at the Top Level: 

-- Decide if that will that be a bounded discussion to be completed before we move on.

-- ccNSO sent its volunteer.

-- GNSO is discussing.  GNSO Council determined that as this was a subgroup operating under GNSO rules, rather than going through a Council process or the Standing Selection Committee the Council wanted us to go through a PDP WG process with chairs putting out the call for volunteers and the WG making the selection.

-- GAC said they would have a nomination by the end of the week.  Some conditions will be sent along with the selection.  The conditions are under final review.

-- ALAC hopes to have a decison within the next two weeks.  ALAC will likely have some conditions.

>From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - As discussed in Work Track 4, if our report affects RPMs in any way, then RPM group would have to deal with that before we could go to next round.  That would be unfortuate I think - personal opinion.

5. Drafting Team Discussion – Different TLD Types:

See: Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1329336410 

Community Comment 1 is available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59645660

-- Discussed this topic quite a while ago.

-- There are dependencies if we decide to have different TLD types or not.

-- Most of the groups had favored continuing with the same categories in the applicant guidebook.

-- There were some comments that brought up additional categories that could be separated out.

-- Discuss the common attributes of categories and if we decided to use categories what would be the impacts.

-- There were categories in the policy and in the AGB, also the defacto category in Spec 13.  We really have to start finding what we have consensus for and what remains as it was.

Is there consensus on keeping the existing set of categories even if they need to be modified?

Discussion:

-- We do have consensus not to eliminate the categories we already have, but not on whether this is the definitive list, or the implications of the categories.

-- There is a possibility that you could create a new category, such as applicants needing support.

-- Until the time that decide to modify the categories we should continue to have them.

>From the chat:

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: Next-Gen RDS PDP WG - have not yet agrreed on types of category.. is still on the table... wouldn't that be conflicting. Knowing that these may conflict or not conflicting...

Vanda Scartezini: I beleive YEsS if anything can be changed further  during this WG work

Donna Austin, Neustar: I agree with supporting the existing categories.

Jeff Neuman: @Kris - We have not been briefed on the work of RDS on this.  But can you explain why that would be relevant for us?

Annebeth Lange, ccNSO: I agree on continuing with categories, but they might have to be extended. 

Vanda Scartezini: but we have concensus that it is for further decision

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: @ jeff this is still going through consensus....tomorrow we may know for sure....

Validated registry: Do we agree that this is a separate category?

-- What are the arguments to add that category?  We are asking whether it will have registryation policies that restrict potential registrants, as well as usage.  Likely minimal need for registrar services.  Likely limited registrant base.

-- May need some gradation, such as more nuanced ways to make sure the registrant is in the approved community.  

-- Is there a distinction between Category 1 and Category 2 Safeguard Advice, from a consumer protection standpoint?  Answer: There were 60 or so strings identified as Category 1, and half a dozen that had prior evaluation.  Then there were some that the ALAC said the GAC was overeaching.  There were a significant number where we agreed, but deemed another type of verification to be sufficient.

-- To a large extent the categories we have right now were self-selected.  It is not clear that self-selection will be sufficient and what other criteria will need to be used.

>From the chat:

Donna Austin, Neustar: Alan, I think applicant support could be a category for the purposes of discussion.

Susan Payne: agree with keeping the current categorties

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Tru Alan - but if you decided to give any priority to those applications, you might need to create category..

avri doria: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=88833461

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): It seems to me that if you create and Applicant Support category, you create an incentive for experienced and technically qualified registry service providers to work with such Applicants.

Jeff Neuman: @Anne - Would any of the Applicants in the "Applicant Support Category" not also be in one of the other categories.  In other words, they will either be an open registry, brand, geo, intergovernmental organization?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I think a "highly regulated" category would be well worth exploring 

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: @jeff ...these were the idea that may have to extend and state what kind of domain category would be into. But exactly what Next-Gen RDS PDP WG will come back and see what would go in there

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - we assume they could fit in any category but are distinguished by the need for Applicant Support.  

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Alan - Do you distinguish between Category 1 and Category 2 Safeguard advice?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thus the term **highly ** regulated 

Christa Taylor: In WT1, potentially providing support to other applicants not in the Applicant Support Program was also brought up. For instance, a Community Application that may need some type of financial support

Not-for-profit or non-profit gTLDs, NGOs -- Should we be exploring as a category?

-- No objection/needs to be explored.

Highly Regulated / Sensitive TLDs  -- Continue to explore as a category?

-- Is there a definition around these?  They could be quite different.  Need a definition before we decide to include them.  Thought they were similar in some respects, but we don't have to lump them together.

-- Assume that there is a definition of "highly regulated".

-- Could see highly regulated and validated put together, but not sure what we mean by "sensitive TLDs".

-- Question: Is one a subset of the other?  Is highly regulated a subset of validated?  Or keep validated seaprate from highly regulated.

-- Need to allow the applicant make the case for a TLD to be sensitive.

-- On validated TLDs: Go to vtld.domain has a description.

>From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: For the Validated TLDs, they are self described at:  https://www.vtld.domains/

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION:  Is one a subset of the other?  Is highly regulated a subset of validated?

Krishna Seeburn - Kris: Yes i agree we need a definition to clearly understand them

Jeff Neuman: Not all vTLDs are highly regulated

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION:  Is one a subset of the other?  Is highly regulated a subset of validated?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): sensitive is different 

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Did the GAC call Category 2 "sensitive"?

Donna Austin, Neustar: And this is the primary challenge with categories: trying to define the different types of TLDs.

Robin Gross: "regulated" seems to be tied to law in some way.  "sensitive" is a grab bag or who knows what?  so they are quite different.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes agree 👍 Jeff separate 

Vanda Scartezini: + 1 Donna

Donna Austin, Neustar: I do not like the category of 'sensitive'. It has too many connotations.

Jeff Neuman: I think the validated TLDs did a pretty good job at defining themselves

Alan Greenberg: May I have an AOB?  Related to the overall discussions we have had today.

Jeff Neuman: at vtld.domains

Greg Shatan: What would the consequences of being "sensitive" be?

Jeff Neuman: I am not saying that need s to be a category, just saying they have a definintion

Robin Gross: prone to rash?

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Greg - I though "sensitive" was a description of Category 2 GAC Advice, but not sure.

avouss Arasteh: what we mean by unvalitdated gtld

Donna Austin, Neustar: I also don't support validated. Just because a separate group has been formed doesn't mean a separate category needs to be formed. Some TLDs have a nexus requirement, but I don't know how that distinguishes the from validated.

Kavouss Arasteh: Tks I agree that we need to have validated gtld

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it looks like "special requirements TLDs" , but that could be a feature of many types of gTLDs (GEO limited to citizens some city , Community limitem to members of some assosiation, TLD limited to owners of special licenses e.t.c.)

Jeff Neuman: Validated TLDs validate WHO the registrant is, not where they live or reside

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Vlaidation includes dentist, doctor, attorney, etc.  Designed to prevent shams and consumer fraud.

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff,  I am not sure that GEO can not have special field which only local citizens can provide 

Robin Gross: "sensitive" shouldn't be lumped in with highly regulated, which is a legal standard.

6. Any Other Business:

a. Terms of Reference for Work Track 5: 

-- very important to the GNSO.  Need to remain within the scope and practices of PDPs.  May be different from cross-community working groups.  Once there is an initial recommendations the SOs and ACs are requested to comment and there are provisions on what to do if you get a response that is not in accordance with the recommendation.  The Work Track 5 Co-Chairs will develop the terms of reference and map the conditions to the guidelines for working groups.

b. Participation in the Work Tracks

-- There is light discussion in some work tracks so recommendations that come out of the work tracks and that go out for public comment after PDP WG review may get comments from work track members who have not been participating.

-- We send out a newsletter, meeting schedule, and agendas.

>From the chat room:

Jeff Neuman: All - we will send around a draft terms of reference in the next few weeks.  Avri is discussing a response to the letters that we are receiving

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @AVri - Isn't there also "polling"?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170911/7aa840ab/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/20170911/7aa840ab/smime-0001.p7s>