[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 09 April 2018

Mon Apr 9 16:34:08 UTC 2018

Dear WG Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 09 April 2018. 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 see also the attached referenced document.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items:

The WG Chairs will address the point that we are not using level of consensus in this Initial Report.
Staff will add a column to the report structure chart to indicate the Work Track.

Notes:

1. Recap of ICANN61

-- Had a session for the full WG and a session on Work Track 5.

-- Meeting later this week on Work Track 5.

2.  Initial Report

Timeline and Approach:

-- Goal is to get the Initial Report out by the end of this month, but will adjust the schedule.

-- Aware of timeline issues and will make sure there is ample time for the full WG to review the draft.

-- Re: whether we should call the Initial Report something different.  There is one report that is required in Annex A of the Bylaws/PDP Manual/GNSO Operating Procedures: Initial Report/Final Report.  But, you can have additional items, such as Community Comments.  Can have something that comes out that has more concrete recommendations, if that is something the WG wants to do.  For now we are keeping the title “Initial Report” since that report is required by the Bylaws/PDP Manual.  We can have other outputs.

-- Was there a request for statements from the SOs/ACs?  Yes, that was Community Comment 1 and 2.

-- The Initial Report will go out and there may be issues raised by the community that need more clarification, so there is nothing preventing an Initial Report version 2.  As long as we have the option to go back to the community to get clarification that is important.

-- We can either do version 2 or call it something different, or we can put out parts of it if we have areas where we have questions.  The PDP Manual is flexible but that we have to have something called an Initial Report and something called a Final Report.  

Initial Report Format:

-- The meat of the report will be sections that look like this – recommendations and deliberations.

-- It is structured in chronological order as if you were applying for a top-level domain.  Overall issues, application, post-application, etc.  The number 12 corresponds to the post-delegation process.

-- Each section will be broken down into subsections: a) what is the relevant implementation guidance from the 2007 GNSO Final Report on gTLDs, approved by the Board in 2008; b) how it was implemented in the 2012 round; c) what are the preliminary recommendations if any; d) what are the other options under consideration with benefits or drawbacks; e) specific questions seeking feedback on; f) deliberations that took place (work tracks or full WG); g) any other activities in the community that would service as dependencies or input.

-- During each of the work tracks we summarized the current thinking.   

-- The sections in the Initial Report should be updated to include other comments received and may not be recommendations, but only listed in the deliberations.  Asking WG members to keep us honest to make sure we are accurately reflecting the current thinking, and any questions we want to ask.  

-- Our goal is not to introduce new arguments or to talk about the merits of the questions we are asking for feedback on. 

-- The goal is to make sure we have not left anything out and that the questions are concisely stated and cover all the areas where we want to ask questions.  

-- The intent is not to engage in substantive discussion on what should or should not be a recommendations, but to make sure we accurately reflected the deliberations.

-- It’s important that issues that were outstanding in the discussions are highlighted in the Initial Report so that these can be reviewed by the community and commented on.  I agree with you that issues should be raised for further discussion and comment.  As long as the issues are raised in the Initial Report, I'm comfortable.  Would not want to see something referred to as "preliminary recommendation" if it was not supported as such in the Work Track.

-- Staff are working on other sections of the report, such as the executive summary, appendices, etc., but in the meantime we want to get the sections out to the WG to review by the end of the week.

-- There will be one executive summary for the entire report.  It will pull out elements but not be a complete restatement of all of the sections.

-- Question: Will the executive summary have a (suggested / proposed) timeline to launch?

-- Should address why we are not using level of consensus for this report.  Might do it as a cover letter to the report.  This should be addressed in the introduction because it's a required element of the Initial Report in the PDP Manual pursuant to Section 11.  We are varying that procedure so we need to say why we are doing that if we feel it is justified.  See page 71 of the current version of the PDP Manual re "Initial Report".

-- Do not change something just for change.

-- When WG members are providing comments, please note the section in the header of the email and send a separate email for each section.  Maybe we could have an email title format so we can easily distinguish these document comments from other communications?  And if it we could somehow have a consolidated way to view comments sent through email so that we don't have to review and re-review all emails.

Comments on Initial Report Excerpt: Section 1.12 Post-Delegation:

-- Section 1.12.1.e, bullet 1:  I think we should, for clarity, revise the first question to: "Is this reason still applicable and/or relevant?"  Also, should add follow up question after "Are other measures needed?" and that should be "If so, what measures and how will these measures address the issue?"

-- The above point could apply to the next bullet point as well to further clarify comments, i.e. "Is the definition of "use" of a TLD from the 2012 round still appropriate or are adjustments needed? If so, what adjustments are necessary and why?"

-- I think the "if so why" element that Kristina suggested for bullet 1 is important on all of the questions we ask - we want and need reasoned input rather than unsupported opinion

-- Question: Will Staff be inserting citations (and links) to all statements that are either quotations (e.g., Implementation Guideline I) or purport/appear to be (e.g., "one of the reasons the delegation deadline was put into place was to prevent incidence of squatting/warehousing" in first bullet of 1.12.1.e)?  If not, I recommend/request that citations be added.

-- In section C – preliminary recommendations -- What do we mean by “more granular” or “more meaningful”?  There were statistics in the aggregate on overall compliance, but ICANN did not provide more detail, i.e., what was the complaint, how it was resolved, etc.  ACTION: Change “granular” to “more detailed” and see if there was a specific example in the deliberations in the Work Track.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180409/5f6a1b3d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Section 1.12 Post-Delegation_6Apr2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 222892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180409/5f6a1b3d/Section1.12Post-Delegation_6Apr2018-0001.pdf>
-------------- 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/20180409/5f6a1b3d/smime-0001.p7s>