[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 30 April 2018

Mon Apr 30 16:39:03 UTC 2018

Dear WG Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 30 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 document.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items:  

Preamble/Introduction: WG Co-Chairs will suggest some language to make it clear that a consensus call was not held, and put it out to the list for review examples of how we got to a general type of agreement.
General Note from the Co-Chairs to the WG list re: the issue of substantive comment vs report review and clarifications should be circulated in writing. 
1.2.2.2: 
Note in the deliberations whether there has been discussion here or elsewhere on whether or when a “full refund” might be considered or recommended. 
Specifically call out evaluation processes in the language so that it is very clear.
1.2.3:
Correct typos: "of" not "or a round", "none months" -> "nine months"  
Add as a dependency limit of 1,000 delegation per year and note the link to Section 1.7.6.
Add as a dependency in addition to the CCT-RT Final Report, the SSAC NCAP study may affect this report if the SSAC develops a list of TLDs or a method for testing TLDs that yields the "DO NOT APPLY" category.
1.2.4: Add an additional question: “What would be the benefit of adding a further category/further categories?”
1.2.5:  
Add to the deliberations section: Reflect the discussion that you could limit that applications by entity, if we could determine if an entity is making multiple applications.
Change the pros and cons to a tabular format.
Instead of “none” under the feedback section, should ask at least one question: "Do you concur with the assessment made by the WG?".
1.2.6: Accreditation Programs
Feedback section, Question 4:” Add text that this is not intended to limit that to only itself providing registry services, an application could also put forward a separate RSP.
Section b, last paragraph: New RSPs, etc. They aren’t really new gTLD RSPs.  Add a note that the example is from the 2012 round and is not a complete list, or don’t identify by name.
Include links to the applicable sections in Work Track 4 that deal with technical evaluations.
Include in feedback a question about what minimum timing might be acceptable.  On the amount of time on when the pre-approval process should be complete, or when it starts?  Add two questions.

Notes:

1. Initial Report Excerpts

-- General note from the chat: Given the fact that the issue of substantive comment vs report review has interfered with the progress of successive meetings, perhaps the repeated responses and clarifications by Jeff & Cheryl should be circulated in writing.  With approximately 50 members joining the calls it does consume a lot of time that could be used more effectively to review the report.

1.2.2.1: Community Engagement: No comments.

1.2.2.2: Clarity of Application Process

-- Should be a priority for entities that have not gotten any prior TLDs – dealt with this in Section 1.2.5 on application limits.

-- We are trying to see if the initial report reflects the discussions that have occurred so far.  If you have comments on substance those should be made in the public forum.

-- Question on the section where we talk about providing appropriate refunds when there is a change in the AGB after they applied.  Did we discuss what was appropriate?  Did we discuss the opportunity for a full refund?  Answer: I don’t think we decided whether it is in full or part, so that is why we used the word “appropriate”.  We may have had that discussion in another sections, such as name collisions.  We will note this and make sure it gets addressed.

-- Question: What is considered “multiple” with respect to applications?  Also, what do we mean by “community”?  Answer: This section only deals with the clarity of the application process.  If multiple applications are allowed this section only notes that there should be a mechanism to handle multiple applications.  Whether to allow multiple applications would be addressed in the section on Application Limits.   From the chat: “Re some  of your other questions. Multiple is any number more than 1;  Cost is flat fee Per Application;  We are not at the Section  that discussed "Community" just yet.” 

-- From the chat: “Question to the WT1 group .. does the reference to "all associated processes" include specific acknowledgement to evaluation processes? For example, community priority evaluation process was not formalized until after applications were submitted.” Answer: “To my understanding yes.  The Applicant Guidebook should reflect and include all processes including community priority evaluation.”  Response: “Could I request that evaluation processes be specifically called out in this language to that it is very clear.”  ACTION: Call out language on evaluation processes.

1.2.3: Applications Assessed in Rounds

-- Will change the language to not use terms such as “recommending”.

-- Minor edits: "of" not "or a round", "none months" -> "nine months"  ACTION: Correct typos.

-- Question: Who decides on the final processing of the pros and cons?  If we count the number of pros and cons it is not possible to decide based on the number since they might have different weights; Answer: The WG will decide on the final recommendations based on the comments in the public forum.  The WG won’t do a quantitative assessment, but weigh each pro and con appropriately.  From the chat: it's not about the numbers or weight of pros and cons at this time, it’s to ensure that they are all captured.

-- Question: Does the limit of 1,000 delegation per year also impact this? Addressed also in 1.7.6 Security and Stability.  ACTION: Add in this section as a dependency.  

-- COMMENT: In 1.2.3 Dependencies, in addition to the CCT-RT Final Report, the SSAC NCAP study may affect this report if the SSAC develops a list of TLDs or a method for testing TLDs that yields the "DO NOT APPLY" category.  ACTION: Add in this section as a dependency.  

1.2.4: Different TLD Types

-- Question from the chat: What would be the benefit of adding a further category/further categories?  ACTION: Add this as an additional question.

1.2.5: Application Submission Limits

-- Even if there was no recommendation could we reflect the discussion that you could limit that applications by entity, if we could determine if an entity is making multiple applications?  Answer: There were discussions about putting limits, but the WG could not agree on a mechanism to enforce those limits. ACTION: Ensure this is included in the deliberations.

-- There should be a principle relating to people who try to warehouse TLDs via multiple applications.

-- From the chat: Just a formatting suggestion. Pros and Cons were listed in a table in a previous section, but not this one. I think the tables are better presentationally.  ACTION: Put pros and cons in tabular format.

-- From the chat: I feel we should include questions for the public comment period. Just stating that there are none does not help to trigger the discussion. At least: "do you concur with the assessment made by the WG?" ACTION: Add as a question in the feedback section.

1.2.6: Accreditation Programs

-- Feedback -- Question 4:” If RSPs that go through the Pre-Approval process are required to go through a reassessment process, should RSPs/applicants that do not take part in the Pre-Approval Program also be required to go through the reassessment process?” Do you feel it will lead to inconsistent treatment of RSPs otherwise? Add text that this is not intended to limit that to only itself providing registry services, an application could also put forward a separate RSP.  ACTION: Edit text.

-- Section b, last paragraph: New RSPs, etc. They aren’t really new gTLD RSPs.  Add a note that the example is from the 2012 round and is not a complete list.  From the chat: Perhaps best not to identify any entities by name.  ACTION: Edit text.

-- Include the applicable sections in Work Track 4 that deal with technical evaluations.  ACTION: Add a reference.

-- Include in feedback a question about what minimum timing might be acceptable.  On the amount of time on when the pre-approval process should be complete, or when it starts?  ACTION: Maybe ask two questions on this issue.

2. ICANN62 Planning

-- Monday: Two sessions on Work Tracks 1-4; cross-community session on Work Track 5.

-- Thursday: One session on Work Tracks 1-4, cross-community session on Work Track 5.

-- See the draft GNSO schedule at: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/icann62-draft-gnso-schedule-26apr18-en.pdf.  Note that these are tentative and may change.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180430/eed52bfc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Initial Report Excerpts_1.2 Overarching Issues_13Apr2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 772868 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180430/eed52bfc/InitialReportExcerpts_1.2OverarchingIssues_13Apr2018-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2057 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180430/eed52bfc/smime-0001.p7s>