[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 27 February 2018

[Emily Barabas]

Dear Working Group members,

Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call.  These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording.

Meeting recordings, transcripts and chat transcripts are available at https://community.icann.org/x/IwWfB .

Kind regards,
Emily


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Action Item 1: Develop poll to distribute to the WG based on questions displayed on slide 9 and on to 10.

Action Item 2: Revisit discussions with GDD about items that could help to speed up implementation.



Notes:

2) Work Track updates

WT1

-- Next call at Thurs 6 Mar at 15:00 UTC. WIll try to fill in remaining holes in topics/WT1 working document.

WT2

-- Next call is Thurs at 15:00 UTC. Will discuss contractual compliance and TLD rollout. Will also discuss what will be covered at ICANN61.

WT3

-- Next call is Tuesday at 20:00 UTC, will discuss string similiarity and string confusion objections. WIll also discuss what will be covered at ICANN61.

WT4

-- Next call is Thurs 1 Mar at 20:00 UTC.

WT5

-- Welcome to Javier Rua-Jovet, the new co-lead from the ALAC.

-- On the last call, discussed definition/scope of what geographic names may apply in future new gTLDs.

3) Continuation of discussion on TLD types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit[docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit%5Bdocs.google.com%5D>)

-- Reviewing slide 6

-- Reviewing slide 7

-- Reviewing slide 8

-- Reviewing slide 9

-- Some support expressed for the idea that that no substantive change is needed.

-- .Brand does still need to be codified, since it was not originally captured in 2012.

Chat excerpt:

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): I think we should seek public comment on these various categories.  COMMENT

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Cheryl, I think we need to at least to conduct a poll and not to base on the "temperature of the room" in this meeting

-- Support expressed by one member for geographic indicators needing specific treatment.
Chat excerpt:

Donna Austin, Neustar: @Christoper, in my mind they already exist as a category and to that extent would be supported as status quo.

Heather Forrest: I understood after Jeff Neuman's response to my question at the start of the last WT5 call that in discussing the 'definition' of geo name the group is questioning whether a particular category of name should be analysed by the group, NOT whether a particular category merits different treatment

-- Specification 13 may not be suficient to capture needs of .Brands. Should capture and include holistically in the process, if possible.

-- We will definitely have categories in the future, so let’s agree that they will exist.

- The categories so far concentrate more on the entity rather than the string. Why would an IGO applying be different than any other organization applying for the same string (assuming an unprotected IGO string)?

Chat excerpt:

Greg Shatan: Doesn’t it really need to be “entity + type”?

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I'd take Donna's point and go farther - we're listing types based on the string, the applicant and the way in which the string is used (which gets us very close to the content line, IMHO).

Javier Rua-Jovet: Good points.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and non-for-profit is a form of legal body, so many Registries have this despite being GEO, generic or community

Justine Chew: Should be purpose of use of string, taking Donna's point

Phil Buckingham: Alan , we should have only two . Ones that will sell second level domains  and ones that wont - ie only "selling internally within their organisation / brand .. then we categorizes from there.  We need a tree diagram to distinguish the diffferent exceptions to the  base .model .
Greg Shatan: On the IGO front, there is all the time spent on IGO pre-emotive and curative rights, which may require some treatment for the protected strings.

Philip Corwin: IGOs generally have their own .int domains. Highly unlikely to be new gTLD applicants, both for that reason as well as aplication could be viewed as commercial endeavor.

Greg Shatan: There are relatively few .ints compared to the number of IGOs, and I doubt that merely having a TLD would be viewed as a commercial endeavor.

-- If certain entities get different treatment, perhaps those need to be defined.

- Should we also look at purpose? Other entities may want to use their TLD for internal purposes (e.g., infrastructure). Maybe rather than creating categories, maybe the process for exemptions should be the goal.

Chat excerpt:

Edmon: generally agree with donna but building on what alan said, i feel it is more appropriate to really say that really its a combination of 3 things 1. the string, 2 the entity and 3 how thy are proposing to run it

Edmon: and perhaps we need to ask, when we create (or not create categories) whether it adds to the fundamental goals: competition/choice/consumer trust

Greg Shatan: Agree with Edmon, it is really a “Trinity.”

Alexander Schubert: we need to understand what we USE categories for? evaluation  prioritization? prioritization of awarding the string  (e.g. community)? RA? appllication requirements? application cost?

-- Reviewing slide 10

- Applicant had to provide information about how the TLD was going to be used (question 18) and it was only relevant to community applications. Perhaps question 18 could be the basis for contractual requirements?

-- Does not properly take into account innovation and timeliess of application process.

-- Challenges about not allowing applicants to change post-launch.

-- Could changes be handled via RSEP process?

-- RSEP is currently used for technical stability reviews.

-- Contractual changes still go through public comment and ICANN Board review.

Chat excerpt:

Alan Greenberg: I wasn't arguing about the concept, just that RSEP as defined could not be the right vehicle.

Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kristina, I agree that it could stifle innovation, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that if we decide on additional categories then the applicant shoudl be held to something that they used in their application to make their claim.

Alexander Schubert: problematic example: somebody goes for .frankfurt but claims it is not for a city (hence needs no letter of non onjection). they afterwards "change" their application model.

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Alexander, most probably mayors office of Frankfurt (one of them) will pull a letter from them

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Given the duration of complex RSEPs, I have significant concerns about the business impact of pushing buiness model changes to an RSEP (in addition to the not-so-minor concern that we're then allowing ICANN to decide business models).

Action Item: Develop poll based on questions on slide 9 and on to 10

-- Reviewing slide 12

-- Reviewing slide 13

-- Reviewing slide 14

-- Reviewing slide 15

-- Community-based applications need to be public from the outset, which makes them a target. It's difficult to apply as a community without awareness. This makes them a target for objections and gaming.

Chat excerpt:

Greg Shatan: Some of those double-dip “communities” were dubious at best.

Robin Gross: I was just thinking that, Greg.

-- Reviewing slide 16

Chat excerpt:

Jamie Baxter | dotgay: Yes. If we change nothing then community applications will continue to be targets of gaming

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT:  I think public good is relevant to closed generics, but is not a relevant judgment in relation to community applications.  I also don't think we can avoid high scrutiny/visibility on community applications.  COMMENT

-- .brands were not in policy in the last round but existed in implementation. For things to remain the same from the 2012 round, we would need to make changes to the policy.

Chat excerpt:

avri doria: i thought it was policy + agb + the rest of the rules that were added later in process were taken as the status quo?

Donna Austin, Neustar: @Avri, i would support that explanation of the status quo.
Justine Chew: I am thinking the same as what Edmon and Avri posted also

Alexander Schubert: maxim: if you claimed that your TLD would not be used (marketed) for the city purpose - you only needed a letter of non objection for capital cities! .frankfurt for a brand doesn't need a letter!

Michael Flemming: So, the question is more along the lines of do we bring policy up to speed with implementation or make further changes?

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with Avri.  Let's acknowledge that when the Board acts, that is actually current policy even if not made by GNSO.

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): some of those decisions in 2012 round  were not fact based or were not properly developed via the multistakeholder process

avri doria: this is what i reacall was said way back at the beginning.  Stauts quo is what exists.


-- The status quo would need to be enshrined in policy in the new round as there were a number of provisions developed that are not reflected in the 2007 policy.

-- What we are considering the status quo is the AGB plus whatever happened afterwards. Some of this is implementation, some was "ad-hoc" policy.

-- In the future, it may not be clear what was policy and what was implementation if it is all approved as a single package.

-- Another perspective - anything we put into our final report is policy, unless we affirmatively state that it is not.
Chat excerpt:

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): implementation is actions of ICANN Staff and their actions does not constitute policy

Edmon: @avri agree, but we should still explicitly point to those i think in this iteration of policy recommendation (i.e. if there are any policy changes from the previous recommendation even if we agree with the changes)

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): There are GNSO policy recommendations.  These don't actually become policy until adoptd by the Board.

Alan Greenberg: If everything is policy, to change ANY of the details, no matter how much it looks like implementation, it will take a GNSO PDP (or equiv) to change.

Greg Shatan: But of course — rejected policy recommendations are not policy.

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): formally in ICANN legal framework there is no such thing as status quo

Justine Chew: what we should be concerned about is after we as a group conclude a policy of which elements are 'not adopted' by the Board then it's not policy

Kurt Pritz 2: I think the bright line is, if the GNSO & Board voted on it, it is policy: i.e., the GNSO Policy reccommendations + the RPMs

Alan Greenberg: We spent a LOT of time a few years ago trying to differentiate policy from implementation.

Greg Shatan: Alan, what output of a PDP is not policy (when approved by the Board)?

avri doria: isn’t that what the new implementation groups deal with.

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): for example current RSEP process, where current implementation contradicts the policy itself

Greg Shatan: That was usually in the opposite direction, where certain changes outside a PDP were either advanced as “implementation” or challenged as “policy.”

Alan Greenberg: If you go back to the report that created the URS and TM Clearinghouse, it said in large bold type that this as implementation and not policy.
Greg Shatan: The P&I Group created some ways of resolving that.

Greg Shatan: @Alan I don’t disagree with that.


-- Suggestion – put the matrix of pros and cons for having categories out for public comment.

4) Initial Report timeline/next steps

-- Review of slide 24

-- Target date for Initial Report - April 2018

-- Work Tracks will reinitiate after public comment period for the Initial Report

-- No formal consensus calls will be taken prior to the publication of the Initial Report

Chat excerpt:

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Cheryl - issues must be highlighted in Initial Report for public comment.  The issues I raised in Work Track 4 should form part of the Work Track 4 Initial report.  I had understood these would be discussed further.  Please add these issues to the call agenda for Work Track 4 March 1 call.  Thank you,  Anne

-- Review of slide 25 - steps that will take place after this group delivers its Final Report and possible timeline.

Chat excerpt:

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION:  When do we, as a group, see the Initial Report drafts and how much time will we have to consult our constituencies before the Intiial Report is adopted and published?  QUESTION

-- After the next leadership team meeting, the leaders will get back to the group on this question.

--Was there a communication with Akram last year that there might be ways to speed up the implementation? If this discussion happened through the PDP WG, perhaps we can revisit this.

-- This may have been a discussion initiated through the Contracted Parties House.

Chat excerpt:

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT:  We must be given enough time to review draft Initial Report with our constituencies.  COMMENT
Donna Austin, Neustar: @Karen--not sure I understand.

Karen Day: Akram has said that FY19 budgeet contains no $ to start implementation work

Donna Austin, Neustar: @Karen, I'm talking about something different and it seems it may have been a communication coming out of the GDD Summit.

Karen Day: @donna, yes, I remember that was a conversation in Madrid, I was just meaning that if there is no $ they won't do anything no matter where we are

5) ICANN61 planning

-- Review of slide 27 and 28 - sessions at ICANN61

6) AOB

- The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call will be held on Monday, 05 March 2018 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.


Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180227/fd4a9f7f/attachment-0001.html>