[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017

[Carlos Raul Gutierrez]

Happy new year to everybody and sorry for coming up so late on this thread
and comments to the Spreadsheet and other documents attached (4.2.15
Different TLD Types)

*SOI*: I'm clearly a Pro-Categories fan*** (but only if categories are
defined on a policy-based framework, and not too many please). I clearly
see more pros than cons in the spreadsheet attached that Emily sent to us
with the first mail, but I still miss a framework to address the overall
categories discussion. GeoNames is only one of the categories possible we
are discussing, and for a good reason as I will develop below.

I would like to add to tomorrows discussion a perspective on categorization
that we discussed at length in the CCT-RT. CCT-RT focused, as you know, on
the "cost and benefits" of the expansion. In this particular thread, I want
to focus on a continuum that should be one possibility to evaluate all
different/possible categories, not only GeoNames.


(a) *The Background*: In the beginning there was only two buckets: one the
one end with the least restrictions open Generics, vs. "strict-unitary*,
single-variable**, for profit and non for profit" GeoNames (currently known
as ccTLDs) on the other end, some with the highest levels of very mixed
restrictions for whatever reasons, but many of those restritions being of
economic nature (i.e. high price for the right to use a niche). * strict
unitary because it was only one per country or region or island, single
variable because it focused on political borders only for its definition,
for profit because many countries or private cc TLDs managers sold their
initial rights to private operators with a myriad of business models.

(b) *The Trade-off*: And we hoped the *Innovation* of the expansion would
bring about more competition, more choice and increase trust because new
gTLDs would be easier to identify than the previous two large buckets. They
would be sitting in the middle ground between the two extreme buckets and
everybody would easily recognize their advantages. But it came at a high
price: less openness, at least as compared to the initial generics bucket.
I think that less openness, as expressed by the number, scope and impact of
restrictions (including its administrative costs for evaluation, assignment
and management of new ones), is a very worrisome tendency in the Internet
as a whole. Ad-hoc restrictions developed outside the normal ICANN policy
process are even more worrisome, as the community has had little chance (if
at all) to evaluate the restrictions and accept the reduction in openness
as a fair price to pay for the innovation of new categories. So I think we
have to get very serious about the pros and cons of the categorization
trend, which probably start well before the expansion.

(c) Categories are here with us and will remain open for discussion in and
outside of WT5. The justification, need and urgency for WT5 is my view more
the result of the lousy, mixed-up set of non-policy based restrictions
looking for profits in the ccTLD world, than a problem derived from the
last round. And nobody has called up the Paris convention to support or
prohibit such dealings. I personally fully support WT5 because I believe
that is more urgent to address the lack of openness in *GeoNames* than in
other segments (as .africa and .amazon have shown). But that alone doesn't
help us looking forward with all the other (non-geo) categories.

(d) I think that the spreadsheet is an important input to start-up and
formalize and "Openness" vs. "restrictions" framework to be used in the
evaluation, assignment and management of TLD Categories. A "policy based"
continuum could/should be based on the "openness", vs. the number and
levels of "restrictions" that a TLD may have, just to make any new category
possible. The continuum between total openness on the one side,  and
increasing/creeping restrictions as we move away towards the other end (and
please accept my personal appreciation of the ccTLDs restrictions as only
one cautionary expression of how bad it can get, worse scenarios are
possible). We have to focus on the cost/benefits evaluation of those
restrictions (as we tried to do in CCT-RT and develop quite a few
recommendations in that direction).


So to make my long story short, my reaction to the background supplied by
our great staff could be summarized with the following questions to the
group:


   - How is the openness of the DNS going to look after we introduce whole
   new "sets of restrictions," that define new categories (=bundles of new
   gTLDs)?
   - How strong is he basis for those sets of restrictions? Do we need more
   Paris Conventions for each category, just to keep up with the Jones of the
   IPC?
   - Is a future ICANN community consensus for a new category as strong as
   an International Convention?
   - Can we measure the cost/benefits of those sets of restrictions
   effectively (as CCT-RT hopes and recommends)?
   - Is it worth the policy based effort to define/evaluate those sets of
   restrictions in parallel to WT 5/ before subsequent rounds?
   - or are we walking into a mined potato field?






_______
*** I have sat trough the GAC discussions on the highly regulated sectors
in the last round, the .africa and .amazon Advice discussions, the long but
unsuccessful GNSO-ccNSO Working Group on the use of country and territory
names, and the extenuating and most abstract of all, first review on
Competition, Consumer Choice and Consumer Trust. Base on all of the above I
think that the "categories" discussion is very very important and
necessary. We should not put categories in the back burner again only
because we fail (again) to find a consensus solution for GeoNames.
Categories is an overall larger field, of which GeoNames is just one of the
hot potatoes sunk in it.



Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
skype carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176
________
Apartado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear Working Group members,
>
>
>
> On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group
> members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note
> serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments.
>
>
>
> On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding
> potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff
> zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=0). Your input is encouraged on the following
> questions:
>
>
>
>    - Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified
>    types? If so, what are the *pros/cons *for carving out specific
>    mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types?
>    - If there are *critical exceptions* needed for any of the proposed
>    types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility
>    criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.).
>
>
>
> The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-
> Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81tfQ/edit#heading=h.8pcr95hvmmz), which is intended
> to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while
> ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input
> is requested on the following:
>
>
>    - What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test
>    how it would work in practice?
>
>
>
> For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to
> help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share
> your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call
> on 8 January 2018.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
>
>
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
>
>
> Please find below notes and action items from the call today.  These
> high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate
> through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat
> transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat
> transcript will soon be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/
> SQxyB[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>.
>
>
>
>
> Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the
> chat transcript for a full record of chat comments.
>
>
>
> Slides are attached for reference.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call.*
>
>
>
> 1. SOI Updates
>
> - no updates
>
> 2. Work Track Updates
>
> - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems,
> communications, and application queuing
>
> - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual
> Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these
> topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will
> focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads.
>
> - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00
> UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections.
>
> - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00
> UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a
> focus on applicant financial models.
>
> - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in
> which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next
> meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading
> on the TOR document.
>
> - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to
> the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC
> may provide a response on this issue.
>
> - Request to return to issue of participation model
> contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call.
>
> - Additional work will need to be done to come to
> agreement on the Terms of Reference.
>
> - There is a single Chartering Organization in
> the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into
> place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5.
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *I do not agree with your conclusions
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *The issue of Georaphic name isc much
> beyound the leadership of GNSO
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *The issue is disagreement on whether PDP
> is relevant here
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *There seems to be that our concerns are not heard
>
> *Greg Shatan: *This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a
> fundamental fact.  The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin
> d’etre for the GNSO.
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue
>
> *Greg Shatan: *That is certainly your opinion, and
> thank you for your personal views.
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *I am speaking from my own side here
>
> *Robin Gross: *We need to follow the rules, not break
> them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them.
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *WHAT Rules Dear Mdam
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *MADAM'
>
> *Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): *in any case GEO TLDs had to
> obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/
> federal governmental body
>
> *Greg Shatan: *Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking
> for that. Only a single member of a group.
>
> *Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): *or letter of non objection from
> the same governmental body
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *It is not surprising that you want the
> domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names
>
> *Steve Chan: *As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating
> Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working
> Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.
> org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=>
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Geographic names are not the property of
> any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries
>
> *Greg Shatan: *Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how
> that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise.
>
> *Martin Sutton: *@ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for
> addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved.
>  All concerns and views are taken into consideration.
> Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other
> advisory groups will have further opportunities to
> comment on any output from WT5.
>
> *Greg Shatan: *Kavouss, your personal views on that matter
> have been amply stated and heard.
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject
>
> - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in
> recognition of the importance of this issue in different
> parts of the community
>
> 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types
>
> - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard
> application, community-based application, geographic names,
>  specification 13 (.Brand)
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> *Kurt Pritz: *I think we might distinquish between  the
> policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories:
> Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via
> independent discussion afterward:
>
> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *Can we spell out NGPC please for
> some that weren't around in 2012
>
> *Steve Chan: *NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks
> Donna for the reminder.
>
> *Heather Forrest: *I agree that it is sensible to make the
> distinction that Kurt has raised between community
> policy-based and independent agreement
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *There is no clear description on community
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *If there is what is that?
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *There is nalso no clear idea on how
> communities requirements to be compared with each other
>
> *Kurt Pritz: *My point earlier was that there is consensus
> policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus
> policy on closed generics and brands so the latter  "
> categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be
> considered a status quo consensus policy
>
> - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed
> Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and
> WT5 is considering Geographic Names
>
> - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the
> slides, but additional sections of the AGB also
> address geographic names, and these will also fall within
> the scope of WT5 discussions.
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i
>
> *Jim Prendergast: *While we did have some lenghty disucssions
> on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy
> oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is.
>
> *Robin Gross: *I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community.
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Those issues were written some 10 years
> ago and situation has changed drastically
>
> *Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): *AGB might change as result f some PDP work
>
> *Marc Palau: *What about family names? that's not an strict community
>
> *Marc Palau: *like .kim
>
> *Steve Chan: *@Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to
> set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012
> round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a
> result of the work of this PDP.
>
> *Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): *it might depend on wealth of the family
>
> *Greg Shatan: *@Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists....
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to
> raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so?
>
> *avri doria: *Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB
> against crimminal behaviors and activities?
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *We need to revisit the definition of
> community and revist various categories of communioties as
> they are not having the same conditions
>
> *Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): *I think GAC advise might play
> it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *As soon as we raise a legitimate
> question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without
> giving a convincing argument
>
> - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say
> confidently is that however we define community, it will
> need to be in support of the public interest.
>
> - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities.
>
> - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in
> this PDP, the status quo remains.
>
> - Review of attributes for current application types.
>
> - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the
> approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures,
>  would there be a problem?
>
> - We may not need new categories, but there may
> need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant
> sections of the guidebook
>
> - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example,
>  so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on
> Closed Generics are still underway.
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> *Kurt Pritz: *If we change nothing in the Guidebook,
> there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed
> generics - there is no consensus policies on these
>
> *Greg Shatan: *@Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB
> result in changes in implementation?
>
> *Greg Shatan: *We can add those to consensus policy, but the
> lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation.
>
> - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would
> need to work that into future application processes
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> *Kurt Pritz: *@ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail
> silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the
> round in the same way?
>
> *Kurt Pritz: *I agree with Martin - the next round must
> encourage innovation by developing a flexible
> approach to accommodating new models
>
> *Kurt Pritz: *I think categorization is rigid and
> exclusionary (is that a word)
>
> *Martin Sutton: *Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be
> stifled through categorisation where it is not needed
>
> *Christopher Wilkinson: *@AGB It is already clear that the
> definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making
> policies will have to evolve
>
> - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the
> 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types
> that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the
> system, but it is difficult to predict this now.
>
> - We should also include generic as a category. It is
> intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the
> application process closed that had an impact, and
> additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice.
>  There was no harm done by not having additional categories.
>
> - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive
> and reduced innovation
>
> - If we create too many rules or parameters around
> categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that.
>
> -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing)
>
>  - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications
> through specifications to the base agreement rather than
> creating categories, since these categories may have
> overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler
> approach. Are there any issues with this approach?
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> *Robin Gross: *4 seems to lump two different groups together.
>   Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words
> that others may be "sensitive" to hearing.
>
> *Steve Chan: *@Robin, I believe that lumping together carries
> from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this
> WG from decoupling the two types.
>
> *Robin Gross: *Thanks, Steve.  I think we wouldn't want to
> lump them together.
>
> *Kurt Pritz: *With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s
> mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for
> change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a
> policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in
> the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it
> is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded
> that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them
> for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy
>
> - Agree that there may be different applications that
> warrant different provisions that might not upset the
> existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for
> applications where it is appropriate.
>
> Chat excerpt:
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names
>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed?
>
> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Kavouss, it would be great if
> you could give the process a chance.
>
> *Annebeth Lange,WT5: *The problem, Kavouss, as I see it,
>  is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is
> responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "
> true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can
> achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we
> should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved.
>
> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active
> attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly
> appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to
> the request to participate.
>
> *Annebeth Lange,WT5: **Donna, I agree. However, even if that
> is what is the intention, still many do not feel that
> it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is
> still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out
> there, unfortunately.
>
> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, appreciate your
> thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths.
>
> - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential
> types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with
> geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different
> policies for each type, the administration will be
> significant. It will be harder to move through the
> process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for
> contractual compliance. Should the group consider the
> value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the
> potential impact will be.
>
> - The hope is that the full group conversation will
> provide additional input to the WTs that are considering
> some of the questions around categorization
>
> - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13)
>
> - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16)
>
> - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17)
>
> - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it
> is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the
> identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/
> cons for specific proposed types and identify critical
> exceptions for specific proposed types
>
> - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to
> prposed use cases to test the predictability framework.
>
> . AOB
>
> - none
>
>
>
>
>
> *Emily Barabas *| Senior Policy Specialist
>
> *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
> <+31%206%2084507976>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180107/f8592023/attachment-0001.html>