[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 04 June 2018

Mon Jun 4 22:13:54 UTC 2018

Dear WG Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 04 June 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 slides.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items:  

Section 1.7.4: 

-- Section e:  Add specific questions on these elements in Section f: 

1. Contention Resolution: "Do Community Priority Evaluation and auctions of last resort continue to be appropriate methods of resolving contention? Are auctions of last resort are in the public interest?

2. Private Auctions: What rules could be established to disincentivize gaming or abuse of private auctions?

3. Synonyms in String Similarity Review: Should synonyms (for example .DOCTOR and .PHYSICIAN) be included in the String Similarity Review.? Such as when the strings are associated with a highly-regulated sector and one of the strings is a verified TLD.

Section 1.7.5:

-- Section c: Incorporate the definition of what is a variant from the AGB. 

-- Section e question 2: Change from "Latin-language to Latin-script"

Section 1.7.6: Security and Stability

-- Section e: Add the note that the SSAC recommends no emojis and TLD, but want to get views on this issue.

-- Section f (last sentence):  Is Work Track the correct subject or should it be commenters?  If Work Track is correct, may want revise the verb to "may look" . . .

Section 1.7.7:

-- Re: suggested language: "Applicants will be allowed but not required to specify additional registry services." can we revise the report to say that the WT has disagreed and we specifically seek comment on the may vs. required issue?  Seems to be a change in policy (from question 23). 

Notes:

1. Roll Call/SOIs: No updates.

2. Review of the Initial Report (continued):

Section 1.7 (Reserved Names; Registrant Protections; Closed Generics; String Similarity; IDNs; Security and Stability; Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services; Name Collisions) -- see:  https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB

* The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org) in advance of the meeting.

As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released:

1.2: Overarching Issues

1.3:  Foundational Issues

1.4: Pre-Launch Activities

1.5: Application Submission

1.6: Application Processing

1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria

1.10: Contracting

1.11: Pre-Delegation

1.12: Post-Delegation

Section 1.7.4 String Similarity

-- Section f:  Add the three elements at the end of the section to Section e as specific questions on: Contention Resolution, Private Auctions, Synonyms in String Similarity Review.

-- Section c:  Some explanatory text would be helpful. Those who have not followed the issue carefully won't understand why the first 2 bullets are not inconsistent.  

Section 1.7.5 IDNs

-- Section c: To help the reader know what is a variant, pull the definitions from the AGB.

-- Section e question 2, Change from "Latin-language to Latin-script"

-- "Latin-language supporting ccTLDs such as .br and .ca"  Change "could be it TLD-specific" to "could it be TLD-specific (same item).

Section 1.7.6: Security and Stability

-- Add the note that the SSAC recommends no emojis and TLD, but want to get views on this issue.

-- Section 1.7.3.f (last sentence):  Is Work Track the correct subject or should it be commenters?  If Work Track is correct, may want revise the verb to "may look" . . . 

-- From the chat: 

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Section 1.7.6.c., 2nd para:  Not clear what problem WT is trying to solve through the suggested Implementation Guidance.  An explanatory sentence would be useful.

Section 1.7.7: Applicant Reviews

-- Comment/question on Section 1.7.7.c (financial evaluation, subsection 2.d):  It would be helpful for the report to state if the WT considered extending the conditions to include Affiliates.  In other words, if the Applicant or an Affiliate is a company traded on an applicable national public market, etc.  

-- n Financial Evaluation, I remember people having doubts about the meaning of a "single registry family", a definition ICANN GDD uses. We might want to add a footnote with that definition. 

--  I'm confused and would appreciate some clarification from folks on the WT who worked on the Registry Services Evaluation recommendations.   The Registry Services Evaluation Process implements the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, which I do not read as applying to gTLD applicants.  So, how can an "applicant specify whether it wants [its new proposed service] evaluated through RSEP at evaluation time"?

-- Re: suggested language: "Applicants will be allowed but not required to specify additional registry services." can we revise the report to say that the WT has disagreed and we specifically seek comment on the may vs. required issue?  Seems to be a change in policy (from question 23). 

>From the chat:

Christopher Wilkinson: The financial plan should include a question about the aggregate leverage of the applicant (equity/indebtedness)

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Comment/question on Section 1.7.7.c (financial evaluation, subsection 2.d):  It would be helpful for the report to state if the WT considered extending the conditions to include Affiliates.  In other words, if the Applicant or an Affiliate is a company traded on an applicable national public market, etc.  

Rubens Kuhl: Kristina, could be a question like this ? "WT hasn't considered whether to include Affiliates in (...). Should such criteria be changed to include Affiliates ?"

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Rubens:  Yes.

Rubens Kuhl: On Financial Evaluation, I remember people having doubts about the meaning of a "single registry family", a definition ICANN GDD uses. We might want to add a footnote with that definition. 

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I'm confused and would appreciate some clarification from folks on the WT who worked on the Registry Services Evaluation recommendations.   The Registry Services Evaluation Process implements the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, which I do not read as applying to gTLD applicants.  So, how can an "applicant specify whether it wants [its new proposed service] evaluated through RSEP at evaluation time"?

Heather Forrest: So you would still be required to answer, for example, 29 on RPMs?

Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair): @heather

Rubens Kuhl: I don't see us taking out question 23, or the number it becomes. 

Rubens Kuhl: Because applicants still need to specify what they want in their agreements. 

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): In the interest of moving forward, can we revise the report to say that the WT has disagreed and we specifically seek comment on the may vs. required issue?

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Kristina about this.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Services can't be hidden if they're new registry services.  Post RA signature, the RO will have to submit an RSEP.

Rubens Kuhl: This would be curious seem we seem to agree, just not on how to say it... 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP WG Co Chair): This was WT 4 

Rubens Kuhl: So if there is doubt, I am more from changing language to the point of people that agree, not to disagree. 

Rubens Kuhl: (I am more to)

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Let's not forget that one major factor in the development and design of the 2006 policy recommendations (and the subsequent AGB) was to avoid having ICANN making judgments about business models. 

Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Kristina - the questin is timing - in the application itself or in the RSEP or RSTEP process afterward?  That is why w eneed public comment.  The work Track 4 discussed the pros and cons of this - particularly becaudse of question 23.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Christopher:  Suggest you review this list if you're unaware of any new registry services: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rsep-2014-02-19-en

Rubens Kuhl: Would "Applicants will be allowed to specify services beyond the base required services, but the base required services will be the only mandatory ones" cut for you, Anne ? 

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If that's Anne's concern, it assumes that there is a basis for a 3P to comment on or object to a proposed registry service - and I'm not aware of one.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to ask that question, we should also ask the commenters to identify why or why not it should be required, if 3P should be allowed to comment on or object to a proposed service in the application and, if so, on what basis?

Anne Aikman-Scalese: The question on which there was disagreement in Work Track 4 was whether disclosure of services known at the time of application - should you be required to disclose them?

Anne Aikman-Scalese: I would not require the tick box - I would expect integrity and honesty.  And all I am looking for is public comment on the question.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Anne:  Understood.  But if we're seeking comment on whether disclosure should be be required, we need to ask people to explain their reasons.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes - Kristina - I absolutely agree with that idea to explain reaons.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: *reasons - yes

Alan Greenberg: The REAL problem is we can only refuse an RSEP if it impacts stability, but here the grounds for objection could be much wider.

Rubens Kuhl: Alan, Stability or Competition. And the judge on Competition is external to ICANN, an applicable competition authority. 

Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Alan - that is why changing Question 23 or modifying it is an important change in policy and this must be highlighted in the questions for public comment.

Alan Greenberg: @Rubens, yes + competition, but the general comment still stands.

Rubens Kuhl: Anne, that part hasn't changed. Only the pre-approved services list and the opportunity to specifying timing for service evaluation, which could foster more disclosure. 

3. ICANN62 Schedule:

Session 1 for WTs 1-4 is on Monday, 25 June, 09:00-10:15

Session 2 for WTs 1-4 is on Monday, 25 June, 10:30-Noon

Session 3 for WTs 1-4 is on Thursday, 28 June, 13:30-15:00

Session 1 for WT5 is on Monday, 25 June, 15:15-16:45 (Cross-Community Session)

Session 2 for WT5 is Thursday, 28 June, 15:15-16:45

-- Break out into groups and try to find some way to find areas of agreement. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180604/2db2ce8b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Section 1.7 Application Evaluation_Criteria_4May2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 886471 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180604/2db2ce8b/Section1.7ApplicationEvaluation_Criteria_4May2018-0001.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/20180604/2db2ce8b/smime-0001.p7s>