[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Updated Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 June 2018

[Emily Barabas]

Dear Working Group members,

Please find below updated notes providing clarification on Action Item 12 and adding an Action Item 12a.

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: Tuesday, 12 June 2018 at 18:43
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 WG - 12 June 2018

Dear Working Group members,


Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 12 June 2018. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/x/_CgFBQ [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_-5FCgFBQ&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=_cTKOwcG1j617YEjJPhFxRTMQM9D2w8n6jv1BysYVYw&s=-CqKR0kYvd-wGUxrItpGFcluvW3-PosFfBxrwIafahg&e=> .

Kind regards,
Emily

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

Action Items:

1.7.8 Name Collisions
Action Item 1: Correct typo in first sentence. Change "tie" to "time."
Action Item 2: part c., bullet 2: add link to the place where "DITL" and ORDINAL" are defined.
Action Item 3: Find out later this week the status what is expected to be discussed in Panama at the NCAP sessions.
Action Item 4: Incorporate suggestions from Anne Aikman-Scalese from the mailing list on questions in part e.
Action Item 5: Regarding question that references evaluation by RSTEP - make the text for general -- "Members of the work track discussed evaluation by RSTEP, but feedback is sought on the evaluation. . . " In the question currently referencing NCAP, make the question more general by asking "who should evaluate . . ."
Action Item 6: IETF Special TLDs Initiative referenced in g – add reference for more information

1.3.1 Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice
Action Item 7: add text to subsection f that explains what the WT will do once it receives the CCT RT Final Report and what the best estimate is of the time required for that work.

1.3.2 Global Public Interest
Action Item 8:  Consider in part b paragraph 1 suggested revisions by Anne Aikman-Scalese: "In October 2012, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided > advice to the ICANN Board of Directors of ICANN that it should come up > with a mechanism to require an applicant to incorporate into its registry agreements by reference certain commitments, business plans, > registration restrictions, additional rights protection mechanisms and > other objectives specified in the application as filed such that these commitments could > be overseen by ICANN’s compliance department."
Action Item 9: in part part b. where the report lists what is included in Specification 11, three of the four additional obligations are listed. Add the fourth obligation.
Action Item 10:  part e. third bullet -- add “If not, what mechanism do you propose?”
Action Item 11: Check status of GAC Public Safety Working Group and Registries Stakeholder Group discussion on mandatory PICs, referenced in part g.

1.3.3. Applicant Freedom of Expression
Action Item 12: Work Track leaders will consider feedback for the deliberations section to remove reference to dispute resolution providers (see email from Anne Aikman-Scalese for proposed edit).
Action Item 12a: Part d. last bullet, to either delete "the" or "a" in the second line.

1.3.4 Universal Acceptance
Action Item 13: Add citation for additional information on the work of the UASG.
Action Item 14: Add question: Should any additional work be undertaken in the community?

Notes:

1.  Agenda Review
2.  Roll Call/SOIs
- No SOI updates
3.  Review of the Initial Report (continued)
- Going over of the purpose of the review, as included in the agenda.

1.7.8: Name Collisions
- Typo in the first sentence. Replace "tie" with "time."
- part c. in the second bullet, add link to the place where "DITL" and ORDINAL" are defined.

From the chat:
Jim Prendergast: Does anyone know the current state of NCAP?  I know there was acomment period and the staff report is sue by 6/16 but any other activity?
Rubens Kuhl: Jim, there are NCAP sessions in the Panama schedule, but that's all I know so far.

-  Anne Aikman-Scalese submitted suggested revisions to the questions over the mailing list – suggested additional three questions. Rubens responded over the mailing list.
- Suggested question: Should ICANN be directly responsible for controlled interruption? Suggestion accepted by Rubens.
- For the do not apply and excerise care list, how should technical standards be established? Should experts be consulted? Rubens suggested saying should experts other than NCAP be consulted.
- Questions raised to the SubPro WG: Should independent experts be consulted or should we defer to the NCAP study?
- Suggested question – should applicants be able to submit name collision mitigation plans on a string by string basis with each application? If so, should evaluation be done by ICANN or an independent expert. Rubens says the Report states that they can already do that. Anne’s concern is that there is not yet consensus that applicants should be able to submit name collision mitigation plans individually, and therefore the questions are appropriate to ask.

From the chat:
Rubens Kuhl: SSAC said NCAP will be run as a more wider effort than an SSAC-Only working party. But likely more an invitation system than an Open WG.
- On the evaluate the name collision framework, this is already included in the report.
- There needs to be something that the applicant can suggest in cases that might generate refusal of an application. That is why they have the opportunity to submit a framework.
- Suggestion - be more high-level with the questions that we ask. For example, instead of referencing the NCAP specifically, ask "who should be the evaluators?” There are unanswered questions about the future state of NCAP, and it is not yet clear if it is definitely going to happen.

From the chat:
Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT - Jeff I agree we can rephrase  - it may be important to note whether or not evaluator shoudl be independent.
Rubens Kuhl: NCAP was mentioned for the framework, not application evaluation...
Anne Aikman-Scalese: INdependt of contract relationship with ICANN
Anne Aikman-Scalese: Should ICANN evaluate or not?
Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes - ICANN staff be evaluating name collision risk?
Rubens Kuhl: Anne, at meeting #12 of WT4, this was one of bullet points: "Mitigation frameworks would be evaluated by RSTEP"

- Clarification - "independent" in Anne’s comment means not a current registry or registrar.
- Suggested edit: Members of the work track discussed these mitigation frameworks evaluated by RSTEP, but feedback is sought on whether that would be appropriate or not.
- Where there is context for a question in the deliberations, the relevant text in the deliberations should be referenced so readers know where to find the information.
- IETF Special TLDs Initiative referenced in g – add reference for more information, provided in the deliberations
- Comment: It is not sufficient to add items to the deliberations and expect that people will comment. If there are items that we want public comment on, we need to include these in the questions.

1.3.1 Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice
- 1.3.1 is a brief section that says we are waiting for the CCT-RT Report. These issues will be addressed once the report is available.

From the chat:
Jim Prendergast: whats ballpark timing on CCT-RT report? soon right?
- The lastest information is that it may be available at the end of June, but this group will get a preview of the recommendations that are relevant to this group so they can be discussed in Panama.
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Apologies for joining late.  My only comment on 1.3.1 would be to add a sentence (or 2) to subsection f that explains what the WT will do once it receives the CCT RT Final Report and what the best estimate is of the time required for that work.

1.3.2 Global Public Interest
- Consider in part b paragraph 1 suggested revisions by Anne Aikman-Scalese: "In October 2012, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided > advice to the ICANN Board of Directors of ICANN that it should come up > with a mechanism to require an applicant to incorporate into its registry agreements by reference certain commitments, business plans, > registration restrictions, additional rights protection mechanisms and > other objectives specified in the application as filed such that these commitments could > be overseen by ICANN’s compliance department."
-- Language is misleading. It sounds like ICANN was initiate a requirement for commitments in certain cases or for certain business plans. The language should be clarified.
- part b. Where we list what is included in Specification 11. In the third bullet on additional obligations, three of the four additional obligations are listed, which seems strange. Include the fourth element which is not currently there.
- part e. third bullet -- add “If not, what mechanism do you propose?”
- Need to check status of GAC Public Safety Working Group and Registries Stakeholder Group discussion on mandatory PICs.

1.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression
- There are several references to dispute resolution, but this is a term of art focused on UDRP and URS proceedings. The language needs to be clarified and should not refer to dispute resolution, since the section is focused on Freedom of Expression for applicants (see email and chat submission from Anne Aikman-Scalese for suggested revision).

From the chat:
Anne Aikman-Scalese: Work Track 3 discussed the protection of an Applicant’s Freedom of Expression rights and how to ensure that evaluators and Objection Panels (delete dispute resolution as this term means UDRP and URS) providers performed their roles in such a manner so as to protect these fundamental rights. The Work Track generally believes that the implementation guidelines should be clarified to ensure that dispute resolution panelists and evaluators are aware that freedom of expression rights are considered throughout the evaluation and any applicable Objection and auction (DELETE dispute resolution as this term generally means UDRP and URS)  processes as well as any Requests for Reconsideration and/or Independent Review Panel proceedings.
Rubens Kuhl: "Objection Grounds, Standing and Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP) Information"
Justine Chew 2: So perhaps it should be "Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP)" instead of "dispute resolution providers"
Rubens Kuhl: That's ICANN language in the 2012 round.
Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Rubens - A Dispute Resolution Service Provider is to do with UDRP and URS - not I think with respect to Applicant's procedures
Rubens Kuhl: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_program-2Dstatus_odr&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=awDiGSiayR0EfT9T-KzYe0-fV2ha9yr6bteUAsfHgrw&s=GDMoOTLUsbyrWtzIuu--yf8BOL6waoeTmxtwXw4-CgI&e=>
Rubens Kuhl: @Anne, that's the language ICANN used in the 2012 round... I am not advocating for either one, but it will create confusion either way.
Justine Chew 2: +1 Jeff, the question for Robin is to confirm what was meant by "dispute resolutions providers" in that part of the text.
Anne Aikman-Scalese: This is because the Principle provided in the background relates to APPLICANT's freedom of expression.
Greg Shatan: The procedure was an Objection, but the entities hired to resolve the objections were called “Dispute Resolution Service Providers” in the AGB.
Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thank you.
Anne Aikman-Scalese: I think we also need to mention Applicant's Freedom of Expression in relation to Request for Reconsideration and IRP.
Anne Aikman-Scalese: I thought this was just about recommendations related to Applicant's Freedom of Expression
Justine Chew 2: d. Last bullet either delete "the" or "a" in the second line. --- typographical error
Greg Shatan: This section is entitled “Applicant Freedom of Expression”....
Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Greg - Applicant issues arise if Board denies the award of a TLD for whatever reason - e.g. GAC Advice - Applicant Freedom of Expression is involved.

- Is the discussion on Request for Reconsideration and IRP suggested in chat more appropriately placed in section on Accountability Mechanisms?

1.3.4 Universal Acceptance
- Relatively short section because these issues are also addressed elsewhere at ICANN.
- Add citation to additional information on the UASG.

From the chat:
Alan Greenberg: Not on bridge: Question Given that UA has continued to be problematic, do you think that other efforts need to be undertaken.
- Suggestion on the additional question: Other than the UASG, do you believe that additional efforts need to be undertaken by the community?
Alan Greenberg: wording not optimal. Tried to get it in before you went onto the next section.
Jim Prendergast: like question after it is massaged
Alan Greenberg: I do think we need the given...  Perhaps Ruben's workding challenging

AOB
- It is the intent of the leadership team to send out redline edits to the WG. The intent is to make sure that the report captures what was discussed.
- Language for the additional sections (exec summary etc) will also be released.
- Intent is to release the report prior to Panama and open the public comment period shortly after ICANN62.
- To encourage all groups to submit comments, a longer public comment period is expected

From the chat:
Jim Prendergast: will the exec summary try to explain how this is more like an interim report than an intitial report and there may be further possible comment periods prior to final report?  I dont think that language has been circulated back
Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Jeff, could you please repeat your first comment about the nature of the changes that will be made in redline?  QUESTION

- Additional sections that have not yet been shared will include information about the intent of the report and what the report is and is not.
- An email was sent to list a few hours ago regarding the sessions that are being planned for ICANN62.

From the chat:
Anne Aikman-Scalese: HOW TO INCLUDE REMOTE PARTICIPANTS IN SMALL GROUP WORK?
- The leadership team is working with ICANN Org to get more information about options for remote participation in small group work.
- Focus of the discussion at ICANN62: on some of the more difficult issues, how can we get to a set of recommendations?
- Third session for SubPro will kick off review of CCT-RT recommendations. The intent is to work on reviewing these recommendations while the public comments come in.

From the chat:
Alan Greenberg: Jeff, discussions on tools is fine, bt there will  potentially be people there who d onot otherwise participate and therefore we do need a brief intro on the substance.

- Regarding scheduling conflicts, SubPro leadership is speaking with Council leadership about how to avoid conflicts in future Policy meetings. Conflicts with SG/C meetings are particularly problematic. WG members are encouraged to speak with other members of the community and encourage everyone to attend.

From the chat:
Alan Greenberg: ALAC has cancelled its ouwn meetings for monday morning in favor of the PDP meetings.
Alan Greenberg: But that is one of needs for a bit of intro.


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/20180613/3920dd0d/attachment-0001.html>