[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 2 October 2018 at 03:00 UTC

[Rubens Kuhl]

> 
>  
> 3.       Regarding Recommendations 14 and 16, the proposed Responses state that the Sub Pro PDP should look at the data that the CCT-RT has gathered rather than simply relying on the CCT-RT Recommendations.  Is the idea here that Sub Pro may elect to ignore CCT-RT Recommendations and form its own conclusions regarding DNS abuse?


Rec. 14 has two angles, one that can't be looked in a PDP, one that can. The one that can't are financial incentives; this would be a direct violation of the picket fence. But as long as the non-financial incentives do not violate any contract clause, this could be a PDP; but since existing agreements are mentioned, this can only be some other PDP than SubPro. So my guess is that the response is looking into what could specifically apply to subsequent gTLDs, since the recommendation per se couldn't be dealt by SubPro PDP. 

>  
> 4.       There appear to be several comments framing questions as to whether the Sub Pro PDP WG “agrees” with the CCT-RT recommendations.  Is that an exercise that has to be performed with respect to each Recommendation of CCT-RT?  If the Reviews represent separate policy recommendations to the GNSO, does GNSO have to resolve differences between the Reviews and the Sub Pro recommendations before making recommendations to the ICANN Board?

The reviews represent advice applicable to all ICANN organisations, including Board and GNSO, but I don't see them as binding. I believe they have to be duly considered either by SubPro PDP, for those applicable to new procedures, or by some other PDP, if applicable to all gTLDs (like rec. 14 and 16) .


Rubens


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20181002/05f5b156/attachment.html>