[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 August 2019

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Working Group members,



Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 12 August 2019. 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/display/NGSPP/2019-08-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.



Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director



Notes and Action Items:

Notes:

1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. Review of summary document:

a. Application Change Requests (continuing discussion - start on page 7) -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhEcNGM/edit# [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhEcNGM_edit&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=sp33NrTPYyuv36zLqFbeenjPyIt-m1Pc0IitFEQLMT0&s=1oAZWBQaZv3NJPVrPDNb6hi1qdFn4mkFM28GdsuXMaI&e=>


-- Page 5 – High-Level Agreement – when an applicant may change the applied for string.  Jeff Neuman’s comment.  Example on Delta.  Very narrow circumstance that came up a couple of times in the 2012 round.
-- Should be very specific list of changes that do not require evaluation or cost.  A lot of that is already subject to high-level agreement.
-- Concerns from ICANN Org about the need to put all applied-for strings through contention again.  Would require constant re-evaluations concerning string similarity.
-- Could have a required time frame.  Adding a descriptive word to an applied-for brand is unlikely to create confusion.  Need to consider the benefits – such as reducing the contention sets or avoiding an auction process.
-- Need to think about how this would impact Specification 13.
-- On timing, if the change is before the string-similarity evaluation occurs that would not result in any disruptions to the process per ICANN Org.  But if the intent is for this to happen after the string similarity evaluation is completed, the there are concerns about result in additional string evaluation.  Note this concern in the document.
-- We need a fixed period or before evaluations start or terminated changes are allowed.  Should be a period of time that any changes should be allowed to be made.  But these are changes to the natural cycle.
-- Note in high-level agreements that this is a very narrow proposal.  It currently is in a comment.  To the extent that there is agreement we’ll be more specific.
-- Perhaps we need to loop back to this again as a “general matter of changes to strings proposed” after Auctions matter is settled?

General Comments about Change Requests

RrSG comment: Allow a change for typos:
-- These were allowed in the 2012 round in a limited way.  Need to verify that it is an error.  Also, consider whether there should be a fee.  Don’t want to encourage applicants to be less scrupulous.
-- Depends on if it is subject to cost or public comment.
-- Should be a period of time to make these or any changes.
-- Question on the timing: when should it be allowed?  After submission and revealed, or after the world knows what is submitted?  Answer: There is an administrative check, perhaps it could happen then? This was just to make sure all of the questions were filled out.  This type of typo/error check was not part of the admin check.
-- Why not allow an obvious error correction any time during the application or after the reveal?  Could be gamed after the reveal and contentions are shown. If we allow it before the reveal less likely to be gamed.
-- The type of error correction we are talking about is of the string itself.

NCSG comments – changes related to public comments, early warnings, could be very material.  Allowing changes to respond to comments.  Had specific rules for changes relating to community applications, but not for GAC early warning.
-- In the 2012 round the applicants were not required to explain why they requested the change.
-- Should collect the reason for the change (was not collected in 2012).
-- In 2012 change requests for posted for a 30-day comment period.
-- Early warning is not objection and does not require a change, but an applicant may decide to make changes.  Note the distinction between required or optional changes.
-- Applicants have to provide the necessary rationale for the change request so that ICANN can evaluate it.  But ICANN doesn’t track or report on the reasons/rationales provided by applicants.
-- Don’t think we should put ICANN Org in the position of making a judgement call.
-- Proposal that there shouldn’t any substantive changes absent a public reason.  But is that realistic if the time for evaluation takes longer than a year.
-- How to prevent gaming?  Think about what constitutes gaming.  What are the concerns with the 7 criteria – these were spelled out in the supplemental report and most of the commenters agreed with the criteria.
-- Needs to be carefully written to avoid any type of gaming.
-- Perhaps a practical recommendation: Allow a subscription to keep track on any proposed changes and be notified of a comment period, etc.

Comments on criteria used to evaluate change requests in the 2012 round:
-- Not sure what IPC means by “contention” but could be dealt with as part of Criteria 1.  They meant “contention set”

Suggest change to allow – joint venture created to resolve string contention:
-- Seems to be agreement.

Other types of change:
Looks like a typo – check the comments.  No entity noted following GAC comment. Upon reviewing the comments noted that these are from the NCSG.

How does the discussion change the High-Level Agreements?
-- No changes but some details concerning implementation.
-- Modify the third bullet, the specific narrow situations where the string change should be allowed.
-- How to encapsulate the 7 criteria?  They were called out in the Supplemental Initial Report and will be called out in the Final Report.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190812/889cbab5/attachment.html>