[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 July 2019

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi Julie, tx for the notes!

To Jeff, Cheryl, Julie and Steve,

In the interest of helping those who cannot participate in the double 
meetings per week, it would help to have a few more information bites in 
the notes to a) better understand what was covered, b) know where 
discussion stopped and c) ideas where the is likely to continue on the 
next call.

In particular for last night's call, could you share some basic (and 
hopefully non-controversial) information:

-/Is the 2.3.2 discussion of Verified gTLDs completed -- or is it likely 
to continue on Monday's meeting?/

/- Was any part of the 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression section 
started?  (it looks like no)
/

/- Were any issues of 2.3.2 other than Verified gTLDs discussed -- and 
will we be returning to other sections of 2.3.2 in the next session?
/

/- How many people attended and where can we find a list of participants 
(we agreed to monitor participation in light of concerns that many could 
not participate twice a week and had already scheduled their Thursdays 
for the summer). we would all monitor closely in light of real concerns 
about participation in these Thursday calls./

Quick note:  some participants missed the call last night because they 
marked it in their calendars for Thursday night (Eastern time). It was 
actually scheduled for Wednesday night (Eastern time) -- and that in 
itself is a problem because Wednesdays are RPM WG days.  We should at 
least move the SubPro WG second call to Thursdays nights/Friday AM to 
ensure the calls to do not come on the same day.  Asking for 3.0+ hours 
/on the same calendar day for /participants in both WGs seems 
extraordinarily difficult for those who are truly volunteers in this 
ICANN process. Recommend changing it -- likely to increase participation 
and decrease burdens during these hot days of summer (for some hemispheres).

Best, Kathy


On 7/11/2019 11:44 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
> Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 11 July 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/2019-07-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP. 
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> *Notes and Action Items:*
>
> **
>
> *Action Items:*
>
> ACTION ITEM re: CCT-RT Recommendations and ALAC Statement -- Questions 
> for Justine Chew:
>
> 1.  Is ALAC's position documented anywhere?
>
> 2.  On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT 
> Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT 
> Review Team)
>
> 3.  With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just 
> Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2.
>
> 4.  The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out 
> further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2.
>
> *Notes:*
>
> 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided.
>
> 2.  Review of summary document: (continued) -- Global Public Interest 
> (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc7sE/edit?usp=sharing) 
> – start at Verified TLDs, Page 6
>
> Verified TLDs:
>
> -- Updated the sections on mandatory and voluntary PICs to include 
> divergence from the Public Interest Community and the NCSG.
>
> -- The word “likelihood” should be fixed. Edit and check with IPC re: 
> IPC comment and the word “likelihood”.  Typo in the original comment.
>
> -- As as it's been applied a verified TLD is one that verifies the 
> potential registrants meets registry standards prior to registering a 
> domain. So for instance, the registry operator might require 
> registrants to be appropriately credentialed to practice where they do 
> business.  And that's where that implied trust comes in, I think, so 
> that end users can trust that domains in that TLD are going to be 
> authentic.
>
> CCT-RT Recommendations:
>
> -- For absolute clarity, is the ALAC position that the RPM PDP must be 
> completed in its entirety (ie, Phase 1 and Phase 2) prior to next 
> round commencing?
>
> -- As a reminder, this WG has a tracking sheet for all of the CCT-RT 
> recommendations aimed at SubPro: 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBSheVJQcvHg/edit?usp=sharing. 
> And it has been updated to take into account what the Board has passed 
> through to SubPro.
>
> -- John Laprise - to answer Jeff's question, could you add to your 
> email earlier today to the SubPro list re ALAC position the document 
> in which this position is recorded?
>
> ------------------------
>
> ALAC statement:
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <_gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org_> on 
> behalf of John Laprise <_jlaprise at gmail.com_>
>
> *Date: *Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 22:20
>
> *To: *"_gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org_" <_gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org_>
>
> *Cc: *'ALAC Members' <_ALAC-members at icann.org_>, ICANN At-Large Staff 
> <_staff at atlarge.icann.org_>
>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Just a useful reminder of ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at 
> ICANN65:
>
> ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of 
> CCT and RPM recommendations are fully implemented.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>
> NARALO ALAC Representative
>
> ALAC Vice Chair-Policy
>
> ----------------------
>
> -- Can staff please send me [Justine] an AI on the questions being 
> posed with respect to John Laprise's comment? Thanks.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1.  Is ALAC's position documented anywhere?
>
> 2.  On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT 
> Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT 
> Review Team)
>
> 3.  With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just 
> Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2.
>
> 4.  The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out 
> further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2.
>
> --- @jeff, in respect of your #4 my immediate answer is what you term 
> as a “precedent”; is not precedent in the actual sense of the word, 
> but ALAC positions are not immune to change with developments over time.
>
> -- Thanks Justine - This is why seeing the rationale and not just the 
> final position/resolution/outcome is important.
>
> -- Jeff, your question #4 seems to assume that, if there is a 
> difference in position between Comment 1 and 2, that somehow this 
> indicates that ALAC has disregarded or “devalued” “precedent.”  I 
> don’t think that’s a fair assumption.
>
> -- Given that we have only one very high-level articulation of a 
> high-level agreement and many divergent points under outstanding 
> items;, it's not clear to me what our overall objective is in this 
> section. Are we hoping to distill from outstanding items more points 
> as high-level agreements?
>
> -- Thanks, Jeff - looking for commonalites makes sense. Thanks for the 
> explanation.
>
> -- One thing to consider is that the policy goal may not be 
> achievable, insofar as we are not able to work out some explicit 
> implementation matrix (ie, X weighs heavier than Y)
>
> -- @Greg- and therein lies the problem. Reaching agreement on a 
> definition has not yet been achieved at the level of international 
> law, so us achieving that here is a big ask.
>
> Freedom of Expression:
>
> -- High-level agreement -- Support: May not be accurate.  May need a 
> more neutral phrase. Need to provide specific implementation guidance. 
> Need to better define what is meant by “applicant freedom of 
> expression”.  Broader term than freedom of speech.
>
> -- Difficult for the WG to develop a definition since it hasn’t yet 
> been done.
>
> -- High level agreement is that there are freedom of expression rights.
>
> -- Start with Implementation Guidelines section on the next call.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190711/1794205a/attachment-0001.html>