[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 25 July 2019

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Working Group members,



Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 25 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/2019-07-25+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.



Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director



Notes and Action Items:

Action Items:

From 15 July 2019:
ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO:  Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance.
ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text.  Include a link to the USAG work.

From 18 July 2019:
ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify.  ACTION: To the WG to clarify.

From 25 July 2019:
Application Submission Period:
ACTION ITEM 1: New Ideas: BC Comment -- Clarify what they mean by “Consider providing “a way to keep non-contentious applications open if they need more time to complete.””

ACTION ITEM 2: Application Submission Period, possible new High-Level Agreement -- An application submission period or communication period should not be considered separately, but taken together. There should be a formal communication period of at least 6 months, but there is nothing to prevent efforts to provide awareness outside of that period.

ACTION ITEM 3: New High-Level Agreements:
-- All subsequent windows should be the same length as the initial application window.
-- The communications period should commence at least 6 months prior to opening the application submission period.

 ACTION ITEM 4: If someone applies for a string that is unresolved from a prior round would there be a refund?  Refunds haven’t been discussed, but need to be at a meeting and on the list.

Applicant Support:
ACTION ITEM AND NOTE: Consider adding to high-level agreement: Applicants that don’t meet the requirements should have the option to withdraw their application or pay the remaining application fee.  NOTE: Need to consider the timing of the application being accepted, particularly if the applicant is receiving other types of assistance.  Also, need to consider concerns about gaming (see ICANN Org’s comment).

Notes:

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

2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wqEYsk/edit?usp=sharing

Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made.

a. Application Submission Period, page 14

Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence:

ACTION ITEM: BC Comment -- Clarify what they mean by “Consider providing “a way to keep non-contentious applications open if they need more time to complete.”

Proposed initial application submission period of at least three months:
-- Question: Confirm that translations occur outside of the 3- or 6-month application period.  Does the window start with English or with all languages?  Answer: In 2012 it may have been that applications could only be submitted in English and the WG has not discussed alternatives.
-- Important to know that the time periods are not interdependent -- to understand when the preparation and communications period takes place, and then how long submission is, for a total.
-- Possible High-Level Agreement [include a rationale]: An application submission period or communication period should not be considered separately, but taken together. Is it enough to have a 9-month communication period with a 3-month application period enough?  Have a formal communication period of at least 6 month, but there is nothing to prevent efforts to provide awareness outside of that period.
-- Need a clear window for budgetary purposes of applicants.
-- More a function of how efficient/effective we are in the communications period.
-- If awareness of and about pertinent aspects of the new round is "sufficient" then practically speaking the communications period can be limited to 6 months.
-- There is nothing preventing ICANN from having awareness activities before the final AGB is out.

Proposed overlap between Communications Period and application submission period:
-- New High-Level Agreement: All application submission periods should be equal.
-- Agreement that the application submission period should be no longer or shorter than 90 days.
-- New High-Level Agreement: Application period could overlap with the application submission period.  We are saying that the communications period should commence at least 6 months prior to opening the application submission period, but the communications period can overlap with the application submission period.

Rounds following the next round: application processing/delegation occuring in parallel with new window:  Concerns: INTA - windows must be clearly identified with controls are in place to ensure that a later application for a TLD (or one confusingly similar thereto) is not given priority to an earlier one.  ACTION: Refer to the appropriate section.

Refunds:
-- ACTION ITEM: If someone applies for a string that is unresolved from a prior round would there be a refund?  Refunds haven’t been discussed, but need to be at a meeting and on the list.

b. Applicant Support, page 17

Policy Goals:
Increase the [number of total applicants for the applicant support program?] [number of successful applicants to the applicant support program who are ultimately granted assistance through the program?] [potential applicants to the applicant support program who expressed interest in applying?] that meet all standard program requirements and [serve specific populations?] [applicant/application has specific characteristics?] by [x amount?][x percentage?][other goal?]

-- Don’t get caught up in the language of the goal above -- it is just a possible template for questions to consider.
-- Proposal for policy goal: Enable potential applicants to make an informed decision whether to apply for a TLD based on the applicant support program.

Eligibility:
-- Question: Does the Applicant Support applicant get priority in string contention resolution?  If the applicant doesn’t get support that could affect the timing.  ALAC comment suggests a new idea that the applicant should get priority.
-- ACTION ITEM AND NOTE: Consider adding to high-level agreement: Applicants that don’t meet the requirements should have the option to withdraw their application or pay the remaining application fee.  NOTE: Need to consider the timing of the application being accepted, particularly if the applicant is receiving other types of assistance.  Also note ICANN Org’s concerns about gaming. -- Start with this topic at the next meeting on Monday, 29 July at 20:00 UTC.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190725/ceb6a69e/attachment-0001.html>