[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 26 November 2019

Emily Barabas emily.barabas at icann.org
Tue Nov 26 12:18:19 UTC 2019

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 26 November 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/2019-11-26+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP

Kind regards,

Notes and Action Items:


ACTION ITEM: WG members to add any additional comments to the working document (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBSheVJQcvHg/edit#gid=0) by COB Friday, after which the document will be frozen so that staff can update to reflect recent discussions.


1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest
- There will be only one call this week due to the Thanksgiving holiday in the US.
- Meeting invites for December calls have gone out.
- No SOI Updates.

2. CCT-RT Recommendations
- Recommendations 9 and 12 were covered on the previous call.
- Recommendation 14 deals with the RA, and putting incentives into these agreements to proactively include measures to prevent systematic abuse.
- We have discussed that the community should deal with this issue as a whole, rather than this group making recommendations specific to subsequent rounds on New gTLDs, which would not address any current problems with existing TLDs.
- We have been discussing issues related to this recommendation, but not focusing on the financial incentives piece because we think that the broader community should discuss this across all gTLDs.
- Question: Is this in our remit?
- Answer: The part related to New gTLDs going forward is in our remit, but other gTLDs are not in our remit.
- GAC would like to see all CCT-RT recommendations implemented before subsequent rounds proceed, therefore this group should provide an opinion on this issue.
- Question: Is there a definition of “proactive”?
- Answer: No, but the community might want to look into whether there are predictive measures that predict abuse.
- Note that this recommendation did not only go to the PDP but is also directed at other groups.
- Proposed path forward: We acknowledge the community efforts underway and believe that the community should be taking steps to address these recommendations for all gTLDs.
- Recommendation 15 - primarily for the ICANN Board. In this recommendation we would say something similar. Note the work that is going on in the community.
- We should include in our report the PDP’s perspective on these recommendations so that is clear that they have been considered.
- Is our response to recommendation 14 a “cop out”?
- It really can’t be an issue handled by SubPro alone. It needs to dealt with by the broader community, and that work is underway.
- Recommendation 16 – recommends further study on DNS abuse.
- This is also aligned with further work that is currently underway in the community. Further discussion in this group may not be needed.
- Challenge: giving financial incentives to contracted parties takes money away from ICANN that could be used for new monitoring initiatives. The community should discuss this further.
- Recommendation 17- ICANN should collect data and publicize the chain of parties responsible for gTLD domain name registrations.
- This doesn’t seem to be within the scope of SubPro.
- Registrars are supposed to publish information about their resellers. That’s in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. This relates to only one part of the recommendation.
- This recommendation/topic be added to the EPDP/WHOIS discussions.
- CCT-RT recommendations came out before the EPDP was initiated.
- We should state that we understand the issue, that there is an element in the RAA, but the crux of the issue should be handled in the EPDP.
- Recommendation 23 – aimed at looking at highly-regulated sectors (Category 1 TLDs).
- The intent is to look at whether Category 1 TLD PICs have been effective in addressing what they were intended to address.
- SubPro is on this list of recipients of the recommendation, but it is mainly a compliance issue looking at past activity.
- This group needs to determine if the PICs that the GAC had required for Category 1 TLDs should remain. Should we recommend this for future sensitive strings?
- If we keep these PICs, do we require collection of additional data going forward? We should discuss this again when we get back to the topic of PICs.
- One member expressed support for keeping these PICs in the future and collecting additional data.
- It may be difficult to identify in advance what these strings would be, so best not to box ourselves in with a definition of sensitive strings.
- It should not necessarily be decided by governments after the fact. We should give applicants some sort of guidance if they are going to need to agree to additional PICs.
- Suggestion – ask the GAC for input.
- Response - Their input is important, but we should make a recommendation about this from SubPro’s perspective. We can ask for additional guidance in the public comment period.
- Has the GAC provided a definition of “sensitive string”?
- The GAC advice mentions highly-regulated sectors. The PICs focus on areas where there is licensing or governing law. But there is not a precise definition provided.
- Suggestion: Provide a high-level definition, ask applicants to self-identify, and then have a panel of some kind as we did with geographic names in the 2012 round.
- Could provide high-level criteria indicative of a sensitive string in the AGB.
- The more criteria we can provide for evaluators the better to support implementation.
- This discussion should be incorporated into our report sections on PICs and also on evaluations.
- Note that some topics might be highly regulated in some jurisdictions and not others and this needs to be taken into account.
- Recommendation 25 – to the extent that voluntary commitments are allowed in the future, applicants should state the intended goal and include this at the time of application, include end date if applicable, and provide a searchable database.
- We have done a lot on this subject. We have talked about addressing issues to improve transparency including the opportunity to comment. We have talked about using PICs as a way to address objections etc. We have talked about including a rationale for PICs, and if there is an end date to indicate this and state why.
- Concern: The recommendation says that PICs need to be stated at the time of application, but that eliminates the ability of them to be “problem solvers” for addressing concerns expressed in response to an application. We should press on that a bit and see if we agree.
- Perhaps applicants should file at the time of application if they can, but that it should also be possible to state PICs later.
- Looking at the CCT-RT report, if we address their concerns about transparency, ability to comment, etc, this may be more important than requiring commitments are submitted up-front.
- We should acknowledge other parts of this recommendation. Searchable database: We could comment or pass this on to ICANN org.
- Recommendation 29 – Set objectives/metrics for applications from the global south.
- We have talked about enhancing outreach and applicant support. We have discussed setting metrics, but it is difficult to set objective measurements to determine if the program is a success.
- SubPro leadership spoke with CCT-RT review team about this topic. It makes sense that they want to be able to measure impact. A quantitative approach is very difficult to take with this issue.
- Is there a possible benchmark elsewhere we could use?
- It’s also hard to put objective measurements on the term “global south”?
- We have also discussed not limiting support to the “global south” but also making support available to other applicants who need support from other regions.
- We can certainly suggest that certain data is collected: those who have reached out to ICANN, additional data may be available from GSE on the number of organizations they reach. We can use these as illustrative examples of the types of data that might be collected.
- SubPro can think about data points that could be collected. ICANN should go to others with expertise to get additional advice on data that should be collected and interpretation of that data.
- World Economic Forum report could be a point of reference. The report states that three quarters of the world’s population has access to one fifth of the world’s income. Suggestion that a successful outcome of the program is that one fifth of the applications come from the Global South.
- It’s hard to compare individual access to technology with industry applications for TLDs. Concern raised about the one fifth suggestion.
- On list, there was discussion about the fact that there are not registrars in the Latin American region, or if there are, there are fewer than in 2012. Does it help to have a bunch of registries in an area where there are no registrars?
- Suggestion – review WT1 metrics discussion to move the conversation forward.
- A much more extensive marketing and communications program will be important, and this is already in our recommendations.
- Recommendations 30 and 31 – grouped because they are exclusively directed to ICANN Org, we will note that we are touching on these topics as well.
- Note that recommendations 30 and 31 are directed in some capacity to the WG via the Board resolution action. The Board cites the PDP in discussing establishing a definition for the global south.
- We are not just talking about the global south, we are also talking about the middle applicant.
- Recommendation 32 – revisit Applicant Support Program. We have just discussed this.
- Recommendation 33 – making sure that GAC Advice should be clearly enunciated, actionable, and accompanied by a clear rationale. . . ICANN should provide a template for GAC Advice related to specific TLDs. Timelines should be clarified for GAC Advice on specific TLDs.
- We have addressed most if not all of these areas.
- We need to make sure we cover and finish discussions on establishing timelines on which GAC Advice is expected.
- We can’t dictate timing of GAC Advice but we can discuss when it would be most useful and when it can be provided so that is does not hold up applications.
- The CCT believes that there should be a mechanism where individual members can object and that there should be a means to challenge assertions of fact by GAC members.
- “Challenge assertions of fact by GAC members” is not entirely clear. We have talked about creating communication channels with GAC members who file Early Warnings.
- We do talk about appeals after the fact.
- It is not our role to address how the GAC works and the GAC Advice process in the bylaws.
- How GAC does its business is not our business. We have gone about as far as we can go in terms of recommendations.
- Regarding timeline of GAC Advice – we shouldn’t hold up the process of moving things forward if we are not sure if there is going to GAC Advice. When the GAC files Advice, it needs to be addressed at that time, recognizing that it might be harder for the Board to address the Advice after certain things have happened and applications have proceeded through certain steps.
- Even though the GAC has been through this before and there have been some learnings, there has been a lot of turnover in the GAC, and there are a lot of new faces, but hopefully GAC support staff can make sure lessons learned from the last round are documented for new GAC members.
- Recommendation 34 – Review of community-based applications and concerns addressed.
- We have been addressing this all along and do not need to discuss it further on this call.
- The CCT-RT considers a higher rate of success in community application scoring a greater success in the program. We might want to think about this and consider whether we want to speak to this. It is definitely data we should capture.
- Comment: most successful community applicants were backed by wealthy organizations in the 2012 round.
- Recommendation 35 – adopt new policies to address inconsistencies in string confusion.
- We have addressed the plural/singular issue, appeal mechanism, other things that may be considered similar – exact translations, homonyms,  and synonyms. We will continue to address this in our discussions.
- GAC Advice has stated that before launching a new round, CCT-RT recommendations that are prerequisites and high-priority should be implemented. Many of the recommendations were meant to be discussed and not necessarily meant to go straight to implementation. If considering these recommendations is essentially implementation, we are doing pretty well.
- This may be a question for the Board and not the PDP. Let’s not be paralyzed and complete our work and ultimately let the Board decide whether the necessary items have been tackled.
- At the same time, we need to be able to say that we believe that we have completed our work with respect to the recommendations. We can certify this to the Council, who can in turn certify this to a Board.
- Recommendations on DNS Abuse – were any adopted or are they still under consideration?
- These recommendations are still in the pending bucket from the Board.
- All we can do is state what we have addressed, what conclusions we have reached, and the rationale, and ultimately it will be for the Board and the GAC.

ACTION ITEM: WG members to add any additional comments to the working document by COB Friday, after which the document will be frozen so that staff can update to reflect recent discussions.

3. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort: To be covered on the next call.

4. AOB
- Next call is Tuesday 2 Dec at 15:00 UTC for 90 mins.
- Members are encouraged to continue the discussion on the mailing list.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191126/13508384/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list