[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 22 October 2019

[Rubens Kuhl]

Some comments inline:

>  
> a. Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort:https://docs.google.com/document/d/15S_sUuP_gmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W_3CSl4raxSgvm8/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_15S-5FsUuP-5FgmKqba26tU9kYQ8mVF76W-5F3CSl4raxSgvm8_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=MIgsm29fz6Lyje9MgO3a4FzN-MoxjRUjlcbDF9MN8vk&s=kIFf-jf7ZObRYoubtCek94jCaVwb0YeSOFZPIqw4D7o&e=>
>  
> Discussion will continue of the list on the different options. Unless we stay with the status quo, this will likely need to go out for public comment.


While the details are being sorted out, for me it's clear that a consensus on changing the rules of last resort contention resolution is forming. So we should look more into how it's changed, not if it is change. 

> Consideration - We have already ruled out other things that could have addressed collusion or profiting from the program – for example, we could have raised the application fee, or could have said that portfolio applicants are not allowed. We are potentially running out of options and this is what we are left with. It’s tricky and we may not completely be able to prevent the behavior.

Raising the application fee goes both against the consensus on being a cost-recovery program and against applicants in underserved regions. 

>  
> b. Base Registry Agreement:https://docs.google.com/document/d/14HxLzQMXs90hAkpRStPAwHDC4CxaYXWqxZ-psTmxHdU/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_14HxLzQMXs90hAkpRStPAwHDC4CxaYXWqxZ-2DpsTmxHdU_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=MIgsm29fz6Lyje9MgO3a4FzN-MoxjRUjlcbDF9MN8vk&s=kZOi3OtRDAgvG7qkhq24pOSAdCIn_KyEFn_pfUDFwx4&e=>
>  
> Review of policy goals and high-level agreements.
> Proposed high-level agreement would leave quite a bit of detail for the IRT to work out.

My recent experience in the RegData Policy IRT is that even very detailed policy ends up generating lots of work, so I strongly recommend the WG to drill down the policies some more. 
> If it’s a PIC, we need to reconcile with the groups that oppose PICs in general, although some of the concerns about PICs may be the name used – the term “public interest” may be a misnomer.
> Proposal to suggest that this is included in PICs. 

PIC is a misnomer, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. Perhaps adding a note that PIC is a misnomer but leaving it at that instead of changing its name ? 

>  
> ACTION ITEM: Working Group members to respond on list to the proposal to add a Public Interest Commitment stating that the registry operator will not engage in fraudulent and deceptive practices. Are there objections?
>  
> Review of comment on registration terms, billing cycles, and presumptive renewals. In response to Google’s comment on this topic: the concerns should probably be addressed by asking for an exemption and providing a rationale. Otherwise there are mechanisms (SSAC, IETF – the EPP Protocol) to deal with these concerns, but this is outside of the WG’s area of expertise.

We should also note that the RA doesn't cover the Rr relationship with the registrant, were most of these concerns should be placed. 

> Review of comments on premium pricing. Note that there was also an issue that SubPro had referred to RPMs – reservation of names that later go to premium pricing, and whether they go around RPMs.
> There is a fine balance about whether issues related to premium pricing are in scope or not. We can say that transparency is key, that provisions in the agreement are there to require this transparency, and that ICANN should be enforcing the provisions of the RA and RAA.

Picket fence is there to make the actual pricing out of scope. Pricing changes can be and currently are regulated by RA. 



Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191022/c4d89c1f/attachment.html>