[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 19 September 2019

Julie Hedlund julie.hedlund at icann.org
Thu Sep 19 21:09:16 UTC 2019

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting on 19 September 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/2019-09-19+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.

Kind regards,
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Notes and Action Items:


Possible new high-level agreement: -- "All panelist for providers will be free from conflicts of interests and there will be an appeal mechanism should a party believe that a panelist or a provider has an unresolved conflict of interest."  Then, the AGB can just implement that.


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

2. Review of summary documents:

a. Objections -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-KNrPs/edit?usp=sharing, page 2

Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence:

Ensuring that panelists, evaluators, and Independent Objectors are free from conflicts of interest
-- Need to separate out CPE.
-- Not sure about publishing all of the panelists.  In the CPE there was an opportunity to object to a panelist.
-- So long as the parties have a chance to review potential conflicts of individual panelists that should satisfy the conflict of interest provision.  Not sure that the community outside of the parties need to have this information.
-- Could be for community objection, but not for CPE.
-- Question: Who determines the conflict issue once a party objects?  Is there an appeal from that determination?
 Answer: there was an IRP proceeding related to a panelist having a perceived conflict of interest - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dot-sport-v-icann-2015-03-27-en
-- There is a process already where a panelist has to declare that there are no conflicts to the provider themselves, and the list of the panelists goes to the parties.
-- The providers already have mechanisms for appeal.
-- That should be part of the criteria by which ICANN assesses / appoints service providers --- ie provision for dealing with COI.
-- So the Policy would be "All panelist for providers will be free from conflicts of interests and there will be an appeal mechanism should a party believe that a panelist or a provider has an unresolved conflict of interest."  Then, the AGB can just implement that.

-- Could be whatever appeal mechanism we determine in relation to other possible appeals.
-- It may be worth looking at section 2.4.3 of the AGB again, which talks about Code of Conduct Guidelines for Panelists, to if there is truly a delta to be resolved

High Level Agreement: For all types of objections, the parties to a proceeding should be given the opportunity to agree upon a single panelist or a three-person panel - bearing the costs accordingly.

Choice of single panelist or a three-person panel (see High-Level Agreement B above).
-- Re: ALAC comment -- in danger of reinventing the wheel.
-- Need to look at the cost distribution of the party that doesn’t want a second or third panel.
-- Do all service providers follow that UDRP policy on costs being picked up by party asking for 3 panelists highlighted by Susan?

-- All parties should agree to moving to 3 panelists.
-- Question: Seems like this high-level agreement is to allow all objections to choose 1 or 3 panelists.  Would that then be a change to the Limited Public Interest Objection, which always was 3.  Would it now be limited to 1?  Answer: The comments were meant for all types of objections.  Limited Public Interest then could have the option of a single panelist.

Publish, for each type of objection, all supplemental rules as well as all criteria to be used by panelists (see High-Level Agreement C above).
-- Re: ICANN Org comment: These supplemental rules were published well after the reveal and without guidance on what they could or could not do in the supplemental rules.
-- There should be greater transparency in the selection and appointment of service providers, AND all rules which are to apply to any objection process should be available upfront.
-- Supplemental rules aren’t supposed to cover the policy, but are administrative.
-- But supplemental rules and documents extended beyond that - specifically for CPE - and without addressing it here it may happen for objections going forward.  Non-substantiative is one thing, but reinterpretation of the AGB is another.
-- Keep CPE out of the discussions as it is not an objection, but can talk about community objections.

High-Level Agreement: Extension of the “quick look” mechanism, which currently applies to only the Limited Public Interest Objection, to all objection types. The “quick look” is designed to identify and eliminate frivolous and/or abusive objections. (High-Level Agreement D)

Extension of the quick look mechanism to all objection types (see High-Level Agreement D above).
-- Comments have suggestions for improving quick look.
-- Re: RySG comment -- CANN should develop clearer criteria to assist the DRSP in accurately identifying abuse and develop additional appropriate sanctions, including financial penalties and the loss of the ability to make additional objections.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190919/40067dc0/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list