[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 17 December 20:00 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 17 December at 20:00 UTC. 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/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.

Kind regards,
Julie
==
Notes and Action Items:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided.

2. Discussion of Consensus Call process and final milestones, including WG meeting on Consensus Designations

See revised Work Plan at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5KnPfMttbkE/edit?usp=sharing – column B

-- WG has the Final Report content now.
-- Staff and leadership will do non-substantive clean up (typos, etc.) through to 22 December.
-- Consensus call starts on 22 December.

Revised Work Plan:

17 December 2020         Freeze on all Content for the Final Report
22 December 2020         Consensus Call Begins
8 January 2021               Consensus Call Ends 23:59 UTC
11 January 2021             Consensus Call Designations are released (may deliver Final Report to Council but without Minority Reports for the Document Deadline)
12 January 2021             WG Call to discuss designations (Calendar Invites will be sent shortly)
13 January 2021             Challenges due to Consensus Call Designations (if any)
18 January 2021             Minority Reports are due by 23:59 UTC; Delivery of Final Report package to the GNSO Council

Levels of Consensus in the Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6 at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf

  *   Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.
·                    Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.
·                    Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it.
·                    Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless.
·                    Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation.  This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals.

Consensus Call Mechanics:
-- Topics where there may be divergence from consensus: Closed Generics, Mechanisms of Last Resort/Auctions, Communities/CPE.
-- Consensus Call held on 4 parts: Closed Generics, Communities/CPE, Mechanisms of Last Resort/Auctions – 4th part is the rest of the report.
-- Respond on the list with your support or non-support in those four parts.  If non-support ask that you specific exactly what you do not support.  Example, if you do not support changing the threshold to a percentage on CPE, but you don’t list anything else, we’ll assume you support everything else in that topic.
-- We weren’t planning on including PICs, but we’ll have that discussion today on the redlines for that topics.
-- If there was something else in another topic that a WG member doesn’t support the member can list it.
-- For the Consensus Designations, there is an appeal process in the Working Group Guidelines, but there are no dates/timing in the Guidelines.
-- What about RVCs/PICs?  Can there be Minority Statements on that topic?   The above-mentioned topics are the most likely, but there may be others.  Anyone can file a Minority Report on any recommendation or output.
-- On EPDP, if there was a recommendation with no consensus or divergence the Chair of the PDP chose to include that recommendation in the report to the Board.
-- In the recent EPDP, the Council decided the recommendations were so inter-related, that the ones that did not receive full consensus could not be “picked off.” So, my understanding is that there is some thought process behind those decisions.
-- Responses will be considered to be from individual WG members, unless it is stated that the response is from a group.
-- Could be minority views on Geographical Names – even if not called out there can still be minority view lodged.
-- Consensus Designation: will all members of the WG be treated equal, or will the Co-Chairs look at participation?  Every member is entitled to express support or non-support, and there is no prohibition on that.  But, the Co-Chairs have the right to look at participation – not quantitative.  Hard to evaluation active participation over a 5-year effort.
-- WG members can, but do not have to, consult with their groups (if they are acting as representatives, not individuals), and such consultation will not be used as a rationale for extending the timeline.
-- Hard to say what the consensus designations will look like until the Co-Chairs have seen the responses.
-- Question: What do you do when you have lack of support for a recommendation from several individuals, but for different reasons? Answer: That would go into the category of divergence, but the Co-Chairs are not documenting (themselves) the reasons, the WG members can decide to file a Minority Report stating the reasons.  Co-Chairs are only documenting the levels of support not the rationale.
-- This is not a quantitative vote, but the Co-Chairs can consider who is providing the responses (individuals, groups, etc.).
-- Trying to avoid a vote or capture/gaming, or over-representation of certain views.

3. Review of outstanding issues from the redline PICs/RVCs:

-- Leadership did not see any basis to change any of the recommendations/outputs, but to put in some supporting language in the rationale.
-- Kathy Kleiman proposed additional language on guardrails supported by Jorge Cancio: “RVCs will not address the contents of websites or apps that use domain names, they will be consistent with ICANN’s Human Rights Core Value, they will not allow the registry arbitrary discretion to suspend a domain name and they will not be used to create new policies that did not come through ICANN processes.”
-- Also proposal from Alan to include language requiring a recommendation that PICs must be enforceable, other than with a PICDRP.
-- Could be a lot of PICs requests in future rounds and many of them will tax the ICANN contracting department.  Guardrails could be helpful.
-- These topics were thoroughly discussed before the preliminary report, after the draft Final Report (per the comments).
-- We’ll put this out as a separate topic for views during the Consensus Call.

4. Reply to ICANN Board comments

-- After the consensus designation, the WG can prepare a response to the Board.  Not as an official WG activity, but for interested members to contribute.
-- Draft some responses in more detail to explain how the WG came out where it did.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201217/b70a70c7/attachment-0001.html>