[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 23 March 2000 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting on 23 March at 2000 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/2020-03-23+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.

Kind regards,
Julie

Notes and Action Items:

Actions:

2.8.1 Role of GAC Early Warnings/Advice

CLEAN LANGUAGE -- Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): To the extent that the GAC provides Advice in the future on categories of TLDs, the Working Group urges the GAC to provide this Advice, and the Board to take any corresponding action, prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. Once the application period has begun, the Working Group urges the GAC to limit Advice to  individual applications only, based on the merits and details of the application for a particular string, not [only] on groups or classes of applications or string types.
ACTION ITEM: Can the clean language be changed in a way that would satisfy the WG?  Paul will gather a small group for a rewrite if necessary.
Recommendation xx (rationale 3):
ACTION ITEM: Re-write to emphasize that the AGB should reference the section of the Bylaws that govern how GAC Advice is addressed by the Board.

Recommendation xx (rationale 4):
ACTION ITEM: Change the first sentence to: “The Working Group recommends that GAC Early Warnings are issued during a period that is concurrent with the application comment period, as described in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook.” Delete sticken text and footnote.

Recommendation xx (rationale 6):
ACTION ITEM: Change the text to: “Relevant GAC members are strongly encouraged to make themselves available during a specified period of time period for direct dialogue with applicants impacted by GAC Early Warnings or GAC Advice to determine if a mutually acceptable solution can be found.” Delete stricken text (second instance of “period”).

c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.
Re: CCT-RT Recommendation 33:
ACTION ITEM: Leadership and staff to gather up categories on which the GAC has already provided advice and see if the WG has addressed or will address them.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest

2. Discussion of Final Report Topics – see the documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing

a. 2.8.1 Role of GAC Early Warnings/Advice

Affirmation xx -- Suggested change from Paul McGrady:
-- Add at the beginning, “The Working Group acknowledges the ability of the GAC to issue GAC Consensus Advice in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws.”
ACTION ITEM: Leave in the reference to the section of the Bylaws.

Clean Version Text:
Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): To the extent that the GAC provides Advice in the future on categories of TLDs, the Working Group urges the GAC to provide this Advice, and the Board to take any corresponding action, prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. Once the application period has begun, the Working Group urges the GAC to limit Advice to  individual applications only, based on the merits and details of the application for a particular string, not [only] on groups or classes of applications or string types.
Suggested changes from Paul McGrady -- Change Implementation Guidance to Recommendation:
Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): Recommendation xx: To the extent that the GAC provides GAC Consensus Advice (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws) in the future on categories of TLDs, the Working Group urges the GAC to should provide this Advice, and the Board to take any corresponding action, prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. In the event that such GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook, the ICANN Board must, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, vote to reject the GAC Consensus Advice. Once the application period has begun, the Working Group urges the GAC to limit should limit GAC Consensus Advice to that which applies to individual applicationsstrings only, based on the merits and details of the applications for a particularthat string, not [only] on groups or classes of applications or string types. [ In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and the GAC Consensus Advice applies to groups or classes of applications or string types, the ICANN Board must, absent extraordinary circumstances, vote to reject the GAC Consensus Advice.]
Discussion:
-- Concerns about the suggested edits -- that they would constrain GAC advice.
-- Suggest a softer approach to encourage GAC to give its advice earlier.
-- The GAC has been trying to look for ways to intercede in ways that are constructive.
-- The GAC operates more efficiently now than it did during the early days of the last round.
And is more engaged.
-- Question: Where did we come out on the timing of public comment depending on the number of applications?  Answer: There is a separate section that talks about timelines.  Let’s focus on the substance of GAC Advice and Early Warning.
-- It might be helpful to focus on the implications, say the advice on closed generics, in terms of a hypothetical -- how the language that Paul is suggesting would work.  How do we ensure that the GAC gives the advice before the AGB is published.
-- Concerned about trying to time limit when the GAC can give advice -- GAC cannot be expected to predict where it might need to provide advice.
-- This would not preclude the GAC from issuing advice on single strings.  This applied to GAC Advice for categories or groups of applications.  GAC could still give advice on all of the individual strings in a particular category, and just not call it a “category”.
-- I don’t think we can say what the Board “must” do -- even if they accept this recommendation.
-- We could say that the Board should take into account whether the GAC had a clear opportunity to give this advice before the milestone (not deadline), in considering whether to adopt GAC advice.
-- Stick to “urges” and not say “should” or “must”.

ACTION ITEM: Can the clean language be changed in a way that would satisfy the WG?  Paul will gather a small group for a rewrite if necessary.

Recommendation xx (rationale 1):
-- Suggestion to delete footnote #18.
Recommendation xx (rationale 3):
-- Question: How does ICANN Org “mitigate concerns”?  I thought they facilitate mitigation between applicants and the GAC.  Answer: There were a couple of ways it did in 2012, and we’re not stating how they should do it.  They could use PICs.
-- When we talk about a “strong presumption” we need another reference to the Bylaws to substitute for this.  Need to refer applicants to the Bylaws section that governs this.  It is referenced in footnote #19.  We aren’t trying to write the AGB here.
-- Should be more specific that there should be Implementation Guidance that the AGB has to reference the relevant section of the Bylaws.

ACTION ITEM: Re-write to emphasize that the AGB should reference the section of the Bylaws that govern how GAC Advice is addressed by the Board.

Recommendation xx (rationale 4):
-- Reference to 2012 Applicant Guidebook is confusing.  Suggests that the WG might be recommending the same time period as in the 2012 AGB.  Delete “as described in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook” and the footnote.

ACTION ITEM: Change the first sentence to: “The Working Group recommends that GAC Early Warnings are issued during a period that is concurrent with the application comment period, as described in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook.” Delete sticken text and footnote.

c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.
Re: CCT-RT Recommendation 33 states: “As required by the October 2016 Bylaws, GAC consensus advice to the Board regarding gTLDs should also be clearly enunciated, actionable and accompanied by a rationale, permitting the Board to determine how to apply that advice. ICANN should provide a template to the GAC for advice related to specific TLDs, in order to provide a structure that includes all of these elements. In addition to providing a template, the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) should clarify the process and timelines by which GAC advice is expected for individual TLDs.”
-- Question: Can we provide a recommendation that encourages the GAC to provide advice to applicants about strings that they would find concerning?  What would be really helpful for applicants is to know that they are going down the wrong path.  Answer: GAC could say that they have already provided advice on certain categories.  It would be good for us to determine whether to incorporate that Advice first and then see if there are other categories that they are currently concerned about.

ACTION ITEM: Leadership and staff to gather up categories on which the GAC has already provided advice and see if the WG has addressed or will address them.

3. AOB: Upcoming Meeting Planning

-- We are going to keep the calls on the schedule.
-- We record all the calls and the email list is open.
-- We know this is a dynamic situation that could change rapidly.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200323/8f79a4eb/attachment-0001.html>