[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 November 20:00 UTC

Thu Nov 12 22:10:54 UTC 2020

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the working sessions on 12 November 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/2020-11-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.

Kind regards,
Julie
==
Notes and Action Items:

Action Items:

Topic 34: Community Applications<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw39Yc9lB8/edit#gid=1163822586>

ACTION ITEM: WG members are requested to review the notes from the three sessions on the CPE Guidelines: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP, https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP, https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.

Row 18 – ALAC re: (1) A need for greater community participation in ICANN’s engagement of a CPE service provider/panellists, namely in 4 aspects: (i) the development of criteria by which ICANN Org is to evaluate and select candidates; (ii) the shortlisting of identified candidates; (iii) the final selection process; and (iv) the terms for inclusion into the contract between ICANN Org and the selected candidate.
ACTION ITEM: Take the ALAC 1(ii-iv) comments to the list for discussion.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest:

-- Javier Rua has made some updates to his SOI.  He has moved from ALAC to the ccNSO.

2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics and comments:

Topic 9: RVC/PICS<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGpSwqfi1o/edit#gid=1163822586>

Concerns about exemptions/waivers (Spec 11 3(s) and 3(b)):
Row 10 -- Thomas Barrett (Individual) re: Exemptions/waivers: Concerns about exemptions/waivers for single-registrant TLDs for Spec 11 3(a) and 3(b); Row 12 – NABP re: stronger enforcement needed; Row 15 – BC; Row 27 -- Dotzon GmbH; Row 31 – ICANN Org

Discussion:
-- The exemptions aren’t necessarily tied to a single registrant TLD.
-- Discuss whether this matters.  Does the same rationale exists for the .brand TLDs if they aren’t a single-registrant TLD?
-- Seem to be a good grouping of those who accept the wording as is.
-- Recommendation and rationale don’t mention Spec 13.  Wording seems good as is.

-- No WG action noted.

Content enforcement/conflicts with Bylaws:
Rows 11 and 23 – NCSG; Row 29 – Board
Leadership Comments: This will be covered in the discussions with ICANN Board Liaisons to solution within the Working Group.

-- Hold for discussion with Board Liaisons.

Strong enforcement needed:
Row 12 – NABP; Row 13 -- Swiss Government OFCOM; Row 21 – RrSG; Row 30 -- GAC
Leadership Comments: This also relates to topic from last week on Base Agreement where provisions only require that provisions documented in RRA, not actually doing it. Do we want to revise the recommendation to also include compliance of the PICs?; Consider limiting waiver of PICs to only those true single entity Spec 13 and Spec 9 CoC exemptions.

-- Could there be a simpler mechanism to bring a complaint, other than the PICDRP.
-- Will come back to this discussion in relation to the PICs and Bylaws conflicts.

DNS Abuse:
Row 13 -- Swiss Government OFCOM; Row 14 – IPC; Row 14 – BC; Row 16 – INTA; Row 17 – GBOC; Row 20 – ALAC; Row 30 – GAC

-- Reminder that SubPro filed a letter with the Council that this should be handled in a holistic manner and is beyond the scope of this PDP.
-- Some groups did not like this decision (GAC, ALAC).
-- Nothing for the WG to do on the DNS abuse comments at this point.

Topic 34: Community Applications<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw39Yc9lB8/edit#gid=1163822586>

Definition of Community:
-- Noted those comments.
-- Address by providing more flexibility in the Guidelines (see notes from sessions during public comment period: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP, https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP, https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP

Row 11 -- Swiss Government OFCOM; Row 14 -- InfoNetworks LLC; Row 16 -- fTLD Registry Services, LLC re: threshold too high in 2012.

Row 11 -- Swiss Government OFCOM re: New idea: Provide support for non-profit community-based applications.
Leadership Comments: This is a new proposal.

-- No WG action noted.

Row 16 -- fTLD Registry Services, LLC
Leadership Comments: Discuss the role of application change requests and community based applications. We did not conclude the discussion on whether there are any sections in the Application which should not be allowed to have material changes.

-- No WG action noted.

Row 18 – ALAC re: (1) A need for greater community participation in ICANN’s engagement of a CPE service provider/panellists, namely in 4 aspects: (i) the development of criteria by which ICANN Org is to evaluate and select candidates; (ii) the shortlisting of identified candidates; (iii) the final selection process; and (iv) the terms for inclusion into the contract between ICANN Org and the selected candidate.

Discussion:
-- Why would we not want community involvement?
-- There could be increased bureaucracy or bias.
-- I don't know what "greater community participation" means.  Isn't that what we are doing now and what the IRT will do?  Haven't we already developed analogous mechanisms like the selectors for the IRP standing panel?

ACTION ITEM: Take the ALAC 1(ii-iv) comments to the list.

Row 19 – Board re: recommendations should be more detailed.
Leadership Comments: Reflect larger discussion of ICANN Bylaws issues. This relates to discussions we had during Public Comment Period

Row 21 – ICANN Org
Leadership Comments: On changing the Principles: We accept that in 2012 ICANN staff decided to outsource the evaluation of CPE. Whether ICANN decides to outsource those evaluations or not is a decision for ICANN Org so long as the recommendations in the report are carried out.
Re - Efficiency, transparency and predictability, we have made a number of recommendations including:
- All rules published in advance, including those used by evaluators to assess criteria,
- There must be a verification of those entities that support and oppose Community Status
- We have added clarity to CPE Guidelines.
- We have encouraged more dialogue
- Evaluators must disclose all outside research and give applicant chance to comment
- We have added a challenge process
- We have synchronized the public comment periods
Question: Can we limit the potential Accountability Mechanism challenges?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201112/c5ddfee8/attachment-0001.html>