The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group will take place on Monday, 17 September 2018 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 17:00 Paris CEST, 20:00 Karachi PKT, (Tuesday) 00:00 Tokyo JST, (Tuesday) 01:00 Melbourne AEST
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/yc2845ko
- Agenda review/SOIs
- Discussion of SAC090 - continued
- Call for volunteers for Initial Report public comment review
- Supplemental Report: First review of section 1.5
- Supplemental Report: Second review (time-permitting) of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4
Apologies: Alan Greenberg, Susan Payne, Annebeth Lange, Michael Casadevall, Heather Forrest, Alberto Soto
Notes/ Action Items
ACTION ITEM: re: SAC090: Recommendation 2: Compile comments and clarifying questions prior to Barcelona by 28 Sept 2018, to get out to the SSAC by 01 October. Part 2 of the recommendations -- Ask if there are specific lists that should be considered or if the recommendation is more hypothetical in nature.
ACTION ITEMS: re: 1) Call for volunteers for Initial Report public comment review: Staff will send an email about how to sign up -- WG members should send an email to: firstname.lastname@example.org to volunteer as a participant or observer. 2) Leadership and staff will send a proposed schedule of meetings.
ACTION ITEM: re: Supplemental Report: First review of section 1.5: Registrar Support for New gTLDs -- WG members should send any comments.
ACTION ITEM: re: 1.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort -- Add option of drawings in Section d and add a question in Section e, specific questions.
ACTION ITEM: re: 1.3 Role of the Application Comment: Page 12 Section f Deliberations: Re: "One Working Group member raised..." don't want the deliberation suggest that only one member raised the topic. Change to, "Working Group members raised and discussed concerns..." Paragraph just before Section g.
1. Agenda review/SOIs: No updates.
2. Discussion of SAC090 - continued (see attached table)
-- In the column "Does SubPro Currently Address?" this is one measure of what we have done; there may be future work or outreach that hasn't been completed. But the last column is "What Else Needs To Be Done?"
-- While our PDP is forward-looking, we do refer in our charter to the 2012 round -- collisions in legacy TLDs. Rubens will send the rationale for edits to Part 3 of the recommendations (Recommendation 2).
-- Re: Reserved Names: Two distinct meanings in this context. With geographical names -- in the event of a large geographical name there will be a request for large numbers of reserved names.
-- Suggest, in column B, there are specific questions that the SSAC is posing to the Board that are trickling down to us. It would be good if we should take those questions one-by-one and develop specific responses to them -- such as in the Supplemental Initial Report.
-- Also on Recommendation 2, how will we go about seeking additional clarify concerning overlap with the NCAP? We are waiting for the Board to approve the NCAP proposal. Could discuss in Barcelona and how to liaise with them. The timeline well exceeds the timeline for the SubPro PDP. ACTION: Could start compiling clarifying questions prior to Barcelona.
-- WG acknowledged that our recommendations will be complete before the start of the next round, but that might mean that a process is in place, but the WG should agree on the definition of "completion". We should commit to completing this work and then decide what "complete" means.
3. Call for volunteers for Initial Report public comment review
See: basic Wiki pages created for the three new Sub Groups being created. You can see them in the tree structure on the left here: https://community.icann.org/x/FT2AAw
-- Three sub groups to look at the public comments and make recommendations to the full WG, trends, support for current recommendations, revisions to recommendations, or where the sub groups believe we have enough information to develop recommendations.
-- The full WG will discuss the substance of the recommendations, but the sub groups will do a lot of the analysis to help with the discussion.
Sub Group A: Overarching Issues, Foundational Issues, Pre-Launch Activities: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Sub+Group+A
Sub Group B: Application Submission, Application Processing, Application Evaluation/Criteria: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Sub+Group+B
Sub Group C: Dispute Proceedings, String Contention Resolution, Contracting, Pre-Delegation, Post-Delegation: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Sub+Group+C
-- What are the working method and meeting frequency? Leadership is considering these questions.
ACTION ITEMS: 1) Staff will send an email about how to sign up -- WG members should send an email to: email@example.com to volunteer as a participant or observer. If you are currently a participant, you can be either a participant or an observer. If you are currently an observer, you will need to be changed to a participant. 2) Leadership and staff will send a proposed schedule of meetings.
4. Supplemental Report: First review of section 1.5: Registrar Support for New gTLDs
-- Bottom of page 1: Could ask for a footnote or paragraph explaining how structural separation has been audited and reported on.
-- Middle of page 2: Re: Prepayment -- deposit accounts for "each TLD" -- does that mean 5,000 pre-payment deposits for those that have many TLDs.
-- How registries choose to do it whether it is per TLD or per group of TLD, that isn't regulated currently. It would be good to get comments back from registries and the different models being suggested.
5. Supplemental Report: Second review (time-permitting) of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4
1.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort
-- Consider how to handle contention resolution across the board -- a deliberation draw could take a lot of the unresolved issues off the table. A draw would deter people from participating just to make money. Would avoid comparative evaluation (beauty contests). Some companies have expressed difficulties participating in the draw, but could overcome them. It could be simple, effective, and fair. Doesn't solve all of the issues but does solve many of them. Add option of drawings in Section d and add a question in Section e, specific questions.
1.2 Auctions: Use of Private Auctions:
-- Leadership is reaching out to the private auction providers. If WG members participated or know of others please provide data to the full WG.
1.3 Role of the Application Comment:
-- Page 12 Section f Deliverations: Re: "One Working Group member raised..." don't want the deliberation suggest that only one member raised the topic. Change to, "Working Group members raised and discussed concerns..." Paragraph just before Section g.
1.4 Change Requests: No further comments.
6. AOB: ICANN63 Schedule
-- WG meeting on the first day -- WT5 in the morning, WT1-4 in the afternoon )3 sessions). Plan to spend one going over the comments from the Public Forum; another split into the 3 sub groups; another to look at an implementation-type discussion.