The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group will take place on Monday, 26 November 2018 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 21:00 Paris CET, (Tuesday) 01:00 Karachi PKT, (Tuesday) 05:00 Tokyo JST, (Tuesday) 07:00 Melbourne AEDT
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/y855vsew
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
2. Update on Sub Group Efforts
3. Topics for full WG Consideration (topics that have been identified in the Initial Report public comment review)
Apologies: Vanda Scartezini, Katrin Ohlmer
Notes/ Action Items
ACTION ITEM re: Jim Prendergast’s request to interview an auction provider. Status: the co-chairs are looking to connect with the provider and then shortly thereafter, intend to have the provider join a WG call in the future.
ACTION ITEM: If ICANN Org has made recommendations on improvements in the Program Implementation Review Report (PIRR) connect them to the comments to the Initial Report -- if they aren't already in the ICANN Org comments.
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates:
-- Maxim Alzoba notes that he is not in the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) anymore.
-- From the chat: Michael Casadevall: Actually I have a SOI update as well. I'm a member of NCUC/NCSG now.
2. Update on Sub Group/Work Track 5 Efforts:
Comment Review Sub Groups:
-- Sub Groups A, B, and C have met.
-- Input will come back to the full WG for further discussion.
-- If there is divergence or disagreement with the WG recommendations the Sub Groups will bring those back to the WG.
-- For a number of Sub Group calls there has been light attendance, so encourage WG members who have joined the Sub Groups to participate.
-- Altered the timing to accommodate the membership.
Work Track 5:
-- WT5 is still moving forward and will have an Initial Report out for public comment soon.
-- Next meeting is Wednesday, 28 November, and the goal is to get the Initial Report out in November.
3. Topics for full WG Consideration (topics that have been identified in the Initial Report public comment review):
--On the last call we went through some general comments that weren't targeted at a particular section of the report. Divided the items up in various sections.
-- A few items were determined to be more appropriate to discussion as a full WG. See below:
-- Could the WG define success metrics?
-- Are we trying to determine whether new gTLDs have been successful? Or that the process itself has been successful?
-- The question we are going to grabble with: are we going to ask registries/registrars to provide additional data elements?
-- Is this group charged with coming up with what those metrics are?
-- Metrics are usually connected to something or driven by something. Could look at the goals of the program and the success factors -- look at metrics that can show if you are meeting the goals and success factors.
-- One of the measures of success would be innovation and new and different uses of the TLD, rather than redirect. The CCT-RT WG did ask ICANN to commission a study on parking.
-- There are varying suggestions for metrics to measure success.
From the chat room:
Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION Would the number of registrations in each domain be considered an indicator of success? how do we sort out those which are merely defensive? QUESTION
Gg Levine (NABP): Lack of abuse is a factor of success.
Maxim Alzoba: it is one of the ideas
Jim Prendergast: The Marketplace Health Index has been trying to tackle this topic for 2 years now. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-06-20-en For the Marketplace Health Index, ICANN has recently engaged Matthew Zook from ZookNIC to try and develop more data for the reports. http://www.zooknic.com/
Trang Nguyen: As an fyi to inform this discussion, ICANN commissioned a registrant/end-user survey for the CCT RT. http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/phase2-global-consumer-survey-23jun16-en.pdf
Trang Nguyen: There is also the Pearson Linear Correlation Analysis of Parking and Renewal Rates: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56135378/ParkingRenewalCorrelationAnalysisV2.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1502870290000&api=v2
-- Michael Casadevall: Would it be useful to have a tool that can go through those zone files and see if there's data there or if we're getting 302 redirects or just CNAMEs? Basically, determining if we're just redirecting or if there's something actually there (either CNAME record, or 30x HTTP
Recommendation 17 from the CCT-RT Report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-final-08sep18-en.pdf
-- Question: WG should consider whether this is in the scope of this PDP, or should be dealt with in a new PDP or another effort. Registrars to publish who the registrant deals with on a day-to-day basis? Some of these data are published already -- so what is the problem they (the CCT-RT) is trying to solve? If is to find out the registrar-reseller relationship that is not necessarily in scope.
Recommendation 23 (also directed at ICANN org): ICANN should gather data on new gTLDs operating in highly regulated sectors...
-- Question: Is this recommendation in scope of this PDP?
Comment from ICANN Org: Ability for ICANN org to make suggested improvements during Implementation phase
-- Anne Aikman-Scalese: This language should be clarified to state that ICANN org could "suggest to the IRT"
-- ICANN Org have to have a clear understanding from the community/this WG that if necessary they have to act.
-- If there is something that we are missing that should be brought up and dealt with now.
-- ACTION ITEM: If ICANN Org has made recommendations on improvements in the Program Implementation Review Report (PIRR) connect them to the comments to the Initial Report -- if they aren't already in the ICANN Org comments.
-- Seems like ICANN Org is asking for confirmation that they are able to propose a resolution or suggest something to the IRT.
-- ICANN Org: At the time this comment was drafted the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG hadn't started discussion on some topics, so we didn't want to preclude potential suggested improvements during the policy implementation phase. ICANN Org would not do something without consultation with the IRT during the policy implementation phase.
-- Important to remember that the staff will change over time so they need to be reminded of the discussions around the development of the policy recommendations.
-- Perhaps the response to ICANN Org on things not talked about by the WG could be handled in a preamble of the Final Report.
From the chat:
Steve Chan: Also, the public comments ICANN org made seek to identify gaps as well
Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: A lot of issues arose in the 2012 round after the application window closed. That is one reason we need a standing IRT. ICANN.org should make its suggestions to the IRT. COMMENT
Steve Chan: FYI, the ICANN org comments here were actually a single comment, but (policy) staff thought it helpful to parse out the separate themes for easier understanding.
Suggestion to be more clear when recommendations seek to codify implementation of 2012 round of the New gTLD Program
-- The PDP has to codify those aspects of the 2012 AGB that have been implemented if they are not changed by the PDP.
-- Concern that there are aspects of the 2012 round that no longer correlate to the DNS.
-- ICANN Org: Context to the comment -- the intention was that to the extent the PDP WG could be very clear about what part of the implementation from the last round should stay the same and what should change.
-- When is the AGB for the next round being written and who will approve it? Answer from ICANN Org: That is part of the implementation work, so that would be during the policy and implementation phase, making sure it is coordinated with the IRT.
-- Will it be published for public comment an how many rounds? Answer from ICANN Org: Yes there will be a public comment process and how many rounds will depend on the number/nature of changes.
4. Next Meeting: 18 December at 0300 UTC.