2019-02-07 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group A

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

2.3.2.c.1:

ACTION ITEM 1: USPS Comments -- Ask Anne Aikman-Scalese) for clarification (only supports PICS as such, not as a policy recommendation).

ACTION ITEM 2: Public Interest Community -- Ask for clarification: eems to only diverge with respect to spec 11, 3(a).  But what about all other PICs?

2.3.2.c.2:

ACTION ITEM 3: ICANN Org -- Request for clarification: Are they asking the WG to consider is whether there should be a cut-off date, so would that also apply to public comments?  In the last round those came in well after the objections were completed.  It seems like you can't put a cut-off on one without putting a cut-off on the other?

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No Updates.

2. Discussion of Public Comments: 2.3.2 Global Public Interest

2.3.2.c.1:

Lines 4, 5, 6, ALAC, BC, INTA -- Agreement

Line 7, IPC -- Agreement, New Idea: The IPC agrees with the recommendation to codify the current implementaton of mandatory PICs. Furthermore, as the Work Track has addressed the need to address potential developments in security and stability, it is necessary to have a mechanism that allows for predictable changes and further discussion from the community.

From the chat:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO PDP Co-Chair): with one exception it is agreement  or agreement with new ideas/modifications right throughout these Comments

Jeff Neuman (Subgroup A Co-Leader): re: IPC - I am not sure this is a new idea....really support for the predictability model

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO PDP Co-Chair): yes @Jeff thus my use of the terms 'modifications' above

Steve Chan: I thought it might be an idea for a change process in PICs?

Jeff Neuman (Subgroup A Co-Leader): @Steve:  I would group in with all changes

Line 8, Neustar -- Agreement, Concerns: Neustar supports the implementation of mandatory PICS only where they are standard and enforceable in a meaningful way, and can be rationalized in light of ICANN’s mission as stated in the Bylaws.  We do not support any additional mandatory PICS.

Line 9, ICANN Org -- New Idea (e.g., additional considerations)

From the chat:

Jeff Neuman (Subgroup A Co-Leader): Re: ICANN Org:  The last sentence is not a new idea, but a theme throughout to identify that everything applies forward, not retroactively

Line 10, RySG -- New Idea

Line 11, USPS -- Agreement: Public Interest Commitments in connection with new gTLD applications are useful and proper. These help preserve the public interest and public trust in the Internet. They also offer opportunities for applications that might not otherwise succeed to move forward.

-- Ask Anne Aikman-Scalese) for clarification (only supports PICS as such, not as a policy recommendation).

From the Chat:

Katrin Ohlmer: And the USPS only supports the PICs as such, not making them  a policy recommendation?!

Line 12, Public Interest Community -- Divergence: No, the Working Group should not recommend that Specification 11, Section 3(a) be adopted as a policy recommendation. It ensompasses intellectual property policing of Internet content which is beyond the scope and mission of ICANN.

-- Ask for clarification: eems to only diverge with respect to spec 11, 3(a).  But what about all other PICs?

From the chat:

Jeff Neuman (Subgroup A Co-Leader): re: Public Interest Community - Seems to only diverge with respect to spec 11, 3(a).  But what about all other PICs?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO PDP Co-Chair): perhaps we need to ask

2.3.2.c.2:

LInes 14, 15, 16, ALAC, BRG, BC -- Agreement

Line 17, ICANN Org -- New Idea (e.g., additional considerations)

-- Question: Are they asking the WG to consider is whether there should be a cut-off date, so would that also apply to public comments?  In the last round those came in well after the objections were completed.  It seems like you can't put a cut-off on one without putting a cut-off on the other?

From the chat:

Steve Chan: @Jamie, I don't think ICANN org is necessarily proposing anything. Rather, they are putting considerations out for the WG to possibly take into account. I'd also note that the question you posed is support for Jeff's suggestion - the idea should/could be considered in the context of Change Requests from the Supplemental Initial Report.

Justine Chew: @Jamie, while I don't object to your request for clarification from ICANN Org, I rather think your point is something that the WG should address in its recommendation.

Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Steve .. I understand it was a request for consideration, but it is important to ensure everyone understands how ICANN handled Community Applicants in the 2012 round so that they have the full picture in thier dicsussions about creating deadlines for Voluntary PICS.

Jamie Baxter | dotgay: @Justine .. i ask for clarification simply because I would like to know if ICANN org actually understands this implication or not

Line 18, INTA -- Agreement

Line 19, RySG -- Agreement (appears to support?)

Line 20, Valideus -- Agreement, Concerns

Line 21, IPC -- Agreement, New Idea: Public Interest Commitments are a useful mechanism for distinguishing among competing applicants for the same string. Once a string is awarded on the basis of PICs being considered, ICANN Compliance should monitor and enforce the PICs.

Line 22, Public Interest Community -- Concerns New Idea Divergence

Line 23, Public Interest Community -- Agreement (in a limited fashion) New Idea

Line 24, CCT-RT -- Agreement New Idea

ACTION ITEM: Add comment from the ALAC: "The ALAC strongly agrees. Voluntary PICs have proved instrumental in ensuring that some TLDs are operated responsibily".

2.3.2.c.3:

Lines 26, 27, 28, ALAC, BRG, BC -- Agreement

Line 29, ICANN Org -- New Idea (or request for clarification)

Lines, 30&31, INTA&Valideus -- Agreement

Line 32, IPC -- Agreement, New Idea: The IPC agrees with this recommendation and also believes that there should be time for comment from the community on the proposed PICs as well as time for filing objections if the PICs change the nature of the application such that by implementing the PICs it falls within one of the grounds to file an objection.

Line 33, Public Interest Community -- Divergence: No other forms of Individual Commitments (VPICs) should be permitted for the reasons set out above.

LIne 34, CCT-RT -- Agreement: all such commitments made by a gTLD applicant must state their intended goal and be submitted during the application process such that there is sufficient opportunity for community review and time to meet the deadlines for community and limited public interest objections.

2.3.2.c.4:

Lines 36-41, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, INTA, RySG, Valideus -- Agreement

Line 42, IPC -- Agreement, New Idea:The IPC supports the notion of ensuring that all PICs are included in the Registry Agreement and that ICANN compliance have a role in ensuring that the PICs are adhered to.  The IPC also agrees with the notion that if the PICs are allowed to be changed by the Registry, that any changes are only approved to the extent that they take into consideration the original reasons for having the PIC in the first place.

Line 43, ICANN Org -- New Idea

Line 44, Public Interest Community -- Divergence (or opposition to voluntary PICs entirely)

Ures

2.3.2.e.1:

Line 46, NGPC -- Agreement

-- Perhaps change first sentence to New Idea or Divergence?

Lines 48-53, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Neustar, RySG, Valideus, IPC -- Divergence (does not believe additional mandatory PICs needed)

Lines 54&55, Business Constituency & INTA -- [does not seem to address the question]

2.3.2.e.2:

Lines 57-60, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, INTA, RySG -- Agreement

Line 61, Valideus -- Agreement, New Idea

Line 62, IPC -- Agreement

2.3.2.e.3:

Lines 64-67, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, INTA, RySG -- Agreement

Line 68, Valideus -- Agreement, New Idea

Line 69, IPC – Agreement

2.3.2.e.4:

Lines 71-73, INTA, RySG, Valideus -- Agreement

Lines 74-77,  ALAC, Brand Registry Group, BC, IPC -- Agreement, New Idea