Page History

ICANN org to share summary of public comments, and surrounding text of recommendation 9 (see attached).

Rec. 24: Update recommendation by changing "discussions" with "engagement"

Rec. 16: Laureen to remove the references to "annual data'

Rec. 16: Laureen/Carlos to incorporate suggestion from Jordyn ""in conjunction with its related data collection activities"" instead of saying "data annually'" in the recommendation. Circulate the new version via email for approval.

Rec. 47-49: Language stays as previously submitted, apart from “Details” section that Jonathan will be updating.

Rec. 5: change "frustrates" to "hinders". Jordyn to make changes and circulate updated version to the list for last comments before end of this week. If none, recommendation will be approved.

Global south definition: Jonathan to update definition with two changes: "including but not limited to" and "Asia-Pacific", and circulate new definition to the Review Team.

Rec. 44: Jonathan to add "by potential applicants" at the end of details text, and circulate for final review to the RT.

Rec. 5: Jonathan to provide an updated version of the parking paper based on today’s discussion.

Maintain survey recommendations and consider consolidating all recommendations that reference topics related to asking consumers for their sense of trust, etc. in domains (i.e. recs. 9, 11, 13)

Rec 12. and 24 are separate: Dejan sent updated language for Rec 12. Jean-Baptiste to update PowerPoint.

Carlos and Laureen to refocus Rec 16 to focus on data collection needed for the next review team rather than a study. Carlos to move some of the text in Rec 16 to the analysis section.

• Engagement Session:
  • Drew to include charts from DNS abuse study to replace text on findings slide, to more clearly communicate the takeaways
  • “Slide from David,” add language: “We are concerned about the levels of dns abuse concentrated in a relatively small number of registries and registrars, and geographic regions. This DNS appears to have gone out in remedy….”
  • Slide DNS abuse rec C: David to revise recommendation to focus on data collection and not “study the relationship.” Changes to be made ahead of engagement session.
  • RPM slide: David to add percentage changes to slide.
  • TMCH: Drop the slide as per Jordyn’s request. David to retail two newest bullets elsewhere.

Drew/David

RPM Paper: Update figures from Table 13, 14.

RPM Paper: David to incorporated edits to his section at his earliest convenience and to circulate by Thursday AM, CET

RPM Paper: Review Team Members to raise any objections to David's section by Friday - 13:00 UTC. If no objections, the section/recommendations will be considered approved for publication

RPM Paper: ICANN org (Antonietta) to confirm to David timing of publication of the RPM PDP WG report.

DNS Abuse Paper: Laureen to reformat asap new text in rec 1.and footnote so that it is consistent with your discussion on .eu and .xyz registry as examples of proactive measures to fight abuse.

DNS Abuse Paper: Rec.4: Jordyn will tweak the language in his minority statement to reflect that other members support the statement, change "I" to "We". Jordyn to refine the text to reflect Carlos's concern about RT Scope.

DNS Abuse Paper: Approval needed from review team members signing on to Jordyn's minority statement.

DNS Abuse Paper: Laureen to take out the sentence on p10 starting with "consequently... consumer trust". The bullet point on p11 starting with "consider... Recommendation 4" add parenthetical "lacks consensus"

Face-to-face meeting agenda: add discussion item for review team to receive input from ICANN org on language of draft recommendations

DNS Abuse Paper

• Recommendation 2: Laureen to confer with Drew to verify the phrasing of rec 2 as it applies to registries, as it appear they were left out of the first sentence. David will draft a footnote to reference the eurID initiative, and Jordyn to provide a cite on the .XYZ anti-abuse policy
• Recommendation 3: Remove the "Furthermore... enhance transparency." sentence.

RPM paper: RT members to send comments via email (not in the document) by Friday 13 October COB, so that David has enough time to incorporate comments for the next plenary call next Wednesday.

ICANN org to send latest version of the DNS Abuse paper to the team to formally signify by email by Friday 29 September, COB whether they support recommendation 4 or not.

DNS Abuse paper: All to send feedback on recommendations to the list. David/Drew to update terminology based on discussions today and feedback received.

Parking Paper: Jonathan to update title based on Waudo’s comment, Jordyn to update table with latest figures.

Consumer Choice: Paper considered final pending any comments sent to Jordyn by September 24.

INTA Survey Paper: David to update the paper based on comments received, and share the updated version with the review team.

Parking Paper: Jonathan to change the title of this section by including parking, instead of "inactive" domains

Price cap increases section update (p46): Jonathan to incorporate Waudo's edits. Jonathan to circulate it for final comments, if no comments are received within a week it will be considered final.

- Parking Paper: 

1. ICANN org (Eleeza) to check parking rates in Chinese TLDs against the numbers in the parking paper table.

2. Drew to send text on malware definition for parking paper.

3. Jonathan to update title to incorporate "parking" item

4. Jonathan to circulate updated version including previous edits

ICANN org

Drew

Jonathan

Jonathan

Sep 14, 2017

Sep 14, 2017

Sep 14, 2017

Sep 14, 2017

COMPLETE

COMPLETE

COMPLETE

COMPLETE

Review Drew's paper on DNS Abuse and send questions, edits.

Rec 1 - Incorporate comments received on call #52 

Parking - Clarify language on renewal rate and Jonathan to work on hypotheses. Jordyn to refine language.

Rec.1: Redefine the recommendation and its rationale and success measures. 

Parking Paper: Review the parking paper and look into the DNS Abuse Correlation with Parking.

Schedule subgroups call as from the week after ICANN59 for a period of 4-5 weeks (Deadline August 1)  to review the public comments received and incorporate edits. Subgroup calls should last one hour and be extended if necessary.

Review Team to publish for public comment only new sections to the draft report (DNS Abuse Study, INTA Survey...), edits following the first period of public comment will be incorporated in the final report before it is sent out the Board.

Engage with Registry Stakeholders Group and comment on draft report

DNS abuse discussion - use as springboard to longer discussion

By end of week, leadership to read comments on their sections and to contact subteam members, as needed, to gather input on the public comments.

Review Team members to share the Draft Report Public Comment page, deadline is this Friday 19 May 2017.

Review Team members to review the Draft Report updates, and share any comments before Friday EOD (UTC).

Expand discussion and possible hypotheses regarding parking information

Extend the public comment deadline to 19 May 2017

Respond to GAC and put an announcement on the public comment page

Team to petition SO/AC contacts for meeting possibilities during ICANN59; consider a hybrid approach 

Review Team members to review Stan's paper written in response to the calculations on country-level concentration ratios and HHIs :

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JO3syL6Mgqt3t_oAPhASO8qlQjitCmRbDs4FVbfmxhc/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs[docs.google.com]

IMPACT OF SAFEGUARDS Paper

Safeguards for all new gTLDs

Rec 1 (p. 3) - Jonathan/Jamie are supposed to discuss effort involved with providing more granular data on complaints.

Rec 2 (p. 3) - remove Board reference, revise to call for more community discussion and allocate to other review teams with a more appropriate remit to the discussion; soften language to make it less prescriptive (Jordyn/Laureen/Jamie to edit language)  Medium priority but not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

Mitigating Abusive Activity:

Rec. 3 (p.5 ) - Repeat study at regularly designated intervals - more specificity about timing.  Laureen/Drew/Brian to collaborate on language. High priority, not a prerequisite.  Consensus approved. 

Security Checks:

Rec (p. 6) - Consensus approved as modified by Jordyn.  Medium priority, no priority.

Making and Handling Complaints:

Rec (p.7) - Laureen to reformulate rec per discussion and move the rec.  

Chapter VI. Consumer Trust - 

Rec. 1 (p. 15) - Consensus approved, pending addition of prioritization matrix

Rec 2 (p.16) - Delete reference to the Board. High priority, prerequisite to subsequent rounds. - Consensus approved

Further Review Recommendation 1 (p. 17) - High priority, not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

Further Review Recommendation 2 (p. 18) - Medium priority, not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

EMPLOY MATRIX in RECOMMENDATIONS

Draft Report Recommendations

- add prioritization at beginning of recommendation: Priority: low, medium, high - consensus approved pending addition of prioritization

- Consider adding the prioritization to all recommendations - add as agenda item to plenary call 

Data Analysis -

• Team to review latest version in detail at earliest opportunity

CCT-RT

Consumer Choice -

• Jordyn to clarify the need for policy 

Jordyn

DNS Abuse Chapter -

• Drew to normalize paper formatting per suggestions from Waudo
• Recommendations pending the DNS abuse study
• Team to review document ASAP to give Drew input

Drew

CCT-RT

1
1
1

COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE 

Data Analysis -

• include changes to the base registry agreement and legacy registry operator agreements in the recommendation
• Team to read document online and suggest edits and additions

Introduction to the Competition and Consumer Choice Analysis -

• address Kaili's comment:
• reflect the new recommendations format

 - Change title to "Background on the Competition, Consumer Choice and Consumer Trust Review" to clarify that the paper is about the review and not the team selection

 - Address metrics via footnote: 

"The review team aimed to base all its analysis on facts and evidence available and to ensure that its recommendations could be implemented in the time periods suggested. "

 - Add footnote about Bylaws retention of this review/subject matter

• Consumer Trust Paper:

Edits pending

• PIC Paper:

 - Res. 1 - no objections

 - Res. 2 - keep rec as written pending JB's informal survey

 - Res. 3 - replace existing recommendation that emphasizes rationale that members of the community receive PICs in an appropriate timeframe

• Benefits v. Confusion:

Recs: Refine terminology, remove last recommendation, ask for refining input from other team members - Laureen to review with edits/refinements

Next plenary call to include Executive Summary and Data Summary - review Stan Besen document

Team to review ALL docs in Google docs for prompt and targeted discussion

Get most recent versions of Megan's documents back to her in Word format for editing - DONE

Reword/rework the recommendations on VIII. Voluntary PICs

Work to make recommendations and data requests as specific as possible

Eleeza to contact the Registry Stakeholder Group to see if Nielsen can talk to them about joining the applicant survey

High Level Findings Doc (Laureen): Add "Documented Registry and Registrar Abuse Contacts" currenty not included in technical safeguards. 

Nielsen study to date didnt have the data to answer all of the questions.  One recommendation will be for ICANN to collect certain data in the future.

Waudo, Carlton & Carlos to go thru AM Global Report to categorize the finding/recommendations into those that address: 1)  the impediments to applying from the Global South and 2) promoting a greater applicant pool in the Global South

Hyderabad Logistics: Pamela to gather RT members' arrival times and share it with Team members

Review Vienna action items https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61605156 and advise Alice if you have completed your(s) action item(s)

Contact DRPs for any additional data they could share re: LRO and Comm Objections and String confusion objections

Determine how the registrant survey phase 2 can help address questions/sub-questions (seek information/confirmation from David Dickinson).

Provide David Dickinson with high-level and sub-questions.

Send to Eleeza proposed questions that relate to the reconsideration process

Connect on community applications and how do address concerns related to their evaluation in this review.

Follow up with Jordyn on rounds and evidence

Look at applicant surveys and determine if additional questions needed to address rounds. Jonathan to reach out to Jeff Neuman on that question.

Look at Applicant Guidebook and sections on it that relate to GAC Advice.

Compare how the GAC provided advice during the application process.

Catalog GAC correspondence that is related to advice, acceptance of advice, implementation of advice etc

Staff

Add explanatory blurbs for the research template 

Put together research paper on avenues for communication and effectiveness of respective communication channels in LAC region 

Carlton

CLOSED

(AM Global)

Carlton, Waudo

CLOSED

(AM Global)

Look into surveying the demands for new gTLDs in developing countries,

 identify what individual or entities we can survey to examine barriers to entry,

consider studies we can formulate to guide our discussions on this topic 

Subgroup focused on determining why candidates dropped out. 

Categories: incumbent registrars and registries, large brands, developing 
world 

Update TOR according to meeting notes and circulate to the list for formal adoption.

Incorporate Laureen's proposed definition of consumer.

Create document that maps the PDP issues against the CCT's list of issues to identify gaps,,

enable CCT to prioritize identify low risk areas to send to the PDP

Create short summaries of each reconsideration request, 

characterize the nature of the objection, similar for CEP and IRP requests

Change consumer choice definition to include all consumers (i.e. users, registrants, etc.)