Page History

PROPOSED AGENDA

Draft Agenda:

1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs)
2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing)
   1. 2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures
   2. 2.2.2 Predictability / 2.2.2.2 Clarity of Application Process
3. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Mp3

Adobe connect Zoom recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Attendance & AC Zoom chat

Apologies: Katrin Ohlmer, Annebeth Lange, Maxim Alzoba, Vanda Scartezini, 

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

-- Staff will check on the ICANN Board response to the GAC advice in the Helsinki Communique’ on new gTLDs.

-- WG to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”.  Maybe “Post Application Advisory Team”.

Notes:

Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing)

2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures

Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish

-- First bullet: replace “rounds” with “procedures”.

2.2.1.c.1: The Working Group recommends no changes to the existing policy calling for subsequent application rounds introduced in an ongoing, orderly, timely and predictable manner.

-- Support from most commenters

New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations:

-- GAC Advice and BC: Support for new rounds but no rounds started until reviews (CCT-RT) are complete.  Need to do a cost-benefit analysis before starting new round.

-- WG is taking into consideration the CCT-RT recommendations.

Discussion:

-- Policy does not have a demand component.

-- Action Item: Board response to GAC Advice in the Helskinki Communique’.

-- Note that the CCT-RT did have an economic study done by the Analysis Group, although perhaps not a full cost-benefit analysis.

-- Concerns with maintaining the current policy unless there are objections.

-- Unless there is a consensus on changing precedent we should stay on the same path.

-- Can build on what we have learned, but hard to do analysis on what people might want.

-- If the WG wants to request for an assessment to be done that will have to be approved by the Council.

-- Calling for rounds introduced in an ongoing orderly timely and predictable manner support came from pretty much every group that responded in public comments to the Initial Report.

-- We have some qualifications from the GAC.

2.2.1.e.1: The 2007 Final Report noted that success metrics would be developed around the New gTLD Program. What are some specific metrics that the program should be measured against?

-- Support from most commenters.

New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations: ALAC, BRG, BC, RySG – New Ideas

Discussion:

-- Good proposals for different types of metrics.

-- Need to define what we mean by success; CCT-RT referred that issue to the SubPro WG.

-- Questions and issues in the CCT-RT could put some of these issues to rest.

-- This WG could come up with a half dozen categories (elements of the program) and develop definitions of success for those – or develop targets, which is a less loaded word.

-- Good conversation to continue on email.

-- You could have a high-level structure from the 2012 round (to foster diversity, encourage competition, and enhance the utility of the DNS), then create specific targets within that structure within that framework.

2.2.2 Predictability

-- Support from most commenters

-- BC/RySG/IPC/ALAC (in response to e.1): New Idea - The Standing IRT must be representative of the community, but must also allow for the appointment of experts where needed.

New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations -- ICANN Org: Concerns/New Ideas

Discussion:

-- Can things in the model be improved so that you can support it?  If not, what takes its place?

-- Don’t think it’s in our authority to replace the GNSO policy process.

-- We're not changing any of the policies or processes that have been established.

-- Changes to policies after the launch need to go through the GNSO policy process; the predictability framework is for issues that come up outside of that process and guidance to the standing IRT.  In the report we called it a standing IRT, but that seems to be confusing so we should change the name.  Could call it a “gateway” to decide what is policy and what is not, and only looking at non-policy issues.

-- Need to be more conscious of the need for predictability for third party interests.  We use the term “affected parties” for that reason.

-- WG needs to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”.  Maybe a Post Application Advisory Team.