Page History

Notes/ Action Items

Actions: 

2.2.3.e.1:

Line 59, Public Interest Community -- ACTION ITEM: copied the entire comment to 2.2.5 Applications Submission Limits and have part b) colored as "Concern" there instead. (COMPLETED)

Notes: 

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs):

-- No updates were provided.

2. Discussion of Public Comments:

a. Review of Clarifications / Responses (See Tab 2.2.2 Predictability, Line 33 #1; Tab 2.2.2 Predictability, Line 36 #1; Tab 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds, Line 4 #1)

2.2.2.e.4: Line 33, ALAC Clarification -- During Sub-Group A’s call of 6 December 2018, the ALAC was asked to clarify the reference to “separate process” as commented in our Statement.

2.2.3, Line 4: ALAC Clarification -- strongly against FCFS immediately and aspects of the program that need to be improved.

b. Continued - 2.2.3: Applications Assessed in Rounds (starting with 2.2.3.d.4, specifically line 36 in the Google Sheet):

2.2.3.d.4: Summary -- Only agreement from Google, all other comments are divergent.

Line 37, Google -- Agreement, need at least one round before going to FCFS.

Line 38, Brand Registry Group -- Divergence; The BRG does not support this approach which is too ambitious for ICANN based on experiences of the  2012 round.

Line 39, INTA -- Divergences; INTA is opposed to this option as it creates an additional burden on both ICANN, governments and brand owners who are monitoring new gTLDs and their impact.

Line 41, ALAC -- Divergence; don't support FCFS.

2.2.3.d.5:

Line 43, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement; he BRG considers this option to be a reasonable and progressive approach.

Line 44, INTA -- Concerns; INTA does note however that this option will create an additional burden on ICANN, governments and brand owners who are monitoring new gTLD applications. For that reason, this would not be INTA’s favored option.

Line 45, ALAC -- Supports rounds but not FCFS.

Line 46, RySG -- Do one or two application rounds followed by FCFS.

2.2.3.d.6: Summary -- no support for going immediately into FCFS.

Line 48, Brand Registry Group -- Divergence; The BRG does not support this approach which is too ambitious for ICANN based on experiences of the  2012 round.

Line 49, INTA -- Divergence; INTA does not support this option.

Line 50, ALAC -- Doesn't support FCFS.

Line 51, RySG -- Don't start with FCFS.

2.2.3.e.1:

Line 53, ALAC -- i.e., no position taken on round versus FCFS (though FCFS should not be used for the next introduction of new gTLDs). Believes evaluations need to be batched, regardless of mechanism.

Justine Chew: No to immediate FCFS, have a few rounds likely best option.

Line 54, XYZ -- Agreement (support for 2.2.3.d.1, 2, or 3) Divergent (against 2.2.3.d.4, 5, 6).  Against FCFS overall, which applies to all of 4, 5, 6.

Steve Chan: @Jeff, I believe they are against FCFS overall

Steve Chan: which applies to all of 4, 5, 6

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): That is how I read it

Anne Aikman-Scalese: yes - that is how I read XYZ as well - in other words, don't ever open up first come, first served is the XYZ view  (not similar to Google at all)

Line 55, INTA -- Agreement (support for 2.2.3.d.2).

Line 56, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement (support for 2.2.3.d.3).

Line 57, Business Constituency -- Agreement; Clearly defined rounds with a short period of review scheduled in between.

Line 58, RySG -- Agreement (appears mostly aligned with 2.2.3.d.3?) -- i.e., supports continuous process (which could be regular rounds) and believes that additional data is needed to determine if the scale of demand is understood.

Line 59, Public Interest Community -- Agreement (appears to mostly align with 2.2.3.d.3, but advocates years between each round) Concerns.

ACTION ITEM: Copy concerns to 2.2.5. Steve Chan: I've left the comment there but removed the "Concern" coloring. I've copied the entire comment to 2.2.5 Applications Submission Limits and have part b) colored as "Concern" there instead.

Line 60, NCSG -- Agreement (support for 2.2.3.d.3) Divergence (against 2.2.3.d.4, 5, 6 i.e., FCFS).

Line 61, RrSG -- Agreement (Seems to support a round followed immediately by FCFS (i.e., 2.2.3.d.4) Concerns (However, support for 2.2.3.d.d appears dependent upon FCFS model meeting their requirements)

2.2.3.e.2:

Line 63, RySG -- New Idea: The RySG believes that it is essential for ICANN to clearly define the number and frequency of application rounds prior to the implementation of this continuous first-come first-served process in order to avoid any uncertainty around that process and the eventual roll-out of a continuous process.

Line 64, INTA -- [Appears to provide rationale for 2.2.3.d.2 rather mitigating downsides].

2.2.3.e3:

Line 66, Business Constituency -- Concerns (does not believe applicants would be willing to divulge interest prior to applying).

Line 67, RrSG -- Concerns (does not believe applicants would be willing to divulge interest prior to applying).

Line 68, INTA -- Concerns (does not believe applicants would be willing to divulge interest prior to applying) New Idea.

Line 69, ALAC -- New Idea (response to question).

Justine Chew: ALAC - we are saying resources for EOI better used for outreach. So not in support of EOI, prefer simpler market survey type approach

Line 70, RySG -- Divergence (opposition to using demand as a factor in determining mechanism).

2.2.3.e.4:

Line 72, Business Constituency -- Concerns (asks whether ICANN has expressed any concerns about scaling).

Line 73, ALAC -- New Idea (response to question).

Line 74, Neustar -- New Idea: New Idea (does not appear to address this question directly. Rather, it provides an option NOT proposed by the WG).

-- One round that would have three phases.  The evaluation of the three phases may meld in some way.

-- The open round on 01 October there wouldn't be any recognition of categories, but open for any type of application.

-- Subsequent to that you could potentially have FCFS. 

-- Open round is not FCFS --open application period.

-- First window: phased round; second window: open round; third window: FCFS.

-- Consider sending this proposal to your different groups.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Donna and everyone else - this Neustar idea as to defining the next rounds makes so much sense!  Bravo!

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): Thx Donna quite clear

Justine Chew: Interesting but we may have issues with whether strings are both potentially brand names and geonames.

Justine Chew: @Jeff, sure, will do.

Katrin Ohlmer: Just "FYI": We had a lively debate with Neustar about the proposal in Barcelona in the GeoTLD group and oppose the proposal.

Justine Chew: @Katrin, I am not surprised by your remark, thanks!

Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Jeff -  I will send the proposal from Neustar to the IPC list.

Katrin Ohlmer: Sure, will do!

Donna Austin, Neustar: To Katrin's point: I think there is some flexibility that could be built into the proposal.

LIne 75, RySG -- Divergence (does not believe that volume should impact dates committed to).

Notes/ Action Items