Page History
...
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS For agenda item 2, please find the relevant public comment review document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zDdzlBwLCz5m2sNXui6N6pporbUq-lDFEwfh4rKi4A/edit?usp=sharing |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Julie Hedlund (staff) Dial out: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , Martin Sutton |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items 1. Agenda review/SOIs -- No changes to the agenda or updates to SOIs 2. Discussion of Public Comments a. Continued - 2.2.3: Applications Assessed in Rounds (starting with 2.2.3.c.1, specifically line 14 in the Google Sheet) 2.2.3.c.1 -- Brand Registry Group - Agreement and concerns about length until next round -- INTA - Appears to be support for discrete rounds (i.e., support for d.3). New Idea for .Brands aspect (already changed) -- ICANN Board - Concern or New Idea about what consitutes end of round. New Idea. -- NCSG - Q: What does the opposition to the "rolling or ongoing basis" refer to? Is this opposition to regular rounds? A: Opposition to ongoing, open-ended process. Support for discrete rounds/periods. Q: Is it problematic if the predictable periods are brief? A: Expectation is that round completes before the next one begins. ACTION ITEM: Include ICANN Board idea from line 16 as an (immediate) full WG topic [COMPLETE – Added to full WG topics]. Kathy Kleiman: I think NCSG comments belong here too Robin: NCSG comment is captured in line 58. Could be duplicated if necessary. -- Move NCSG comment in line 58 to 2.2.3.c.1. [COMPLETE] -- Q: How are new ideas vetted by the community? A: If new idea is agreed to by full WG, then public consultation would be needed. Jim Prendergast: so an ongoing accredidation process similiar to registars is something the NCSG opposes? A: Yes, NCSG would oppose. -- Some believe the round focuses on the application submission period. Relevant to Kathy's point about not knowing how long periods would last. -- Haven't defined close of round. -- Q: Would there be opposition to having rounds overlap? A: NCSG believes that all elements make up the "round". -- Connection to Board note that suggests consideration of defining round closure. -- Request for summary of what applications are pending and why (related to round closure issue). -- Will NOT define what the round closure means for the 2012 round. Donna Austin, Neustar: I think Anne makes a good point, if we have that data, perhaps we can draw some conclusions that would be helpful to this discussion. Donna Austin, Neustar: Agreed Jeff: we're looking forward not back, but we can learn from the past (which is what we're doing :-) Donna Austin, Neustar: Also important to think of this in the context of 'predictability for applicants' as an important principle of any future program. Jeff Neuman: To be clear, the data we are getting is which applications for strings that have not been allocated are still pending (meaning applications still subject to contention or an accountability mechanism or otherwise have not been witdrawn. Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Jeff "or otherwise have not been withdrawn" will be an interesting discussion. there are some which were not approved by the Board, but are listed as string contention resolved and yet have not been withdrawn. -- Where is the policy cutoff? Is this tied to the window? A: Those that applied in 2012 applied under that AGB. SubPro cannot change the rules for the 2012 applications. -- Could be helpful to note that the next AGB will apply for that round as well 2.2.3.d.1 -- RySG - Believes it's too early to asnswer the question. Others support 1or 2 more rounds and commit to a schedule for the next. -- RySG agreement is not agreement. [COMPLETE] -- BRG, BC, INTA, ALAC - do not support. -- NCSG believes that their comment is relevant to this section. 2.2.3.d.2 -- INTA - Agrees with proposal, but thinks review can be done in concert. -- ALAC - No position taken on round vs FCFS -- RySG - supports continuous process (which could be regular rounds) and believes that additional data is needed to determine if the scale of demand is understood. ACTION ITEM:Suggestion to add data aspect to parking lot. Perhaps do so in item under 2.2.3.d.1 (e.g., mark as New Item there) [COMPLETE – Added to full WG topics]. 2.2.3.d.3 -- MARQUES, BRG - Support -- Suggestion that MARQUES comment expresses some Concerns (about smaller applicants). -- Christopher Wilkinson - No urgency for additional TLDs -- ALAC - References previous comments. -- NCSG comment belongs here. Talk about Brands as well. Will pick up at line 35, option d.4. b. Time Permitting - 2.2.4: Different TLD Types -- N/A 3. AOB -- None |