Page History
...
Documents: CC1 Review Tool SubPro PDP WG 21 Sept 2016
Transcript Transcript
Dial outs: Amr Elsadr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Kavouss Arasteh, León Sánchez
Attendance Attendance
Apologies: Paul McGrady, Alan Greenberg, Greg Shatan
On audio only: Notes/Actions:None
Notes/Actions:
Notes and Action Items:
1. Kavouss Arasteh: Expressed appreciation to the CWG and everyone involved in the IANA Transition.
2. Steve Coates has an updated SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Stephen+Jadie+Coates+SOI
3. Update from WT Leaders
- Sara Bockey (WT1) - Initial discussions have been taking place around accreditation. Support for applicants from developing countries will be addressed in the upcoming call.
- Michael Flemming (WT2) - The group has started discussing the base registry agreement, and has started looking at pros and cons for single agreement vs. agreements by category. The next topic will be terms and conditions.
- Karen Day (WT3) - The group is starting to discuss objections. The next meeting will be a deep dive into limited public interest objections.
- Rubens Kuhl (WT4) – The group is in an information discovery phase. They are seeking to interface with UASG, hoping to get information from ICANN staff on 2012 round, but ICANN staff has not been forthcoming with information. The group has started working on outreach questions and will likely continue working on developing those questions next week.
4. GNSO Council letter
- Update on GNSO Council call- Many SG/Cs responded directly to the Council. This working group also sent a letter to the Council explaining that the group did not reach consensus on the topic.
- This was a big agenda item, but there was very little time for it to be discussed on the GNSO Council call.
- Resolution: a small group from the Council will compile all statement that will be sent to the Board.
- The goal is to finalize the letter for the next meeting to send to the Board. - Summary of input received: https://community.icann.org/x/owu4Aw
- Kavouss Arasteh: Will the small group response reflect that the Subsequent Procedures PGP WG has not reached consensus on this issue?
- Mary Wong (staff): The small group will synthesize all of the feedback received and reflect this in its response to the Board.
5. Continued discussion on Overarching Issues/CC1
- Sections 2b and 2c: These question address which categories should or should not be included in the list.
- Question raised by the IPC: if we have types, is there something distinctive about the way each type will be handled?
- Donna Austin: It’s critical to understand: What's the consequence of defining categories? How do we move forward if we define categories? A brand has not been defined in terms of policy. Is this something the group needs to address, regarding whether Specification 13 still holds? We already have 1500 applicants that have gone through an initial process. What disparities are we creating by introducing categories at this point? How much of the conversation from the 2012 round do we reopen again? This is a complicated issue, and we need to understand the consequences and determine a path forward.
- Jeff Neuman: It is complicated, but if we all accept the fact that there are categories, we can develop a checklist to use as we go through the different issues to identify where there are differences that we need to consider and what the consequences will be. There are categories and they are not going away. 1500 applications in the first round shouldn't dissuade us from making a change going forward. (Kavouss agreed)
- Donna Austin: What is the benefit? Challenge: how do we define categories? Maybe is useful to review previous discussions on categories and see what information is still relevant. Do we need to have the category discussion before we have a substantive discussion about registry agreements in sub team 3?
- Martin Sutton: With the process and agreement modeled around traditional open registry, selling domains, this causes barriers to new entrants. It also causes extreme issues in the post-application process for those that have ventured forth.
- Avri Doria: In 2012, a list of possible categories came up, but we waited to see what emerged in practice. She sees at least four that we have to deal with (standard, community, geographical, brand). The closed generic ended up emerging as an issue-based category. Sensitive strings and highly regulated emerged in the context of PICs. Closed generics also emerged. As we walk through the issues, we should walk through the impact around those possible categories, without making a final determination on categories. If they didn't emerge in the last round, we shouldn't create them.
Jeff Neuman: There was an IGO category as well
Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, it applied to both governmental and intergovernmental organizations. As long as it's governmental, they would have a different contract.
Jeff Neuman: right....so in the last round we had generic, geographic, brand, community, governmental
Rubens Kuhl: What had an specific IGO angle were LROs (Legal Right Objections), where IGOs got automatic eligibility for filing a objection when though not having a trademark
Rubens Kuhl: And the governmental could be generic, geographic, brand or exclusive use... it's a matrix.
- Jeff Neuman: There was GAC advice sensitive strings. Certain applicants had to accept PICs. No policy process has looked at whether that was the appropriate way to address the issue, and whether this is an appropriate category. We owe it to the GAC and the Board to weigh in on this issue.
- Jorge Cancio: Perhaps we should look at the different elements a category may mean: 1) a specific purpose; 2) a set of specific requirements for the applicant; 3) specific procedures to go through; 4) specific conditions in the registry agreement; etc.
- Tom Dale: ALAC had asked the Board to examine the PICs. The Board responded that this PDP group is considering the PICs along with the CCT-RT. This would be a logical part of our work.
- Avri Doria: There is a segment of the community that is unhappy with the PICs and feel that PICs were forced on people. Another question to address: to what extent are PICs enforceable? There is a whole set of issues that need to be discussed under PICs. This is somewhat separate from the discussion of categories itself.
- Jeff Neuman: PICs will be addressed in WT 2 and 3: WT 2 will address the topic from the agreement and enforcement perspective, WT 3 from a dispute resolution perspective. It’s for us to consider whether there is this extra category of sensitive strings, and if so, how and where is this category treated differently.
- Tom Dale: Just to add on PICs, it would be useful to check what the CCT Review Team has looked at in terms of consumer protection/safeguards.
- Donna Austin: If we determine if the PICs are unenforceable, what is the consequence for registries that already have PICs from the last round.
- Jeff Neuman: I think the question is not whether PICs are enforceable but who can enforce and how. Obviously, ICANN can enforce, but are third party actions appropriate. Another question is about time-based PICs.
- Avri Doria: Yes, it is about how PICs are enforced, and also if a PIC is content related, how does that work? PICs never went through a policy process. It will go through one here. There are many issues, especially in the context of the new bylaws.
- Kavouss Arasteh: Suggested moving the discussion forward because time is limited.
- Avri Doria: Avri is not worried about spending extra time on this issue because it is important to address. Seven possible categories emerged during the 2012 round that we definitely need to look at more closely: standard, community, geographical, brand, closed generic, sensitive strings, highly regulated. Do we have more than 7 possible categories going forward in our discussions? Not sure about validated, IGO, and non-profit as special types. These did not emerge in the last round but that we included in CC1 questions. Do we work with 7 or 10?
- Jorge Cancio: I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input.
- Donna Austin: 7 it's a smaller number
- Jorge Cancio: I would just refer to the types of names mentioned in the GAC input
- Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, that depends if such classification gets any kind of priority, like community TLDs. If it doesn't translate into different agreement or different contention set resolution, that it's definitely not to be looked at.
- Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references?
- Kristina Rosette: If we're going to start focusing on categories, can we please define each category so we're all using the same language and references?
- Donna Austin: @Kristina, defining each category will be the challenge.
- Kristina Rosette: @Donna: That's my point. But I don't see the value in using each category as a framework if we can't define them in a way that is clear, certain, and predictable
- Avri Doria: There appears to be agreement to start with a list of 10.
Section 2d:
- Avri Doria: All three responses feed into the matrix approach, listing categories, issues distinct to those categories.
- Kristina Rosette: Concern about where we are going and how long and it will take there if we discuss categories before defining them. We seem to be moving forward with discussing broadly defined categories. Need to define what they are and what they are not.
- Avri Doria: This seems reasonable.
- Karen Day: Wouldn't step 1 of the matrix by necessity be the definition?
- Berry Cobb: Meta-tags may be a better way to consider possible strings rather than just looking at categories. Using the word categories is a difficult place to start, because strings may belong to more than one type.
- Kavouss Arasteh: The use of or reference to category seems fundamental.
- Jorge Cancio: some "categories" may indeed add up: a string could be a generic term, that describes a highly regulated industry and be presented as a community string.
- Rubens Kuhl: A TLD can be governmental, geographic and community, like .barcelona. Or non-governmental, geographic and community like .osaka, or governmental and geographic but not community like .rio.
- Avri Doria: We need to come some with some definitions, we have 10 categories/meta-tags, we have a column for aspects of application process, then we can come back to this in a more structured way.
[Action Item: Staff will do an initial draft the groupings in the matrix and begin defining groups (Steve Chan)]
Section 2e:
- Avri Doria: There are a range of responses on this topic, ranging from all applications going through at the same time to allowing certain types of applications to go first.
- Jeff Neuman: This has been discussed in other fora regarding the brand only round. There are arguments on both sides (pro/con) that should be aired in this group.
- Avri Doria: There have also been proposals for rounds/windows only for developing economies or only IDNs.
- Jorge Cancio: As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated.
- Donna Austin: This is another place where category definitions are needed before we can move forward with substantive discussion. Concern with moving forward with a specific category round: there might me a sense that some of the demand had been alleviated and therefore no hurry for additional procedures. If there was a targeted round, there would need to be a commitment that the rest would follow shortly thereafter.
- Avri Doria: There is also a concern that if there is a targeted round, will everyone try to squeeze their application into the type in this round? This feeds into the question from the Board. Agrees that it makes sense to revisit after we have done further work defining the categories.
- Jorge Cancio: As said in the GAC comments to 2 d) I feel some categories may benefit/merit a specific window, while others my go in parallel, although with different conditions attached etc. In any case, one issue to consider is that whatever method is employed applicants and interest-holders of different categories need to be given the chance to be heard due to the uniqueness of the string in question, once delegated.
- Vanda: from mround y study from lac region with mostly brands interested in next round i do believe it will be positive a separate.
- Rubens Kuhl: Most strings can have multiple meanings like brand and generic. Apple is both a fruit and a computer company... any limitated application on one type excludes the other types.
- Martin Sutton: Given the unpredictable length of time before new applications may be opened, it could be an opportunity for ICANN to consider maintaining some momentum by looking at low-risk options, by opening up applications to those with less contention experienced in 2012 round, such as brands. It would be important to have a well-defined category.
6. Work Track Coordination
- WT leads are coordinating on issues of overlap between the sub teams
- The group should try to coordinate CC2 questions into a single request for input, so that four sets of questions don’t go out separately.
[Action Item: Staff will send poll regarding this group’s attendance (in-person and remote) for Hyderbad]
