2019-02-12 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Sub Group B

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

ACTION ITEM 1: 2.7.4.e.1 -- Ask the GAC for clarification on commercial vs. non-commercial.

ACTION ITEM 2: Revisit all comments to 2.7.4.e.1 and 2.7.4.e.2 when we review comments to the Supplemental Initial Report.

ACTION ITEM 3: Other Comments -- Line 79, the Thai Network Information Center Foundation -- New Idea (Support for homonums being considered in string similarity rules) -- Raise to the full WG

Notes:

1.  Updates to Statements of Interest (SOI’s): No updates provided.

3.  Discussion of Public Comments on 2.7.4 String Similarity

 See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133WbhWYB4M4kT6DqSfiCR2-ij7jxNkLj5EWZL-NA95M/edit?usp=sharing. 

General Comments:

Line 1, Google -- Agreement (Update String Similarity Review and String Confusion Objection Process)

Line 2, SSAC -- Comments (Provides additional considerations regarding the treatment of singulars and plurals)

2.7.4.c.1:

Line 8, NABP -- Agreement

Line 9, MARQUES -- Agreement (supports treatment of plurals and singulars of the same term in the same language as similar)

Line 10, ALAC -- Agreement

Line 11, ICANN Org -- Concerns (or rather, request for clarifications and suggestions for additional considerations for string similarity and confusability assessment) -- Bring these to the full WG for disussion.

-- Bring to the full WG the question about inflection and ask ICANN Org to clarify.

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: What is meant by "other forms of inflection"?  QUESTION

Lines 12-16, RrSG, FairWind Partners, IPC, GAC, CCT-RT Report -- Agreement

2.7.4.c.1.1:

Line 18, BRG -- Agreement

Line 19, Business Constituency -- Agreement

Line 20, INTA -- Agreement  New Idea (additional considerations for .Brands)

-- Per the statement "Further, where there are multiple applications for the same term and/or its singular/plural these should be placed into a single contention set." -- covered in 2.7.4.c.1.2.

Lines 21-27, Neustar, FairWind Partners, RySG, MarkMonitor, IPC, CCT-RT Report, ALAC -- Agreement

2.7.4.c.1.2:

Lines 29-34, National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, INTA, RySG, IPC, ALAC  -- Agreement

2.7.4.c.1.3:

Lines 37-42, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, INTA, RySG, IPC, ALAC -- Agreement

2.7.4.c.2:

Lines 44-48, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, INTA, Neustar, RySG -- Agreement

From the chat:

Justine Chew: 2.7.4.c.2 - just to clarify, ALAC doesn't disagree with elimination of SWORD Tool but suggests that a replacement solution may be appropriate.

Steve Chan: @Justine. we have it as qualified agreement: Agreement (but suggests need replacement)

2.7.4.c.3:

Lines 50-52, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency -- Agreement

Line 53, RrSG -- Agreement (some support) Divergence (some oppose): Some felt it should be permissible to allow a subsequent application to be submitted in case the first application was denied or withdrawn. Others were opposed to this idea and felt it created too much risk and uncertainty within the application process.

Line 54, INTA -- Agreement, New Idea

Lines 55, 56, Neustar, RySG -- Agreement

2.7.4.e.1:

Line 58, ALAC -- Agreement (supports CPE) Divergence (opposes auctions of last resort)

Line 59, INTA -- Divergence (opposes CPE) New Idea (alternatives for resolving contention) Agreement (support auctions of last resort if the only option)

Line 60, RySG -- Agreement (but CPE should not be "all or nothing" to resolve contention)

Line 61, IPC -- Agreement (support for CPE)

Line 62, GAC -- Divergence (opposes auctions of last resort)

-- Can we ask the GAC for clarification on commercial vs. non-commercial?

From the chat:

Justine Chew: 2.7.4.e.1 - comments, especially relating to auctions, should be read with comments to the Supplemental Initial Report on auctions

2.7.4.e.2:

Line 64, ALAC -- Concerns (needs further research/exploration of alternatives)

Line 65, ICANN Board -- Agreement (disincentivize gaming)

Line 66, INTA -- Agreement (pending Supplemental Initial Report)

Line 67, RySG -- Concerns (additional discussion and analysis is needed)

Line 68, IPC -- Agreement (but further study is needed)

Line 69, GAC -- Agreement

From the chat:

Justine Chew: Can we revisit 2.7.4.e.1 and 2.7.4.e.2 when we review comments to the Supplemental Initial Report?

2.7.4.e.3:

Line 71, NABP -- Agreement (with examples)

LIne 72, ALAC -- Agreement (with different standards for highly regulated sectors)

Lines 73-76 -- RrSG, INTA, Neustar, RySG -- Divergence (opposes including synonyms)

Line 77, Valideus -- Divergence (opposes including synonyms) New Idea (objection ability for Verified/Validated TLDs)

Other Comments:

Line 79, the Thai Network Information Center Foundation -- New Idea (Support for homonums being considered in string similarity rules)

-- Raise to the full WG

Line 80, ccNSO Council -- New Idea (GNSO-ccNSO Working Group to address overlapping work on String similarity)

4.  Discussion of Public Comments on 2.7.5 IDNs

General Comments:

Line 4, SSAC -- Agreement

Line 5, Govt of India -- New Idea (Although this seems better focused on Variable Fees)

Line 6, ccNSO Council -- New Idea Concerns

Line 7, ALAC -- [Overview statement - specific comments captured in specific sections]

2.7.5.c.1:

Lines 9-13, ALAC, Brand Registry Group, Business Constituency, RySG, MarkMonitor -- Agreement

2.7.5.c.2:

Lines 15-16, ALAC & BRG -- Agreement

Line 17, RySG -- Agreement New Idea

Line 18, ICANN Org -- New Idea

Line 19, ICANN Org -- Agreement

2.7.5.c.3:

LInes 21-22, BRG, RySG -- Agreement

Line 23, ALAC -- Agreement Concerns

Line 24, ICANN Org -- New Idea

Line 25, SSAC -- Concerns

2.7.5.c.4:

Lines 27-28, ALAC, BRG -- Agreement

Line 29, RySG -- Agreement (conditional on the concerns) Concerns

Line 30, ICANN Org -- New Idea

Next meeting: Start at line 31 -- 2.7.5.c.5