2019-01-31 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Sub Group C

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

ACTION ITEM 1 -- 2.12.1.c.2: ICANN Org Concerns: Ask what they mean by "launch" in their comments -- Check the ICANN Program Review Report and refer to the full WG for possible clarification.

ACTION ITEM 2 -- 2.12.1.e.2: Question: Do we know the reason for the 1-year deadline?  Did ICANN Org say it was to prevent warehousing?  Answer: May need to do more research.  Not sure when it was added.  Could have been at the registries request.  Will have to check.

ACTION ITEM 3 -- 2.12.3.e.1: When discussed in full WG (Neustar and Registries comments) ask those who commented to consider the other side.  As well as ICANN org (not wanting to be involved in content).   Balancing different interests.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest:  Kathy Kleiman -- Visiting Scholar at American University

2. Discussion of Public Comments

a. 2.12.1: TLD Rollout

2.12.1.c.1:

Line 4, BRG -- Agreement

Line 5, RySG -- Agreement (with qualifications -- allow flexibility for ICANN to extend the process for security, stability, public interest subject to SSAC/GAC/Board)

2.12.1.c.2:

Line 7, BRG -- Agreement

Line 8, ICANN Org -- Concerns (about extensions causing delays/burden/cost)

-- Want to understand what they are talking about with respect to "delegation launch".  Might be answered in the ICANN Program Review Report.  If it is between delegation and launch, what do they mean by launch in this statement, "Additionally, the lack of a time limit for launch of a gTLD created significant burden and costs on ICANN operations to support a number of activities that take place between delegation launch (i.e., processing sub-contractor changes and RSEP requests)."

-- Definition of "closing a launch" is being discussed in the full WG.

-- Seems to be saying after elegation ICANN Org received a lot of request from the registries for changes in subcontractor and RSEP requests.

Line 9, RySG -- Agreement (but no additional obligations for registries)

2.12.1.e.1:

Line 11, BRG -- Agreement

Line 12, RySG -- Agreement (some ROs oppose further requirements required as warehousing doesn't apply to registries) Divergence (some ROs support tightening existing restrictions)

Line 13, MarkMonitor -- Agreement (no further requirements, but reasonable flexibility on timelines)

2.12.1.e.2:

Line 15, BRG -- Agreement (use requirement as defined in 2012 is appropriate)

Line 16, RrSG -- Agreement (oppose requirement of registrations in 12 months) New Idea (increase the time-to-first-registration to 5 years for non-exempt TLDs)

Line 17, RrSG -- Agreement (use requirement as defined in 2012 is appropriate)

-- Question: Do we know the reason for the 1-year deadline?  Did ICANN Org say it was to prevent warehousing?  Answer: May need to do more research.  Not sure when it was added.  Could have been at the registries request.  Will have to check.

-- Question: What is a "closed TLD"? Not talking about closed generics, but those are exclusive -- generic but not allowing third parties to register a TLD.

Additional Comments:

Line 19, Christopher Wilkinson -- Question/Concerns (not sure why extensions should be available and suggests restrictions to discouraging 'squatting' or 'warehousing')

-- Based on the supposition that squatting and/or warehousing has happened.

-- Bring to full WG to consider.

b. 2.12.3: Contractual Compliance

2.12.3.c.1:

Lines 4 and 5, BRG and INTA -- Agreement

Lines 6, and 7 Neustar and RySG -- Agreement (with qualification re: identification of parties)

Line 8, IPC -- Agreement (but would like further details)

Line 9, ALAC -- Agreement

2.12.3.e.1:

Line 11, BRG -- Agreement (but optional)

Line 12, INTA -- Agreement New Idea (commitments relating to manner of use, require identification commitments carried through to contract)

Line 13, Neustar -- Divergence (oppose including other application statements)

LIne 14, RySG -- Agreement (but optional)

Line 15, IPC -- Agreement (especially related to rights protection mechanisms)

Line 16, Christopher Wilkinson (comment)

Line 17, ALAC -- Agreement

-- Bring to full WG (Neustar and Registries comments) and ask those who commented to consider the other side.  As well as ICANN org (not wanting to be involved in content).

2.12.3.e.2:

Line 19, INTA -- Agreement (with INTA) Concerns New Idea (evidence and examples of operational practices)

Line 20, Neustar -- Divergence (no evidence of operational practices)

Line 21, LEMARIT -- Agreement (regulations for domain names matching a mark recorded in the TMCH and part of premium list) New Idea

Line 22, RySG -- Divergence (believe the INTA allegations are unsupported)

Line 23, IPC -- Agreement (with examples)