Dear All,
The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group is scheduled to take place on Monday, 23 May 2016 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
06:00 PDT, 09:00 EDT, 14:00 London 15:00 CEST
for other places see:http://tinyurl.com/jgtpytc
AGNEDA:
Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 23 May 2016 at 13:00 UTC.
Agenda Review
- Review Agenda
- Roll Call/SOIs
- Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw)
- CC1 Discussion (Working Draft here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQbrRAEvsrxs/edit?usp=sharing)
- Draft Work Plan Discussion Continued
- AOB
Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the GNSO Secretariat. If you did not receive these participation details, please contact the GNSO Secretariat for assistance (gnso-secs@icann.org).
Transcript
Apologies: Stephen Coates, Laura Hutchison, Janick Skou, Tom Dale, Kiran Malancharuvil, Ken Stubbs
On audio only: Greg Shatan
Notes/Actions:
1. Review of action items (https://community.icann.org/x/A0WAAw)
#19 Liaison for Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs): Staff is facilitating a search for a volunteer.
#22 Drafting Team to Develop Constituency Comment 1: Google Doc created for PDP WG review (see link above).
#24 Pull data on who applied, how many applied, and how many for at least the top 10 applicants (from discussion on application limits, pros and cons) – ongoing
2. CC1 Discussion (Working Draft here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gh8ugZAomD2AGNymmVRgKGP9TA2KQ7BkQbrRAEvsrxs/edit?usp=sharing)
Action Item: PDP WG members review and provide comments.
Discussion Notes:
Introduction
Susan Payne: In the "other efforts" section of the GAC's letter, consider adding their particular WG efforts related to New gTLDs in their particular outreach letter.
General Comments
Carlos Raul Gutierrez: Offer to review the document with respect to interpretation by non-English speakers.
Alan Greenberg: This is a huge amount of work and I think it could be difficult to analyze the answers.
Martin Sutton: Think about what likely responses will be received from the questions. For example, on limits, note that we have not placed limits on the previous rounds. If we should contemplate future limits how would you envision imposing them?
Avri Doria: Agree. Should look at conditioning the questions.
Question 1: Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future?
Jeff Newman: Suggestion is to restate the question. The burden should be that circumstances need to have changed; burden is on the side against the current policy. Jeff will make additional comments in the draft to change the tone.
Avri Doria: Is it reasonable to ask both questions?
Alan Greenberg: What does it mean to make Internet names more diverse?
Question 4: Predictability and flexibility. How should the two be balanced?
Alan Greenberg: Avoid absolutes -- Example: "every imaginable situation". Importance to the broader community and not just applicants.
Kristina Rosette: Focus on trust in the process; none of the questions address trust in the outcome.
Paul McGrady: Instead of "imaginable" we could say, "foreseeable". Also ask is there a concern that extremely flexibility will put predictability at risk.
Question 5: How can community engagement be improved in the processes?
Kristina Rosette: Any examples of what might be a "special post PDP policy consideraton method"? Add "and, if yes, what do you propose"? Read literally the special post PDP policy consideration method question only asks for a "Yes" or "No" answer.
Avri Doria: I don't have a suggestion as to what it might be.
Alan Greenberg: "If the Board is faced with questions" -- not sure how I would answer. It depends on the nature of the issue.
Jorge Cancio: Not sure of the link between the overall questoin 5 and the subquestions.
Martin Sutton: "Can a standard be established..." Change to "Should a standard be established" and add a request for examples.
Paul McGrady: Add a second question: "If the Board is faced with an implementation issue that is contrary to the policy should the policy be sent back to the GNSO to address?"
Amr Elsadr: Agree with Alan. There are existing GNSO mechanisms to make post PDP policy considerations. The question (as I understand it) is asking whether further mechanisms are necessary. For this question to be answered, the respondent would need to understand the GNSO mechanisms, and point out why they are insufficient, and how further mechanisms would add value.
Open Question:
Jorge Cancio: As to the last question: wouldn't it be advisable to inform SO/AC/C that there are other phases foreseen where a number of topics are planned to be tackled? Perhaps a reference to the introduction could be included.
3. Draft Work Plan Discussion Continued
Action Item: PDP WG members review and continue discussion.
Discussion Notes:
Slide 3 -- Key Questions/Assumptions for Work Plan Design:
Jeff Newman: "Are there operations that shouldn't be part of this subsequent procedures policy discussions?"
Steve Chan: There are rough estimates for every subject. It is possible that not every subject will result in policy recommendations. Some may just require implementation guidance and some may not require recommendations. There are various outcomes for each subject.
4. Any Other Business: GDD Summit Update
Action Item: None.
Reference Documents
