Dear all,
The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group is scheduled to take place on Monday, 19 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 16:00 London, 17:00 CEST
for other places see: http://tinyurl.com/zv75sd
PROPOSED AGENDA:
1. Welcome/Review Agenda
2. SOIs
3. Discussion – Letter from the GNSO Council re: the ICANN Board letter
4. Continued discussion: CC1 Review Tool
5. Work Track Status Updates
6. AOB
a. Planning for ICANN57
Mp3
Transcript
Dial outs: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Amr Elsadr
Apologies: Quoc Pham, Heather Forrest
On audio only:
Notes/Actions:
1. Review Agenda
Action Item: Change the order of the items in the agenda to move #5 to #3.
2. Work Track Sub Team Status Updates:
- Sub Team 1 -- Sara Bockey: Meeting 20 Sept at 2000 UTC. No new updates from last meeting.
- Sub Team 2 -- Michael Flemming: Discussed the schedule at the last meeting. Michael and Phil will work on the schedule and provide an update to the Sub Team. Third meeting on 22 September.
- Sub Team 3 -- Karen Day: Met twice and co-chairs are in place. Last call discussed the priorities and which items to tackle first. Needed more information to map GNSO recommendations and guidelines to the AGB. Will pick up on third meeting on 27 September.
- Sub Team 4 -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Had a second call. Looking at materials and specific work. Determined some plans of actions, such as reaching out to other parties in ICANN concerning specifics on clarifying questions on IDNs. Also reach out to Universal Acceptance Study Group.
3. Discussion – Letter from the GNSO Council re: the ICANN Board letter
Jeff Neuman: Seeking a response by 25 September. On the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 29 September.
Questions:
1. Do we respond?
2. If we do respond do we have thoughts on this issue, i.e., bifurcating the work of the group analogous to the Work Stream process (WS 1 and 2)
Action Item: Jeff and Avri will give Paul a note and Paul can explain it further to the GNSO Council.
Discussion Notes:
- Alan: Need to understand what they are asking before we can respond. I cannot speak to the ALAC position on this without consulting but I would need to understand how the "implementation" which last time meant writing the AG, could be done in parallel with the opening of a round (which presumes the AG is complete.
- Jorge Cancio (GAC): Idea that the letter is a bit unclear. Need to have some further clarification on the intent and purpose of the letter. Already very complex. Not sure helpful to add complexity.
- Jeff Neuman: The AGB said that there would be subsequent rounds after the 2012 application window closed. In theory around April/May 2013. In Helsinki the Board said that they would like to get started on the next round per the AGB. So, the Board is asking if anything needs to be solved before the next application window and are there anything that can wait. Example: PDP on RPMs. Does the UDRP review need to be done? Could be more appropriate for the RPM PDP WG.
- Kavouss Arasteh: Could put a deadline to start a second round. This issue has been discussed many times. GAC has mentioned that until all the difficulties are solved we should not start a second round. Do not rush.
- Alan Greenberg: Coment re: doing the implementation in parallel with a new round. The implementation in the last round was writing the AGB. Can't do that in parallel. Need to understand what is in our jurisdiction. Need clarity from the Board exactly what they would envision.
- Avri Doria: How to respond to the letter by the 25th.
- Kavouss Arasteh: Could decide to write back to the Board saying we need more time because we are in the middle of the discussion of the substance. Discuss in Hyderabad in the SOs and ACs.
- Jeff Neuman: It is a Council deadline and we could ask them for more time. Discuss as an agenda item in each Work Track.
- Paul McGrady: I could make that request to the Council as the Liaison.
- Greg Shatan: What is pertinent is to do the work in front of us for the procedures for the next round. Going down this round to delay all the work, unless we could look at limited alternatives. Many items are intertwined.
- Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): As to the response to the Council: perhaps a factual summary on where we are as a group could help them in ascertaining the "ripeness" of fast-tracking or not certain issues for the present time.
- Avri Doria: We have two ways of responding and include the fact that there is no consensus for one way or another: 1) through the Liaison; 2) or Jeff and Avri could write a note to Council that there is no consensus and we can continue to work on this. Splitting it now makes everything take longer. Work Track Sub Teams are already looking at ordering. Premature for them to take this up now.
- Steve Chan: If the WG decides to split then the Charter needs to be amended.
- Paul McGrady: Can deliver the message -- in the timeframe provided we are not able to reach a consensus on whether the work should be split up and we are committed to our work plan. Paul McGrady: Can deliver the message -- in the timeframe provided we are not able to reach a consensus on whether the work should be split up and we are committed to our work plan. 1. No consensus on splitting work; 2. Committed to our workplan; and 3. Prepared to further discuss this in Hyderabad.
- Kavouss Arasteh: Agree with sending a note that there is no consensus at this time. Discuss in Hyderabad.
4. CC1 Discussion: Subject 2: Categorization or differentiation of gTLDs (for example brand, geographical, or supported/community) in ongoing new gTLD mechanisms. See the CC1 Review Tool on the wiki at: - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59645660/CC1%20Review%20Tool%20SubPro%20PDP%20WG%2014%20Sept%202016.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1474025917000&api=v2).
Discussion Notes:
Jeff Neuman: Already some recognition of categories in gTLDs.
2a.R1: GAC response.
Kavouss Arasteh: Categorization may be helpful provided it provide simplification, not difficulty.
2a.R2: Registries response and 2a.R3: IPC comments:
- Jeff Neuman: Auction funds not in the purview of this PDP WG.
- Greg Shatan: This speaks for itself. Goes to the point of looking at different approaches for different types of applications -- not strong support for a Brands only round (or objection to it).
- Kavouss Arasteh: Don't understand "underserved jurisdiction". Don't agree with IPC on extending the auction.
- Greg Shatan: We are not suggesting any extention of the auction concept, but that the proceeds could be used to subsidize applications from underserved jurisdictions, those parts of the world that are "under-represented".
- Alan Greenberg: The subsidy process last round maybe didn't work. Could be an intersection with the CCWG on Auction Proceeds. On Registries comments, interesting to hear how we could do that.
- Jeff Neuman: There was a split in the Registries on categories. No consensus.
- Kavouss Arasteh: On the auctions the issue was raised how the money would be spent.
- Jeff Neuman: CCWG Charter Drafting Team is working on a charter for a CCWG to address the auction funds.
- Alan Greenberg: Sent to the ACs/SOs a draft charter for comment. Hope to ratify by or at Hyderabad. Then a CCWG will be charged with coming up with a process.
- Jeff Neuman: Summary -- Agreement that the categories in the AGB should go forward. No consensus on additional categories, but GAC in favor as it considers it helps to simply. Registries are split. IPC weighs in on Brands category. No consensus on additional categories, but GAC in favor if helps simply. Registries are split. IPC weighs in on Brands category.
5. Hyderabad Planning
Discussion Notes:
- Steve Chan: 4-hour working session on the first day, 03 November. Consider how to allocate that time. Could be 1 hour to each work track.
- Avri Doria: How we respond to each CC1 comment. Have a draft to discuss. Consider the possibility getting out CC2 questions out before or just after.
