Plenary - Action Items

P140: David to provide reference to discussion mentioned in details of recommendation 29

P132: David to review suggested edit from Jamie: "There is nevertheless fairly substantial anecdotal evidence that brand owners are reluctant purchasers of Sunrise registrations and many see it as a cost that is overly expensive."

P124: Jamie/Drew to review sentence “This precedent established that use of the PICDRP was relegated to analyzing the operator’s adherence to its own rules rather than considering the merits of whether the registry was effectively violating its commitments through a totality of actions. This gap between intended PIC goals and accountability mechanisms mirrored the gap between PICs and outcomes for some registries.” (Comment from Jamie: Is this new language? If so, it is opinion and not fact. It seems that the complaint here is that the RO should have been bound by obligations outside the contract and its own policies that can only be seen through an examination of the totality of its actions. In fact, whether it’s a PICDRP or ICANN Compliance, the only obligations that are relevant are those that are spelled out in the contract, including RO policies incorporated by reference. There was no precedent established here. This reflects standard contract enforcement. “

Jordyn to provide language for rationale on recommendation 12: “add a reference to above recommendation,  mention of (3) the safety and security of users’ personal and sensitive information (including health and financial information).

Draft Report: p11: David Taylor to review updated paragraph on defensive registrations and confirm approval of paragraph

Draft Report: p8: Drew review the definitions of abuse provided in the footnote 11.

Review team to review latest version of the final report, and submit edits/comment/objections/concerns by 28 August – 23:59 UTC

Rec. 12: Jordyn/Laureen to add in rationale/related findings reference to “safety & security of users’ personal and sensitive information”, and circulate final version on Monday 27 August at the latest, for inclusion in the final report.

Rec. 15, 17: Drew/David to combine recommendations, assess whether priority of recommendation should be changed to Prerequisite, add language on DADRP in details section of recommendation, and submit updated version to Jordyn for his review before Friday 23:59 UTC. Laureen to submit an “objective” updated version to Jordyn.

Board letter: Once recommendations are finalized, Jonathan will scrub the timing related information (priority of recommendations) and prescriptive tone in recommendations.

• Updates to Final Report:
  • Executive Summary to include a section on conclusions about the program (Jonathan)
  • Final numbering of recommendations: Restart with clear numbering and digestible way of reporting recommendations. Add a paragraph under the public comment section in the appendix “review process” describing which recommendations were consolidated based on the input received from comments.
  • Recommendation summary: add a column with level of consensus.
  • Finish consolidation exercise, circle back to staff for a cost analysis of the new/consolidated recommendations, CCTRT to determine whether each recommendation is worth/not the cost, and if it’s not then delete.
  • Review Team to identify any sections in the draft report that need to be updated based on public comments received, and all to compare public comment sheet to apply changes.

Consolidated Recommendation on “Periodic Registrant Survey”: Jordyn to update the document and split the registrant and end-user survey into two separate recommendations. Laureen to look into update version and reference it within the safeguards & trust section.

Substitution Analysis Paper: Jonathan to take the pen back, and add input following conversation with Brian Aitchison about the flat demand for second level domains, and submit to the list the updated version prior to the next plenary call.

Statement of Interest:  update needed for Jonathan who is running for ALAC.

Review team to provide input by Friday 27 April COB on:

• Consolidated Recommendations 11, 13, 15, 33

Drew/Jordyn to update rec. B based on today’s discussion.

Rec C: Drew to add success measures, and share with the review team for approval. David/Drew to add additional language to the chapter

ICANN org to share summary of public comments, and surrounding text of recommendation 9 (see attached).

Review team to submit comments on Jonathan's Substitution Analysis. Jonathan to update section as needed.

Rec 5: Based on Kaili's suggestion, Jordyn to cite 0.3% defensive registration and for details link it to section 4.3. Review team to review Jordyn's edits and send out questions if need be.

Review team to provide input by Monday 23 April COB on below updated versions of :

• Rec 9 (see attached)
• Success Measures of Recs. A, B, C, E. (see attached)

Recommendations 19, 34, C

Recommendations 40, 41, 42

• David to update language based on comments received and share via email with the review team
• Jordyn to look at public comments, at TMCH, to provide suggestions to update Rec. 42

David

Jordyn

Recommendations 13, 15, 33

• Review Team to read and send comments on consolidation suggested by Jordyn. Consolidation of recommendations will be submitted on plenary call  #70

Recommendation 5

• Jordyn to add a citation to trademark holder section under 1.1
• Jordyn to update paper based on input received (plenary, and Laureen’s suggestions via email), and resubmit on plenary call #70

Review Team to submit input to Drew on recommendations A, B, D + individual statement before tomorrow EOD. Drew to submit updated version of recommendations before the end of this week (4 March 2018).

Jordyn/Jonathan suggest adding language  in Choice section to  discuss encouraging a diversity of new gTLD business models.  The new language in the Choice section would cross-reference Rec. 14 and a new introductory sentence would be added  to that effect. Jordyn to circulate update via email.

Rec. 24: Update recommendation by changing "discussions" with "engagement"

Rec. 16: Laureen to remove the references to "annual data'

Rec. 12: Dejan to share updates on recommendation with the review team. Postponed to plenary call #66

Rec. 16: Laureen/Carlos to incorporate suggestion from Jordyn ""in conjunction with its related data collection activities"" instead of saying "data annually'" in the recommendation. Circulate the new version via email for approval.

Rec. 12: David to update recommendation and circulate new version by the end of this week.

Rec. 47-49: Language stays as previously submitted, apart from “Details” section that Jonathan will be updating.

Rec. 5: change "frustrates" to "hinders". Jordyn to make changes and circulate updated version to the list for last comments before end of this week. If none, recommendation will be approved.

Global south definition: Jonathan to update definition with two changes: "including but not limited to" and "Asia-Pacific", and circulate new definition to the Review Team.

Rec. 44: Jonathan to add "by potential applicants" at the end of details text, and circulate for final review to the RT.

Rec. 14 (assigned to David Taylor): Rewriting it to include removal of barriers to diversity (i.e. more niche TLDs or other business models?) to incentivize it rather than encouraging a particular business model.

Rec. 5: Jonathan to provide an updated version of the parking paper based on today’s discussion.

Maintain survey recommendations and consider consolidating all recommendations that reference topics related to asking consumers for their sense of trust, etc. in domains (i.e. recs. 9, 11, 13)

Rec 12. and 24 are separate: Dejan sent updated language for Rec 12. Jean-Baptiste to update PowerPoint.

Carlos and Laureen to refocus Rec 16 to focus on data collection needed for the next review team rather than a study. Carlos to move some of the text in Rec 16 to the analysis section.

• Engagement Session:
  • Drew to include charts from DNS abuse study to replace text on findings slide, to more clearly communicate the takeaways
  • “Slide from David,” add language: “We are concerned about the levels of dns abuse concentrated in a relatively small number of registries and registrars, and geographic regions. This DNS appears to have gone out in remedy….”
  • Slide DNS abuse rec C: David to revise recommendation to focus on data collection and not “study the relationship.” Changes to be made ahead of engagement session.
  • RPM slide: David to add percentage changes to slide.
  • TMCH: Drop the slide as per Jordyn’s request. David to retail two newest bullets elsewhere.

Drew/David

Set up discussion after ICANN 60 with ICANN org on standardizing recommendation language so they may be translated into Board resolutions.

ICANN Org to review and clarify to Jonathan how a subset of the team is maintained to help with recommendations’ implementation after conclusion of the review.

Use DNS Abuse study’s rec 3 to have ongoing data collection related to DNS abuse in place of current rec 34, which may be subject to deletion, pending Drew Bagley’s review.

Rec 35: remove recommendation, pending Jamie’s review. Delete rec 36. Some of rationale from recs 35 and 36 should be included in rec 14 or elsewhere in the text. i.e. Observations about risks and costs and benefits in the text.

Jordyn to draft text (by Monday 30 Oct) to capture discussion on registrant survey with INTA Survey (rec. 40), ICANN should seek other ways to ensure TM holder perspective is included in registrant survey if INTA stops doing the survey.

RPM Paper: Update figures from Table 13, 14.

RPM Paper: David to incorporated edits to his section at his earliest convenience and to circulate by Thursday AM, CET

RPM Paper: Review Team Members to raise any objections to David's section by Friday - 13:00 UTC. If no objections, the section/recommendations will be considered approved for publication

RPM Paper: ICANN org (Antonietta) to confirm to David timing of publication of the RPM PDP WG report.

DNS Abuse Paper: Laureen to reformat asap new text in rec 1.and footnote so that it is consistent with your discussion on .eu and .xyz registry as examples of proactive measures to fight abuse.

DNS Abuse Paper: Rec.4: Jordyn will tweak the language in his minority statement to reflect that other members support the statement, change "I" to "We". Jordyn to refine the text to reflect Carlos's concern about RT Scope.

DNS Abuse Paper: Approval needed from review team members signing on to Jordyn's minority statement.

DNS Abuse Paper: Laureen to take out the sentence on p10 starting with "consequently... consumer trust". The bullet point on p11 starting with "consider... Recommendation 4" add parenthetical "lacks consensus"

Face-to-face meeting agenda: add discussion item for review team to receive input from ICANN org on language of draft recommendations

DNS Abuse Paper

• Recommendation 2: Laureen to confer with Drew to verify the phrasing of rec 2 as it applies to registries, as it appear they were left out of the first sentence. David will draft a footnote to reference the eurID initiative, and Jordyn to provide a cite on the .XYZ anti-abuse policy
• Recommendation 3: Remove the "Furthermore... enhance transparency." sentence.

RPM paper: RT members to send comments via email (not in the document) by Friday 13 October COB, so that David has enough time to incorporate comments for the next plenary call next Wednesday.

ICANN org to send latest version of the DNS Abuse paper to the team to formally signify by email by Friday 29 September, COB whether they support recommendation 4 or not.

DNS Abuse paper: All to send feedback on recommendations to the list. David/Drew to update terminology based on discussions today and feedback received.

Parking Paper: Jonathan to update title based on Waudo’s comment, Jordyn to update table with latest figures.

Consumer Choice: Paper considered final pending any comments sent to Jordyn by September 24.

INTA Survey Paper: David to update the paper based on comments received, and share the updated version with the review team.

Parking Paper: Jonathan to change the title of this section by including parking, instead of "inactive" domains

Price cap increases section update (p46): Jonathan to incorporate Waudo's edits. Jonathan to circulate it for final comments, if no comments are received within a week it will be considered final.

- Parking Paper: 

1. ICANN org (Eleeza) to check parking rates in Chinese TLDs against the numbers in the parking paper table.

2. Drew to send text on malware definition for parking paper.

3. Jonathan to update title to incorporate "parking" item

4. Jonathan to circulate updated version including previous edits

ICANN org

Drew

Jonathan

Jonathan

Sep 14, 2017

Sep 14, 2017

Sep 14, 2017

Sep 14, 2017

COMPLETE

COMPLETE

COMPLETE

COMPLETE

Review Drew's paper on DNS Abuse and send questions, edits.

Final Report: During editing process, proof readers should make sure that the references to the surveys (consuner end-user and registrant) are consistent throughout both the Report and the Recommendations. 

Rec 1 - Incorporate comments received on call #52 

Parking - Clarify language on renewal rate and Jonathan to work on hypotheses. Jordyn to refine language.

Add more clarity on terms such as "Global South, Underserved Regions", align with terms used by other groups e.g. Subsequent Procedures Working Group.

Rec.1: Redefine the recommendation and its rationale and success measures. 

Parking Paper: Review the parking paper and look into the DNS Abuse Correlation with Parking.

Schedule subgroups call as from the week after ICANN59 for a period of 4-5 weeks (Deadline August 1)  to review the public comments received and incorporate edits. Subgroup calls should last one hour and be extended if necessary.

Review Team to publish for public comment only new sections to the draft report (DNS Abuse Study, INTA Survey...), edits following the first period of public comment will be incorporated in the final report before it is sent out the Board.

• SubGroups to review recommendations and consolidate related recommendations and eliminate duplicative ones.
• SubGroup to review wording to ensure that it's expressed in a manner so that the Board can adopt our recommendations Verbatim.
• SubGroups to review recommendations to harmonize terms such as "should" "shall" "must" (refer to https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) and consider that as the SubGroups work to standardize terms throughout the report.
• Clarify which group will implement the recommendations if Board approves (who is best to take this on during the implementation process)
• SubGroups to review assigned recommendations and add details on rationale and success measures(and especially regarding data we recommend collecting).

Engage with Registry Stakeholders Group and comment on draft report

DNS abuse discussion - use as springboard to longer discussion

By end of week, leadership to read comments on their sections and to contact subteam members, as needed, to gather input on the public comments.

Review Team members to share the Draft Report Public Comment page, deadline is this Friday 19 May 2017.

Review Team members to review the Draft Report updates, and share any comments before Friday EOD (UTC).

Expand discussion and possible hypotheses regarding parking information

Extend the public comment deadline to 19 May 2017

Respond to GAC and put an announcement on the public comment page

Team to petition SO/AC contacts for meeting possibilities during ICANN59; consider a hybrid approach 

Review Team members to review Stan's paper written in response to the calculations on country-level concentration ratios and HHIs :

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JO3syL6Mgqt3t_oAPhASO8qlQjitCmRbDs4FVbfmxhc/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs[docs.google.com]

IMPACT OF SAFEGUARDS Paper

Safeguards for all new gTLDs

Rec 1 (p. 3) - Jonathan/Jamie are supposed to discuss effort involved with providing more granular data on complaints.

Rec 2 (p. 3) - remove Board reference, revise to call for more community discussion and allocate to other review teams with a more appropriate remit to the discussion; soften language to make it less prescriptive (Jordyn/Laureen/Jamie to edit language)  Medium priority but not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

Mitigating Abusive Activity:

Rec. 3 (p.5 ) - Repeat study at regularly designated intervals - more specificity about timing.  Laureen/Drew/Brian to collaborate on language. High priority, not a prerequisite.  Consensus approved. 

Security Checks:

Rec (p. 6) - Consensus approved as modified by Jordyn.  Medium priority, no priority.

Making and Handling Complaints:

Rec (p.7) - Laureen to reformulate rec per discussion and move the rec.  

Chapter VI. Consumer Trust - 

Rec. 1 (p. 15) - Consensus approved, pending addition of prioritization matrix

Rec 2 (p.16) - Delete reference to the Board. High priority, prerequisite to subsequent rounds. - Consensus approved

Further Review Recommendation 1 (p. 17) - High priority, not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

Further Review Recommendation 2 (p. 18) - Medium priority, not a prerequisite to subsequent rounds - Consensus approved

EMPLOY MATRIX in RECOMMENDATIONS

Draft Report Recommendations

- add prioritization at beginning of recommendation: Priority: low, medium, high - consensus approved pending addition of prioritization

- Consider adding the prioritization to all recommendations - add as agenda item to plenary call 

Data Analysis -

• Team to review latest version in detail at earliest opportunity

CCT-RT

Consumer Choice -

• Jordyn to clarify the need for policy 

Jordyn

DNS Abuse Chapter -

• Drew to normalize paper formatting per suggestions from Waudo
• Recommendations pending the DNS abuse study
• Team to review document ASAP to give Drew input

Drew

CCT-RT

1
1
1

COMPLETE
COMPLETE
COMPLETE 

Data Analysis -

• include changes to the base registry agreement and legacy registry operator agreements in the recommendation
• Team to read document online and suggest edits and additions

Introduction to the Competition and Consumer Choice Analysis -

• address Kaili's comment:
• reflect the new recommendations format

 - Change title to "Background on the Competition, Consumer Choice and Consumer Trust Review" to clarify that the paper is about the review and not the team selection

 - Address metrics via footnote: 

"The review team aimed to base all its analysis on facts and evidence available and to ensure that its recommendations could be implemented in the time periods suggested. "

 - Add footnote about Bylaws retention of this review/subject matter

• Consumer Trust Paper:

Edits pending

• PIC Paper:

 - Res. 1 - no objections

 - Res. 2 - keep rec as written pending JB's informal survey

 - Res. 3 - replace existing recommendation that emphasizes rationale that members of the community receive PICs in an appropriate timeframe

• Benefits v. Confusion:

Recs: Refine terminology, remove last recommendation, ask for refining input from other team members - Laureen to review with edits/refinements

Next plenary call to include Executive Summary and Data Summary - review Stan Besen document

Team to review ALL docs in Google docs for prompt and targeted discussion

Get most recent versions of Megan's documents back to her in Word format for editing - DONE

Reword/rework the recommendations on VIII. Voluntary PICs

Work to make recommendations and data requests as specific as possible

Eleeza to contact the Registry Stakeholder Group to see if Nielsen can talk to them about joining the applicant survey

High Level Findings Doc (Laureen): Add "Documented Registry and Registrar Abuse Contacts" currenty not included in technical safeguards. 

Nielsen study to date didnt have the data to answer all of the questions.  One recommendation will be for ICANN to collect certain data in the future.

Waudo, Carlton & Carlos to go thru AM Global Report to categorize the finding/recommendations into those that address: 1)  the impediments to applying from the Global South and 2) promoting a greater applicant pool in the Global South

Hyderabad Logistics: Pamela to gather RT members' arrival times and share it with Team members

Review Vienna action items https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61605156 and advise Alice if you have completed your(s) action item(s)

Contact DRPs for any additional data they could share re: LRO and Comm Objections and String confusion objections

Determine how the registrant survey phase 2 can help address questions/sub-questions (seek information/confirmation from David Dickinson).

Provide David Dickinson with high-level and sub-questions.

Send to Eleeza proposed questions that relate to the reconsideration process

Connect on community applications and how do address concerns related to their evaluation in this review.

Follow up with Jordyn on rounds and evidence

Look at applicant surveys and determine if additional questions needed to address rounds. Jonathan to reach out to Jeff Neuman on that question.

Look at Applicant Guidebook and sections on it that relate to GAC Advice.

Compare how the GAC provided advice during the application process.

Catalog GAC correspondence that is related to advice, acceptance of advice, implementation of advice etc

Staff

Add explanatory blurbs for the research template 

Put together research paper on avenues for communication and effectiveness of respective communication channels in LAC region 

Carlton

CLOSED

(AM Global)

Carlton, Waudo

CLOSED

(AM Global)

Look into surveying the demands for new gTLDs in developing countries,

 identify what individual or entities we can survey to examine barriers to entry,

consider studies we can formulate to guide our discussions on this topic 

Subgroup focused on determining why candidates dropped out. 

Categories: incumbent registrars and registries, large brands, developing 
world 

Update TOR according to meeting notes and circulate to the list for formal adoption.

Incorporate Laureen's proposed definition of consumer.

Create document that maps the PDP issues against the CCT's list of issues to identify gaps,,

enable CCT to prioritize identify low risk areas to send to the PDP

Create short summaries of each reconsideration request, 

characterize the nature of the objection, similar for CEP and IRP requests

Change consumer choice definition to include all consumers (i.e. users, registrants, etc.)