2019-03-04 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

ACTION ITEM 1: Send the link to the presentation provided to the GNSO Council on 21 February.  Includes a timeline that notes that it assumes there would be no additional public comment period.  DONE: See: https://community.icann.org/x/u4E2Bg

ACTION ITEM 2: Send list of topics for full WG discussion in Kobe by 05 March.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.

3. Next steps for Sub Group comment analysis:

-- Sub Groups A and C are completed with their analysis; Sub Group B will likely conclude at the end of March.

-- Role is to group the comments (agreement, divergence, concerns, new ideas); staff and Co-Leaders are beginning to create summaries.

-- Summarizing the sub group discussions into something more concise and digestible by the full WG.

-- Call out where commenters have identified the same elements (support for recommendations, for example).

-- Summaries are being included within the public comment review tool.

-- See proof of concept at tab 2.8.2 and column F here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MQmo1B6zBqGXYFRF2pKZXPhGmz0JfZhIaMxKIdVsT1g/edit#gid=110404450

4. Planning for ICANN64:

WT5, Saturday, 09 March: 09:00-10:15; 10:30-Noon

Full WG, Saturday 09 March, 13:30-15:00 & 15:30-14:45

-- Full WG Session 1: Focus on Open topics to try to close them out -- such as 'Closure' of a Round, Appeals Mechanisms, ect.

-- Full WG Sesssion 2: Topics worthy of closure based on public comment input so far.

Full WG, Wednesday, 13 March, 15:15-16:45

-- Full WG Session 3: Final Reporting (recommendation drafting), Implementation Guidance (implementation).

Work Track 5 Status:

-- Good mix of responses to the Supplemental Initial Report.

-- Two meetings to go through the General Comments and Preliminary Recommendations.

-- On pending strings: Will have more information on why some strings are still pending (help to inform discussion on closure of rounds.  The intention is not to try to resolve the statuses or develop policies to facilitate the resolution of those strings.  It is more illustrative to help us understand what 'closure' means.

5. Review of comments - Supplemental Initial Report: 2.3: Role of Application Comment:

2.3.c.1:

Line 9, BRG -- Agreement (Supports continuing guidance in Implementation Guideline C, use of verification methods, and inclusion of a filtering/sorting mechanism for comments)

Lines 10-13, ALAC, ALAC, IPC, RySG -- Agreement (Supports the recommendations)

Lines 14-15, RrSG & BC -- Agreement (verification of commenter)

Line 16, ICANN Org -- Agreement (Supports the recommendations -- but notes that the Application Comment tool already provides these features) Concerns (about problems with searching and sorting of attachments)

2.3.c.2:

Lines 18-21, dotgay LLC, ALAC, ALAC, IPC -- Agreement (Supports the recommendations)

Line 22, ICANN org -- Agreement (but requesting clarifications in the context of the 2012 process)

Lines 23 & 24, RrSG, RrSG -- Agreement (Supports allowing applicants to respond)

Line 265 BC -- Agreement (Supports requiring response when comment may impact scoring)

Line 26 & 27, BRG & RySG -- Agreement (Supports the recommendations) Concerns (needs more details)

-- Letters of opposition should also be grouped as public comments.

2.3.e.1:

Line 29, ALAC -- Agreement (Supports the recommendations)

Line 30, ALAC -- Agreement (support for limiting the comment period for CPE)

Line 31, IPC -- Agreement (with qualifications - same comment period for all types of applications)

Line 32, dotgay LLC -- Agreement (qualified -- equal length of time for all public comments) New Idea (letters of opposition as public comments)

Line 33-36, BRG, RySG, NCSG, BC -- Divergence (opposes changes to the extended comment period)