The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group is scheduled to take place on Monday, 11 April 2016 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 17:00 London, 18:00 CET
for other places see:http://tinyurl.com/gw3c74j
ADOBE CONNECT Room :https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldswg/
Transcript
Apologies: Amr Elsadr, Frederic Guillemaut
On audio only: None
Proposed Agenda:
- Review agenda
- Roll Call/SoIs
- Catalog of advice and statements from the 2012 round of New gTLDs
- Continued discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report
Discussion on Subject 1 (Time Permitting): Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future?
- AOB
Next WG Meeting:
Monday, 18 April 2016 at 2200 UTC
Notes/Action Items:
1. Any Other Business:
Action Item: Jim Prendergast re: ICANN workshop on new gTLDs at the WSIS. Request for Steve Chan to check and report back.
2. Catalog of Advice and Statements from 2012 round of New gTLDs
Jeff Neuman: Capture all of the different pieces and things we learned that we didn't foresee in the original process so as not to lose the statements filed. Example: Plurals issue -- groups not satisfied with how it was implemented. Request for GAC statements, but focus beyond the GAC, such as BC letter on plurals vs singular; statements on changing contacts midway, etc.
Paul McGrady: Annotate the Applicant Guidebook. Provide links in the various sections.
Jeff Neuman: Or group by subject matter.
Alan Greenberg: Annotating the AGB may be the appropriate place.
Action Items: 1) Get a Word version of the AGB and put into Google Docs; 2) Need volunteers from each group's representative (Advisory Committee, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituency, etc.); 3) Co-Chairs will propose a way forward on this.
3. Continuing the discussion regarding principles from 2007 Final Report
Recommendation 12
Susan Payne -- yes still relevant.
Liz Williams -- Should never be a prohibition on the opportunity to take legal or other action.
Jim Neuman -- The point of the exercise is to make sure we have established a baseline and then when we have a procedure map it back to the concept.
Recommendation 13
Liz Williams -- Question: Should there be an EOI whilst the PDP goes on? How do you assess demand? Did some work on potential demand.
Carlton Samuels -- Was there ever a direct connection between round and demand? How was demand was established?
Jeff Neuman: What is a definition of a round?
Alan Greenberg: Think we need to stick with rounds for at least one more round. Unwise to eliminate at this time.
Jeff Neuman: These are issues we need to look at. This is one of those concepts that the groups will look at and is not a given. Keep this bracketed until we've done more work and look into GAC advice.
[Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.]
Recommendation 14
No comments. Jeff Neuman: Fairly innocuous proposal.
Recommendation 15
No comments.
Recommendation 16
Jeff Neuman: The heart of the multistakeholder group model. Seems obvious to keep going.
Recommendation 17
Jeff Neuman: I am not sure that this was done.
Carlos Raul Gutierrez: As long as compliance is not done at arm's length from GDD it is going to be almost impossible to terminate the contracts.
Alan Greenberg: Compliance reports direct to the CEO, not to GDD.
Jeff Neuman: The group that works on Track 2 will work with Compliance to ensure that this concept is clear.
[Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.]
Recommendation 18
Jeff Neuman: I think that is in all the agreements now. I think that is a clear concept and not controversial.
Recommendation 19
Jeff Neuman: Everyone should pay attention to this one. It has formed the basis for a number of rules. An exception was grant for the BRAND registries for the second part of it. It was the topic of a lot of discussions. The goal is not to reopen the debate here, but it is one the Track 2 group will discuss and whether the principle is still relevant.
Susan Payne: This will inform part of the discussion as to whether there are different types of registries with different roles.
Jeff Neuman: It can play into the discussion of whether there could be different classes of new gTLDs.
Alan Greenberg: This was ultimately not followed and we will have to redo the wording.
Jeff Neuman: I think the first part was followed (only ICANN accredited registrars with the exception of the promotional names). The second part of that (not descriminate among accredited registrars) some may argue was not followed in all circumstances.
[Reference the chat room and transcript for further discussion.]
Recommendation 20
Replaced recommendation 11. Jeff Neuman: Gave rise to a community objection whether or not it was a community application. One of our tracks will look at objections and communities so we'll be looking at this concept or what could be done to ensure it is implemented in accordance with this concept.
Action Item: Staff will pdate the Google Doc.
Recommendation 18
Discussion on Subject 1: Should there in fact be additional new gTLDs in the future?
There was demand and ongoing delivery which indicates that there would be future demand.
Pros:
Last round:
In 1999 the community came to consensus that there should be new gTLDs to stimulate competition.
Having new gTLDs would stimulate innovation.
Expectation that there will be new gTLDs so didn't apply in the first round.
Could be viewed as anti-competitive not to go forward.
Additonal brands could help propel the current level of registrations and/or success.
To promote more diversity in new gTLDs.
There is likely to be further demand for IDNs for those whose first language is non-latin scripts.
If there is just one new applicant this proves that there is a need in the market.
New gTLDs have higher security demand, so the bigger the protection of registrants.
To further enhance consumer choice, consumer trust, and competition.
Cons:
Reviews have not been completed.
Not sure enough data has been collected to determine whether it was a success or not.
New gTLDs has been a playground for rampant fraud and abuse for trademark holders and others.
ISsue of future demand given the second level domains that are available.
We don't have a success bar to say whether a given metric is/is not a success.
Cost of application process is cost prohibitive.
Domains bought for speculative purposes not use.
Applicants gamed the system to get around background checks.
Differentiation with TLDs -- Whether it is good or bad to have Categories
2012
Open registries
Geographic
Brand
Intergovernmental organizations
Community registry
Brainstorm on types of categories and characteristics
Validated registry -- not another brand but not open to everyone (qualification criteria that must be verified)
Not-for-profit or non-profit gTLDs, NGOs
Highly regulated
Capture for next meeting -- pros and cons of differentiation and difficulty of drawing boundaries/judging them.
Liz Williams: @ Susan ... so that is just domain name regiistration policy. We really shouldn't be tying ourselves in knots about the REGISTRY label. We should only focue on whether an applicant has articulated their domain name registration policy...so much easier and must less problematic for evaluation panels AND for future changes to use of registry
Liz Williams: @ jeff...yes and I'll be preparing for that by illustrating the negative effects (in this round and in previous rounds) of trying to force applicants to declare that they are "something" and then having to prove it for the evaluation process. total madness ensues.
