2019-01-29 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Sub Group B

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

2.7.1.e.3.1, line 93: Bring the responses to the attention of the RPM PDP WG (DONE)

Notes:

1.  Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs):  Donna Austin -- no longer on the GNSO Council and is Chair of the Registry Stakeholder Group.

2.  Continue Discussion of Public Comments on 2.7.1 Reserved Names (starting at 2.7.1.e.3.1, line 93):

2.7.1.e.3.1:

Line 94, INTA -- Agreement: Supports status quo.

Line 95, IPC -- Agreement (e.g., under right circumstances, could support)

Line 96-98 -- geoTLD.group, dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. K, Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH -- Agreement (e.g., supports status quo)

Line 99, RySG -- Agreement (e.g., seems to support status quo)

Line 100, RrSG -- Concerns New Idea

Line 101, Jamie Baxter of dotgay LLC  -- New Idea Divergence (e.g., opposition to status quo)

Line 102, LEMARIT -- New Idea Divergence (e.g., opposition to status quo)

Line 103, yadgar -- Divergence (e.g., opposition to status quo)

Line 104 -- Brand Registry Group -- [Does not seem relevant to question]

Line 105, Valideus -- Concern (about reserved names released without Sunrise)

Line 95: IPC comments would have to be changed to Concerns (DONE)

-- ACTION ITEM: Bring to the RPM PDP WG.

From the Chat:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): In my (very biased view) SOIs along with any COIs should always be under the expectation of 'continuous disclosure'  That said that is of course facilitated in the AGenda for all of our calls by calling for any updates to be made as a Standing Agenda Item, the forms may then perhaps 'play catch up' as long as it is still a timely catch-up :-)

Julie Hedlund: @Anne: changed to concerns

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): But they DO respomnd to the question on limits as agreeing to HAVE one

2.7.1.e.3.2:

Line 107, Jamie Baxter of dotgay LLC -- New Idea: Likely. I would include community-based TLDs as an approved type specifically because community support for registry use of additional reserved names could be shown through written endorsement at time of application submission.

Lines 108-110, geoTLD.group, dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG, and Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH -- New Idea: 2.7.1.e.3.2 we request that there be no limit for geoTLDs.

Line 111, RrSG -- New Idea

Line 112,  Valideus -- New Idea: uch restrictions would be irrelevant for single-registrant TLDs (ie Spec 9 code of conduct exempt and Spec 13 .Brands) since all names are allocated by the registry to itself or closely-related entities.

Line 113, IPC -- New Idea: PC does not believe that any limitations on reservations for exclusive-use TLDs are necessary.

Line 114, FairWind Partners -- See response to 2.7.1.e.1.

Line 115, RySG -- Please see response to 2.7.1.e.3 above.

Line 116, LEMARIT -- Divergence: No, the limit should be the same for all the TLD types.

Line 117, Brand Registry Group -- Doesn't seem relevant to the question.

2.7.1.e.3.3:

Line 119, RrSG -- New Idea: If ICANN determines that a Sunrise process is necessary for names released from a reserve names list, we should discuss mechanisms which would make this process commercially feasible. If a mechanism cannot be developed then a Sunrise Process for these names should not be required.

Line 120, IPC -- New Idea: he IPC believes that this is necessary as names that are released post-sunrise are done so inconsistently and in a non-uniform way. A sunrise period for subsequent releases of reserved names is the best way to give priority to trademark holders.

Line 121, LEMARIT -- New Idea: After releasing names from a reserved names list they should pass a Sunrise period for at least 90 days. The trademark holders should of course have the opportunity to register the domain names corresponding to their brands before names are generally available to the public, as it would have happend if teh names haven't been on the reserved names list.

Line 122, INTA -- New Idea Concerns

Line 123, Valideus -- New Idea Concerns

Line 124, RySG -- Please see response to 2.7.1.e.3 above.

2.7.1.e.4:

Line 126, ALAC -- Concerns: Avoidance of end user confusion is a paramount consideration to the ALAC. All practicable, reasonable measures must be considered and implemented to safeguard this end user protection principle.

Line 127, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement: he BRG does not believe any additional work is needed.  A lengthy process that considered all community input was completed to reach the Board-approved measures.

Line 128, RrSG -- Agreement (e.g., support for current implementation): No. The RrSG discourages any additional work in this regard.

Line 129, INTA -- Agreement (e.g., support for current implementation) New Idea

Line 130, FairWind Partners -- Agreement (e.g., support for current implementation): FairWinds does not support additional work with regards to the Measures for Letter/Letter Two Character ASCII Labels to Avoid Confusion with Corresponding Country Codes, as adopted by the ICANN Board in 2016.

Line 131, RySG -- Agreement (e.g., support for current implementation): No. RySG supports the board-approved confusion avoidance mehcanism and doesn't believe additional work to be needed.

Line 132, Valideus -- Agreement (e.g., support for current implementation)

Line 133, Government of India: Divergence (e.g., does not support current implementation):

Line 134, GAC -- Divergence (e.g., does not support current implementation)

3.  Discussion of Public Comments on 2.7.2 Registrant Protections:

General Comments: Line 4, SSAC -- Redundant to 2.7.2.c.3: Added in that section.

2.7.2.c.1:

Line 6, ALAC -- Agreement: The goal of EBERO and/or COI is to protect consumers and not prop up failing registry operators. Therefore, it is imperative for ICANN to observe the original intent of the EBERO and allow it to function under that scope.

Line 7, Brand Registry Group -- Divergence: The BRG does not agree with this recommendation. The BRG appreciates the purpose of the EBERO mechanism and why it was introduced for the 2012 to provide protection measures for registrants. However, this purpose does not relate to some models of registries, particularly dotBrand TLDs, where the registry operator is the registrant, or its affiliates and trademark licensees.

Line 8, Neustar -- Agreement

Line 9, RySG -- Agreement (but qualified -- some support for EBERO and some support for COI, but not both) New Idea

Line 10, Valideus -- Agreement (with clarification of relationship between EBERO event and COI)

2.7.2.c.2:

Lines  12 and 13, Brand Registry Group and Business Constituency -- Agreement

Line 14, ICANN Org -- Agreement (with qualification -- request for clarification)

From the Chat:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): line 14 is a clarification request point   But we thought it clear (should note the ?? though)

Lines 15-17, Neustar, Fairwinds, RySG -- Agreement

Line 18, Valideus -- Agreement (with request for clarification as to exemption for COI)

Line 19, MarkMonitor -- Agreement

Line 20, SSAC -- Agreement (with qualification/request for assurances): If any gTLD is exempted from EBERO requirements, there must first be some assurance that no other domain outside the exempted gTLD can ever rely upon the exempted gTLD for resolution.

2.7.2.c.3:

Lines 22 and 23, Brand Registry Group and Business Constituency -- Agreement

Line 24, ICANN Org -- Agreement (with qualifications -- flexibility for ICANN org to address issues that arise with aplicants)

Lines 25-28, Neustar, FairWind Partners, RySG, Valideus -- Agreement

Line 29, IPC -- Divergence: The IPC believes that ICANN should subject all registrants, including publicly traded companies and their affiliates, to a background check which provide more transparency in the application process and prevent disengenous registrations.

Line 30, SSAC -- Divergence: Publicly traded companies must not be exempted from the financial evaluation.

2.7.2.c.4:

Line 32, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement (but without reducing the effectiveness of the screening process)

Line 33, Business Constituency -- Agreement (but include a thorough review of prior complaints/breaches involving DNS activities)

Lines 34-37, Neustar, RySG, Valideus, IPC -- Agreement

2.7.2.e.1:

Line 39, RySG -- Comment/Feedback -- See response to 2.7.2.c.1: Suggests that requiring BOTH the EBERO and COI is unnecessarily burdensome

2.7.2.e.2:

Line 41, MARQUES -- Agreement (Support for exemptions for brands applying for a single entity registry exclusively for their own purposes)

Line 42, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement (support for exemptions for Spec 9 and 13 registry operators)

Line 43, RrSG -- Divergence (oppose exemptions except on case-by-case basis)

Line 44, Neustar -- Agreement (Support for exemptions for Spec 13 or 9)

Line 45, LEMARIT -- Agreement (Support for exemptions for Spec 9 and 13)

Line 46, Fairwinds -- Agreement (Support for exemptions for Spec 9 and 13)

Line 47, RySG -- Agreement (Support for exemptions for Spec 9 and 13)

Line 48, SSAC -- Agreement (with qualifications -- the implications of exemptions should be carefully examined)

2.7.2.e.3:

Line 50, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement (Support in general, but without reducing the effectiveness of the screening process)

Line 51, Business Constituency -- Agreement (with qualification that checks should include a thorough review of prior complaints and breaches involving DNS activities by the applicant and its executives.)

Line 52, RySG -- Agreement (support for continuing existing background checks)

2.7.2.e.4:

Line 54, ALAC -- Divergence (subject all registrants to background check)

Line 55, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement (support for extending this exemption to affiliates of public traded companies)

Line 56, Business Constituency -- Agreement (support for exempting publicly-traded companies)

Line 57, FairWind Partners -- Agreement: FairWinds supports all parties mentioned in the question being exempt.

Line 58, RySG -- Agreement (support for extending exemptions to affiliates)

2.7.2.e.5:

Line 60, ALAC -- Agreement (support for additional checks)

Line 61, Business Constituency -- Agreement (support for additional checks)

Line 62, Neustar: Divergence (opposes additional checks): Prior contractual compliance issues with ICANN are not necessarily indicative of the applicant's ability to operate a Registry and should not be grounds for disqualification; the risks that these questions are seeking to uncover are addressed by other screening mechanisms.

Line 63, RySG -- Divergence (opposes additional checks): No. RySG appreciates the intent behind these questions but does not support adding these questions to the background screening process.

Other Comments: Line 65, ALAC -- Comment: standards for applicants should remain high.

4.  AOB: Next Call is Tuesday, 05 February at 17:00 UTC.  The topic is 2.7.3 Closed Generics