2017-07-21 Additional Marketplace RPMs Sub Team

Action Items:

1. Staff to refer the question of scope of the WG regarding Additional Marketplace RPMs to the full Working Group Co-Chairs
2. Staff to capture current proposed edits to Question 1 by Susan Payne, Jon Nevett and Phil Corwin, and provide a reworded Question 1 to be revised by the Sub Team

Notes:

These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki here.

1. Roll Call/Updates to SOIs

• No updates to SOIs

2. Confirm the Sub Team Chair

• Paul McGrady confirmed as sole Chair of the Sub Team

3. Review action items from Sub Team call - 14 June

a. Sub Team to consider whether or not to include the previous language proposed by the Co-Chairs (reverse redline), as well as any other questions that may need to be added

• Adoption of the reverse-redline is not meant to imply that it is a conclusive document - rather the basis for ongoing discussion
• Reverse-redline deleted some important material that need to be included during a review of the TMCH database and its use
• To the extent that the TMCH is being used for other services, this will be done using the reverse-redline, but not the role of the WG to review the underlying offerings that individual registry operators are offering voluntarily - reverse-redline serves this purpose
• Charter doesn't make distinctions between the ICANN-mandated RPMs and private ones - is there an issue of interpretation of the Charter?
• If any deletions to the document by the co-chairs inadvertently removed important considerations, these should be addressed
• Not the mandate of the WG to pass judgment or regulate Additional Marketplace RPMs – context of Charter is clear that the remit of the WG is to review the RPMs developed for the new gTLD program
• Sub Team to consider all considerations in the reverse-redline document, including comments that have been deleted, to confirm if they should remain deleted, be re-added, or possibly re-added with modifications
• Larger question is what is in the TMCH database, and what it should be allowed to be used for
• Suggestion to refer the question of scope to the GNSO, if there is persistent divergence of views
• Desire to look at the private mechanisms being offered by registry operators to evaluate:
  • What services are being enabled using the TMCH
  • Some of the private protections are grounded with marks being registered in the TMCH, acknowledging that this is for efficiency purposes, as this could be done using other mechanisms
• Some private protections have been submitted for RSEP review, while some were not - need to understand what the distinction was - were some voluntary, while others might have been perceived to require RSEP sign-off?
• Information about private protections may be relevant to the RPMs discussion, but should not be regulated by ICANN - may have conceivable significance or impact to security and stability issues regarding the DNS
• Might be a useful practice to use both reverse-redline version, and dated clean versions – easier to review
• Question 2 (informational/service-oriented question) is helpful in making a distinction between what is consensus policy – should not be deleted
• Question 3 (also an informational question) helps determine what is an ancillary service and what are the permissible uses of the TMCH database – also should not be deleted
• Question 7 (also an informational question) concerning the approval process – how is approval of use of the TMCH being done outside the GNSO?
• From AC Chat: These mechanisms are necessarily not consensus policies – they are registry specific policies
• Question 2 may be included reworded to be more neutral, however, in that event, may essentially duplicate the questions being raised by Question 1 – Reason for deletion is that it is both loaded and duplicative
• Decision of Sub Team Chair to proceed with use of the reverse-redline document, as it includes all questions, including those that are proposed for deletion – does not preclude these questions from consideration, as no decision has been made to delete them
• Question of scope of the WG as per the Charter needs to be referred back to the Co-Chairs of the WG for confirmation
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to refer the question of scope of the WG regarding Additional Marketplace RPMs to the full Working Group Co-Chairs
• Suggestion to move questions 2, 3, 7 and 11 to the bottom of the list, and consider how to make them more neutral
• Working group will determine how to deal with questions 2, 3, 7 and 11 as they are being reviewed - will they be deleted, retained, or retained with modifications
• Sub Team process needs to not be presumptive that questions marked for deletion are in or out, but rather a topic for further consideration

    b. Sub Team to consider how to refine question 1(a) on the mailing list

• Purpose of edits to 1a suggested by Susan Payne was to capture what ancillary services (not mandated by ICANN) are being offered by the TMCH
• To the extent that issues regarding the TMCH have already been dealt with in the TMCH review, work already done should not be duplicated
• What specifically is meant by the TMCH (provider or database)?
• Some assumptions that TMCH is referring to the use of the database, while some assumptions are that it is referring to the provider – requires clarification
• Suggestion to amend 1b in Susan's proposed edits: With whom and under what arrangements does the TMCH share data and for what non-mandated RPM purposes? Purpose of suggestion is to focus on ancillary services, and not duplicate work already done during the TMCH review
• Existing services in Question 1 should be broken down into existing service (1aii to be moved to 1b) (ICANN-mandated RPMs) and ancillary services (1a) as described by staff
• TMCH in 1a to be clarified as “TMCH provider”
• Ancillary services to be clarified as follows from the AC Chat: Ancillary services by the TMCH are not the same as the Additional Marketplace RPMs provided by ROs. Ancillary services of the TMCH need to be approved by ICANN, and to my knowledge, only include the ongoing 90-days notification service. This does not preclude the need to review how this is done, however, just wanted to point out that these services are not the same as the ones provided by ROs independently.
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to capture current proposals by Susan Payne, Jon Nevett and Phil Corwin, and provide a reworded question 1 to be revised by the Sub Team

    c. Steve Levy to propose an amendment to question 4 to address change of ownership of registry operators that provide Additional Marketplace RPMs (DONE - discussion deferred) 

    d. Staff to add Roger Baah to the Sub Team membership (DONE)

    e. Staff to create "reverse redline" list of Sub Team questions, where deleted text is shown as part of the main text (but marked as proposed for deletion) (DONE)

4. Agree on next steps / scheduling the next meeting(s)

• Next Call on 28 July at 16:00 UTC
• Sub Team members to review reworded Question 1 to be provided by staff