2019-06-17 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

ACTION ITEM 1: On voluntary or mandatory PICs - any relating to RPMs should be referred to the RPMs PDP WG.

ACTION ITEM 2: Add NCSG’s divergence to voluntary PICs in the summary document.

Notes:

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

2. Review of Summary Documents (see Foundational Issues - https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc7sE/edit?usp=sharing

a. 2.3.2 Global Public Interest

-- Tried to come up with a definition, but ended up talking in general or in relation to other issues/in context.  The context is key.

Policy Goals:

• Develop policy consistent with ICANN’s Core Values under Article 1 Section 1.2 (b)(ii).
• To the extent that mandatory and/or voluntary PICs are carried forward into subsequent procedures, they should be codified in policy.

Public Comment Summary:

• Support from most commenters to codify the current implementation of mandatory PICs as policy recommendations. Most commenters believe that no additional mandatory PICs are needed.

High-Level Agreements:

Discussion:

-- On the Public Interest Commitments -- we will discuss the high-level notion and whether to put them into our policy.  Mandatory and voluntary PICs mentioned in registry agreements, but also agreements related to regulated or sensitive strings.

-- Incorporation of the registries concerned it crucial.

-- Concerning the policy recommendations -- is there going to be a distinction that this applies to community applications (making changes to applications).   Can add that this applies to all applications regardless of the type of application.

-- There may be special warnings that go out to the applicant -- everybody should be able to equally adjust their applicants to address warnings, etc., so that community applicants aren’t restricted in their ability to move forward.

-- Need to codify the policies to make it clear what we are doing in the future.

Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence

Mandatory PICs:

Codify existing mandatory PICs:

Discussion:

-- This relates to categories of PICs -- trying to make the criteria as specific as we can so the organization knows what will fall into Category 1.

-- NCSG: Divergence - It encompasses intellectual property policing of Internet content which is beyond the scope and mission of ICANN.  Added comment -- Very concerned -- doesn’t think it should be in the AGB.  Voluntary PICs adding a global block. 

-- Question: If we don’t have PICs how do we address the concerns that are raised by the community?  What would be an alternative?

-- The idea is that concerns should be brought into the PDP process and worked out there.  We should not be bypassing the PDP process and hoping to make policy via lobbying the board.

-- Board is looking at developing a definition of Global Public Interest.

-- Question: Should this PDP WG be looking at how to categorize something as mandatory or voluntary -- to recommend on a verified TLD that certain PICs could be mandatory that could be described in a general way?  Answer: the issue is putting PICs on sensitive strings to make sure they are validated.

-- If we don’t have voluntary PICs to address issues that are raised and everything has to be addressed as a PDP then that could be a burden on the GNSO community and Council.

-- Voluntary PICs make sense but should go out for public comment.

-- For verified TLDs, there should mandatory PICs related to eligibility.

-- Could add boundaries to voluntary PICs -- such as those that regulate content or that goes against consensus policy.  

-- Need to make sure that we aren’t preventing a registry to do a voluntary PIC as part of its business model to differentiate itself.

-- Consider identifying the things that should be “banned”.

-- If voluntary PICs are being used, when does this matter? Can you add a voluntary PIC at the time of negotiating your contract with ICANN?  It depends on what time in the process this applies.

Pick up Verified TLDs for the next meeting

3. ICANN65 Sessions

-- Four sessions of SubPro.  

-- Afternoon session on Monday and morning on Tuesday are reserved for the full SubPro WG (other sessions are WT5).

-- For the session on Monday afternoon ICANN Org can share assumptions for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures implementation.  Goal is to surface any potential areas of mis-alignment.  Any assumptions that may need to be adjusted.

-- Not that ICANN will need to start planning even if there isn’t agreement on some aspects in the WG.

-- Second session the Co-Leads will pick topics that will be engaging -- and will send the list of topics ahead of the meeting.

4. AOB – Post-ICANN65 Work Plan

-- Co-Leads discussed concerns about going to two calls a week, but decided we needed to go ahead in order to keep up with the timeline/work plan.