Dear All.

Please find included below an update from Annebeth Lange regarding the Final Report of the Working Group for the PDP on Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs (SubPro), which has now been submitted to the GNSO Council for deliberations in February 2021.

What is this about?

In June 2014, the GNSO Council established a Discussion Group that was intended to evaluate the experiences of the 2012 round gTLD Program and to identify possible areas for future GNSO policy development. The Discussion Group’s deliverables served as the basis for the GNSO Council request for a Preliminary Issue Report in June of 2015. Following the publication of the Final Issue Report, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the PDP Working Group, which began its work in February 2016. 

The Working Group first concentrated on a set of overarching issues. It then conducted initial deliberations on additional topics in its charter using five separate Work Tracks:

• Work Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach,
• Work Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory,
• Work Track 3: String Contention/Objections & Disputes,
• Work Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names/Technical & Operations,
• Work Track 5: Geographic Names at the Top Level.

Following publication of the Working Group’s Initial Report, Supplemental Initial Report, and the Final Report produced by Work Track 5, the Working Group reviewed public comments received on the Initial Report and Supplemental Initial Report, refined its outputs and published a draft Final Report for public comment.

It should be noted that the existing policy recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board have "been designed to produce a systemized and ongoing mechanism for applicants to propose new top-level domains." Essentially, this means that these recommendations will remain in place unless and until the working group determines that changes are needed.

Read more

• Workspace Wiki
• Charter
• Active Project Page
• GNSO Website

Best regards.

Joke Braeken

ccNSO Policy Advisor

joke.braeken@icann.org

From: Annebeth Lange <annebeth@annebeth-lange.no>
Date: Saturday, 23 January 2021 at 10:49
To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>
Cc: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>, Peter van Roste <peter@centr.org>
Subject: [Ext] The Working Group for the PDP on Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs (SubPro) - Final Report

Dear Katrina

The enclosed final report is now sent to GNSO Council and was presented by the Liaison Flip Petillion this week. It will be discussed at the next GNSO Council meeting in February. The report includes as annex the Worktrack 5 Final Report on Geonames and some Minority Reports.

All but one of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus.  Annex C of the Final Report provides further detail about the Consensus designations for specific outputs under each topic.  Within each of the outputs within the topics that received less than Full Consensus, to the extent there were more than one Output for that Topic, the table in Annex C sets forth those outputs within the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus.  For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is “Consensus.”  That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 had “Full Consensus”, but Output 2.3 had Consensus.

There was Concensus for the WT5 Report as a part of the Final Report. I have a strong hope that the treatment of geonames won’t be changed by the council.

I will keep ccNSO updated on the further development. Please let me know if you have questions.

Kind regards

Annebeth