Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 25 July. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Please note that for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below and the PDFs of the sections from the Google Document are attached. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: 1. Review of RySG Letter re RSP Program -- This was a letter we received from the Registry Service Provider Discussion Group (RSP Discussion Group) -- 09 July 2017 -- Last year there was a discussion on communication with ICANN and some technical issues -- really on trying to make the process of changing a backend provider or signing contracts smooth. This subgroup was established to deal with those issues and also on dealing with ICANN staff on technical issues and criteria for backend service providers, among other things. -- Reached out to PDP WG Chairs: They have their own work tracks and they will try to provide input by the end of September on the RSP Program, particularly in WT1. -- This is a positive development in that the registries are working on this issue and that they want to contribute. -- PDP WG Chairs will send a letter back thanking them and saying that we are looking forward to receiving their input. 2. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions a. Application Submission Period 1.6.1 One of the overarching questions in CC1 focused on whether applications should be accepted during defined windows of time (also known as "rounds"). If the WG determines that a system of rounds is the right approach, is 3 months an appropriate length of time to accept applications? What considerations should be taken into account when determining the length of the application window? Slide 3 – Summary -- Continuous would be treated as FCFS and disadvantage some (GAC). -- Need to consider impact on staff -- time to evaluate apps (BC) -- More data needed prior to any rounds or FCFS to determine benefit or harm caused to Internet by further gTLD expansion (ALAC). Slide 4 – Excerpts -- Support for rounds with sufficient advance notice: Jannic Skou/Nominet/BRG/GAC UK. -- Process should occur regularly to provide predictability: Jannik skou/BRG/BC. -- Support for a continuous application system: Demys/RySG. 1.6.2 -- If we have a few next "rounds" followed by a continuous application process, how should the application submission period be handled in the lead-up rounds? Slide 5/6 -- Excerpts -- Less concern with rounds or continuous process and more concern re: potential harm to Internet users by proliferation of gTLDs (ALAC). -- Support for priority to first applications: Jannik Skou. -- Support for establishing a predicatable timeline: BRG/RySG. -- Process should reflect end-goal of continuous application window: RySG/Afilias/BRG. 1.6.3 -- Do you think the length of the submission period will impact Applicant Support and what factors do you think should be considered in determining an appropriate length of time? Slide 7 & 8 -- Excerpts -- Application Support is a separate issue: Afilias. -- Submission period must be predictable: Nominet/Jannik Skou/ALAC. -- Education and awareness is key: BRG/RySG/Jannik Skou. Discussion: Question: The main point for us to consider is how long should the period be. Are we discussing rounds here -- or just an initial round followed by some other process? Response: There is general agreement with most of the community that the next application window should be in the form of a round. So, separate the discussion that the next window would be a round and then decide what to do after that. The first discussion is whether to do rounds or FCFS, but seems agreed that the next window will be rounds.
From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: I think the main point for us to consider here is HOW LONG should the period be Jeff Neuman: to receive applications Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON: 3 month is fine vanda scartezini: from here the msot relevant is advance infromation - last time was basically none in the south hemisphere. Jim Prendergast: I would caution against the use of the term "pent up demand" as to date the only evidence of such is annecdotal at best and I have seen nothing to suggest it is widespread. Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON: +1 Jim Jim Prendergast: 3 months is fine by me Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jim, while it may be anecdotal, given it's more than 5 years since the 2012 application round, can we agree that there is or will be demand for new gTLDs? vanda scartezini: from the survey I did last year in this LAC region the answer is Yes Donna, we did not have good chance to enter last round Jim Prendergast: there will be people who appply for sure. But we have no idea how many. Number like 25k application are thrown around with no factual bassis behind those numbers. It's like 2012 all over again where we just dont know how many there will be. b. Application Queuing 1.7.1 -- Do you agree that a process similar to the prioritization draw should be used in the future? If rounds are not used, would this method still be appropriate? Would a prioritization draw, or similar method, work for a continuous application period or would it be better to base processing/evaluation on order of receipt? Slide 9/10/11/12 – Excerpts and Themes Excerpts: -- In support of the prioritization draw: Nominet/GAC/RySG/Jannik Skou. -- John Poole opposes prioritization draw. -- Nominet and RySG emphasized the importance of predictability. Themes: -- Prioritization aspects in developing recommendations but without limiting the implementation to a draw (for instance, the legal environment won't allow for a repeated 'lottery' type of license. -- Prioritization draws: focused on the order applications are managed not the timing. -- Mechanism will rely on randomization. -- Laws of California. -- Mechanism will be operationally optimized. 1.7.2 -- Should certain subgroups of applicants/application types be prioritized over others? Slide 13/14/15 -- Excerpts -- In support of prioritization of specific application types: Jannik Skou/Nominet/ALAC/Demys/GAC UK. -- Afilias and RySG and John Poole do not favor prioritization of specific application types. -- BRG suggested grouping applications by common characteristics. Discussion: -- Question: When we use "prioritization draw" does that include preference for IDNs? Response: That will come up in the discussion of the mechanism. -- Note that we did some informal outreach to the ICANN Legal Team as to whether a raffle could be conducted for subsequent procedures. The answer was "it depends" since they would have to do some research. The language should allow some flexibility to accommodate the current legal environment. -- There were a number of comments from Nominet and others that really want predictability. Even if we dont' prescribe the mechanism, whatever it is should be announced prior to the opening up of the first window of the next round. -- Some people are saying we may have thousands of applications -- if we do is it better to prioritize some over others, or not? One may depend on the other. Not sure if priority should play in going forward. -- In 2012 I think there was an option for the applicant not to participate in the draw, so they would go after. One of the things we should think about is if we want an option for an applicant to opt out. -- Some of the things brought up during Work Track calls were assigning numbers during the application process -- other issues from what we are discussing here. Didn't say that a raffle couldn't be done, but that circumstances may have changes.
From the chat:
Kurt Pritz: @Rubens - there were legal reasons for paying separately for the draw Rubens Kuhl: @Kurt - I believe it needs to go to a separe pot, but looking forward ICANN could collect it at application time. Jeff Neuman: Didnt we get feedback from ICANN on whether they are able to do a lottery again Rubens Kuhl: I think that is a decision to be made in the TLD Types discussion... Phil Buckingham: one assumes that the lottery would be done again in California ? Sara Bockey: @Jeff, yes, I recall something from staff... mainly that we're not supposed to call it a lottery (legal reasons) They may be able to do something similiar if I recall correctly. Kurt Pritz: To get the terminology straight: (1) the prioitization draw was a "raffle" and (2) ICANN did not conduct a lottery Rubens Kuhl: We could win priority numbers using buzzword bingo @ ICANN Public Forum. I want all my cards with "Swenglish". Rubens Kuhl: Even if possible to use, it could be either easy or cumbersome. Jeff Neuman: less prescriptive mean digital archery again :) Donna Austin, Neustar: @Steve, that seems to be a rather important consideration. Phil Buckingham: so will there be a prioritisation this time. So will IDNs still get priority this time ? Kurt Pritz: Maybe this group could ask ICANN for formal advice on the draw issue and whether it can be legally repeated - with a one month or so delivery. That way, we would know our options. Rubens Kuhl: IDNs have quit a larger challenge to overcome than time-to-market. Their priority didn't bring them much return. Rubens Kuhl: (quite a) Donna Austin, Neustar: Agreed Rubens Steve Chan 2: I would note, the comments I made earlier wouldn't preclude the WG from saying the mechanism SHOULD be a priotitization draw, in the form of a raffle, similar to the 2012 round. That makes it very clear what the WG wants, but at least allows for some level of adjustment if the mechanism is not legally feasibile. Trang Nguyen: If we get 25,000 applications, we will need a way to batch the applications for processing. Kurt Pritz: @ Steve: if a draw is not legally feasible, we don't want to spend time discussing it. We should be able to understand if the law has changed since the last round. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Trang, what do you mean by 'batch'? Do you mean by similar type of application or just in batches of 100 or 200 Jeff Neuman: I do not believe there have been any changes to the lottery laws of california in over 30 years Rubens Kuhl: 25,000 applications could be 25,000 applicants to 1 TLD each or 25 applicants of 1,000 TLDs. Those two scenarios would need very different resources. Jeff Neuman: Different cases, but not statutory Trang Nguyen: @Donna, some considerations if we get 25,000 applications include whether the application comment should be extended to allow the community more time to review the large number of applications and provide comment, whether the objection submission window should be extended, evaluation of applications would be extended, or whether the 25,000 applications would be batched in some form into smaller groups for processing.