Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from today’s call. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The referenced slides are attached along with the Response from ICANN Compliance on PIC complaints (for the next meeting). Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 2 - 19 October 2017 Notes: 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Plenary Update: -- Two sessions in Abu Dhabi. First is on Saturday afternoon with Work Track Updates. Second session will be for Work Track 5, Geographic Names at the Top Level. -- Work Track 5: Have the leaders. Had a call with them earlier this week and another one tomorrow. We hope to get the Terms of Reference and Call for Volunteers out tomorrow or early next week. -- Seeking a volunteer as a co-chair for Work Track 2 following Phil Buckingham's resignation. 3. CC2 Comments - Global Public Interest (PICs): Discussion Recap: Slide 3: Introduction -- Goal: To move towards deliberations and proposals for steps forward for the initial report. -- 28 October 2017 F2F meeting at ICANN60 on Global Public Interest Slide 4: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now? -- Last discussion was right before ICANN59. -- Action items: reach out to ICANN Compliance. -- Public Interest Commitments were tied into the final Registry Agreement in the form of Specification 11 as Mandatory PICs and Volunteer PICs. -- Mandatory PICs won't be the focus of this meeting. Slides 5 and 6: Specification 11: Mandatory PICs Slide 7: Specification 11: Voluntary PICs Discussion: -- The language on slides 5 and 6 are what is in Specification 11. Aside from the voluntary PICs, this is the crux of specification 11. We still need to talk about the PICDRP, which is in Work Track 3 -- Accountability Mechanism.
From the chat:
Heather Forrest: @Michael- global public interest is a topic that we could talk for years about (and indeed have done so). What is the desired outcome/output/result of our discussion today? (Just asking so we have a clear direction in our discussion today) Alan Greenberg: Public interest was also implicated by the priority for community applications. Jeff Neuman: As Michael is saying, we will cover the CC2 comments, and then ultimately get to the question of PICs, and whether this is the appropriate vehicle to address public policy concerns. Heather Forrest: OK thank you Michael and Jeff for clarifying CC2 Questions: Slides 8-14: 2.9.1 Question and Comments Question: The Final Issue Report suggested that in considering the public interest the WG think about concerns raised in GAC Advice on safeguards, the integration of Public Interest Commitments (PICs), and other questions around contractual commitments. Have PICs served their intended purpose? If not, what other mechanisms should be employed to serve the public interest? -- GAC pointed to previous advice on this topic as well as comments on teh CCT-RT Draft Report. -- VTLD Consortium and NABP recommended circumstances under which a registry should be required to operate as a verified TLD. -- ALAC reiterated concerns about PICs and stated that trust can be increased through restrictions on who can become a registrant and on how the new name is used. -- John Poole recommended additional mechanisms. -- RySG, BRG, and Afilias stated the PICs have served their purpose and recommended no other additional mechanisms. -- Jannik Skou stated that there should be no mandatory safeguards. Discussion: -- With respect to GAC advice, how do we determine what is category 1 or 2 in absence of the GAC putting them in that list? We need some way of determining what they are and the GAC was silent on that. -- With respect to the ALAC comment: It focuses on the issue as the GAC, although they originated category 1 and 2. The overall concept is if you are talking about a TLD that is a regulated industry or does imply health and well-being the user should have some level of confidence that they can trust it. When at least one of the uses is a significant use and does have well being issues we think you have to take the safe root perhaps at the expense of a complete open and free market. The CCT-RT draft report said there were implications related to consumer trust. One of the downsides of .pharmacy and .bank that are doing restrictions they may assume that other similar names are restricted. -- Also concerns about optional PICs that could be written and then retracted. -- ALAC/GAC is presenting .doctor as people holding them out as medical practitioners but they aren't so wanted to restrict it to medical degrees, not other types of doctoral degrees. Restricting the use of a dictionary word to one part of its usage. -- Groups did put in sunsets on voluntary PICs. Only a few registries did them. -- Data on the propensity for fraud on the Internet. In the case of .pharmacy NABP became the registry operator because of the vaste amount of fraud happening in the pharmacy space online. 97% operating illegally in the US. -- For a space that has validated names in its top level: concern about applications in the future that set up a similar space but without validation. -- If you read the draft report from the CCT-RT it talks about the user expectations between the TLD and the site. Note sure where to deal with it. -- Consumers have an expectation that the string is somehow related to the purpose of the TLD, but there is a difference between a connection and ensuring someone's safety. -- If we do keep a model like PICs and assuming PICs are made a time after public and government comments to address those comments, are we agreed that we can use the PIC process to change an application? If so, we should come to some conclusions that applications should change to address based on PICs.
From the Chat:
Jeff Neuman: So the approach to have PICs was a creation of the then CEO of ICANN to incorporate GAC advice. Should this same approach continue? Is there another way to do it? Jeff Neuman: yes.....there was no GNSO policy on this? Holly Raiche 2: At some point maybe we should also look a the report from the Consumer Trust, Choice WG - and public expectations - in this tract of Track 2 as well? Jeff Neuman: yes, once they finalize their report Holly Raiche 2: Agreed wih Alan - the draft CCRT report does talk about consumer expectations Holly Raiche 2: Agree with Jeff - that is the issue that was raised by the CCRT report - the issue ishow to deal with consumer expectations and whether ICANN rules take those into account - just an aspect of public interest Jeff Neuman: I would note that there is a difference between "a connection" and "expectation of safety" Holly Raiche 2: Agree with Jeff - just raising the issue of how we deal with expectation and connection Jon Nevett: Right Jeff ex-ante censorship vs. ex-post enforcement Holly Raiche 2: I think the idea of he categories was to identify the critical names such as doctor and pharmacy 4. Next Meeting: Response from ICANN Compliance on PIC complaints (see attached document)