Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 10 August. 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 chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. Please also see the attached themes document and the excerpts from the chat room below. In addition, see the matrix documents at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8eV... and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8G... Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 10 August -- CC2 Responses on Reserved Names: Action Items: ACTION: Re: Question 2.2.3 -- We can take that back for feedback on the next call to look into the specifics for this particular RFC 6761 and the list of SUDNs. ACTION: Re: Question 2.2.4 -- There should be affirmative outreach to the RPMs PDP on this. Take this to the leadership team. Notes: Question 2.2.2 - Do you believe any changes are needed to the list of Reserved Names at the top level as defined in section 2.2.1.2.1 of the Applicant Guidebook (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf? Please explain. -- Reviewing comments using matrix of reserved names at the top level: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x74w58a9UaTTVulCMmrI45iTiHao6Hf1s8eV... [Reading comments.] -- Cell 5-E - Special Use Domains - Everyone seems to be in favor of a role that these are reserved from use. But they should not correspond to brands. ICANN/IANA Names: -- Not reserved for technical reasons but so that third parties don't apply. -- Question of whether we need to add to this -- such as Centre (NORID comment). -- Any input on this -- either adding names or releasing them? -- In a brief bit of research staff did not why ICANN and IANA are reserved is that if they are reserved it puts ICANN and related organizations in the position of utilizing the challenge mechanisms that it is applying. Question 2.2.3: Do you think Special Use Domain Names should be added to the Applicant Guidebook section on reserved names at the top level to prevent applicants applying for such labels? -- A good example would be .onion. Most people would like to keep special use domain names should be reserved. -- Question: How did the IETF RFC 6761 come into being? Response: Understanding that it would have been approved by the IETF. The bottom-up consensus building process is extremely robust. The process for all of the special use names in IETF is going under review. There are two ways that things go through: 1) through the working group and if it is judged not to be an end run it goes into a last call as an Internet draft in the IETF community before becoming an RFC. What is being talked about is how to do better coordination. Also, what is being discussed is why people need top-level names for their special use names, rather than second-level. It is quite a lengthy process. We were notified when .onion was going through. Question 2.2.4: Do you believe that any changes are needed to a Registry Operator’s right to reserve domain names? If yes, what changes are needed and why? If not, why not? Reviewing comments using matrix: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WgsYlUpKI_QGuIOlOxtu4uBBj8ZWgD0bTw8G... Voluntary Reservations of 100 Names: -- Comments note the specific reservations talks about country and territory names while the 100 names may not be in these categories -- such as a city name. -- Need to look at the experience of geographic TLDs. -- Also from Nominet we have the mention of a closed .BRAND where the limit seems artificial. Voluntary Reservations of Additional Names: -- Perhaps there should be a cap - consider Valideus comment that how holders of TMCH-recorded marks might be given right of first refusal when the name is released. -- There should be affirmative outreach to the RPMs PDP on this. ACTION: Take this to the leadership team.
From the chat:
Steve Chan: In some of the research that staff did, It could be the case that ICANN would be in the position of utilizing its own challenge mechanisms Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I am on the keep the reservation list Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): case by case Phil Buckingham: @ Steve , are there other regional organisations that are currently NOT on the list ? Steve Chan: It had been suggested that the PTI names could also be included? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree with special use name reservations Steve Chan: Correct Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yep Phil Buckingham: Action item : Could staff get the list of SUDNs on RFC 6761 Paul McGrady: Thanks Cheryl! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): peer review Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Avri will have best answers Paul McGrady: Thanks Avri. Paul McGrady: I guess the takeaway is that there is more than one mechanism to get a new gTLD delegated. Phil Buckingham: Thanks Avri . Could we therefore recommend that all SUDNs be @ the second level ? avri doria: yes, but withint the IETF it must be a for a non global DNS purpose. i.e there must be a technical or local reason. i can prepare a more detaild explanation of the process for a later meeting if people want as I do particpate in the IETF process. avri doria: Phil I have already personally mde that recommendation, but it just a personal suggestion, as the IETF has a role in the namespace ICANN can't make rules, and the current MOU does not stipulate that. and if there were a technical reason why a TLD was needed then they could still reserve one. Steve Chan: @Michael, we have a pair of liaisons between theis WG and RPMs. I believe they are Susan Payne and Robin Gross, if memory serves.