Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 07 March. 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+3+Meetings. In addition, the referenced slides and documents are attached along with excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 07 March 2017 1. SOI - no updates 2. Update from Plenary Co-Chair (Avri Doria): -- Preparing for the Copenhagen meeting. Main item is to get the CC2 questions completed. Finished the first reading yesterday. Holding a second reading today. Not sending this out for comment yet. Want to have a relatively clean document for discussion in Copenhagen as it will be the main item of discussion. We will with the community pick a couple for a more in-depth reading. -- After Copenhagen we will send out the CC2 to the SOs and ACs. If there are substantive changes from Copenhagen we may do a third reading before they are sent out. -- In Copenhagen there will be lots of opportunity to talk about this WG and its work. Jeff and I will be meeting with different groups. 3. Community Issues a. Council of Europe Report Summary (Kinanya Pijl) – See: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docume... -- No clear definition of the concept of community. -- Different groups of communities they all have different modes of function. -- Rigid set of evaluation criteria can be restrictive. -- Generally the accountability mechanism have been of limited value to community applicants. -- Concerns: cost of application, time to assess, conflicts of interest, lack of transparency. Maximum predictability should be guaranteed by ICANN. -- Greater clarity on the purpose of community TLDS and they should be grounded in human rights. -- Reduce costs. -- Sufficient restrictions to deter commercial interests from applying. Discussion: -- Based on the inputs that we have seen is this a concept that is worth preserving -- community applications? How do we address the concerns that were raised in the first round? -- We are trying to kick off the discussion and looking in the community for those who have looked into the issue in some detail as a basis to have a more robust discussion. -- Not familiar with the structures in the Council of Europe. Interested in a clarification of the report's standing. -- Not a member state document. The COE is not planning to vote on this. It is not a political statement. -- Question: Workflow between our group and Work Stream 2 on Human Rights. Need to reconcile with this document. Not sure who to ask that question. Answer: We've been in touch with the rapporteur Niels ten Oever and he will be joining our discussions in Copenhagen. -- The GAC is discussing this report. Wondering what the status of the report is with the GAC. -- In looking at the interviewees it seems that a lot of the people interviewed for the paper were from organizations that haven't launched yet or may be in a contention mechanism. We asked if they talked to anyone who has launched, and they said it was just those on page 75. Would be good to talk to those who made it through the process.
From the chat:
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jeff, Avri, Robin: It would be helpful to have some context for this presentation. Is the WG/WT intended to take this as an additional input ? A "first among equals"? Thanks. Jeff Neuman: This was presented to the GAC and we thought it would be a good idea to have this presented to us as just one input into the process avri doria: I see it as significant input and input that has the support of some of the groups in ICANN. avri doria: is this doc being taken up by the GAC? avri doria: i beleive it is, but I do not know to what extent. Jeff Neuman: Q. I note that a number of the interviewees are persons representing organizations for TLDs that have not yet launched. Were there any discussions with communities that have launched to talk about any issues they have encountered? Greg Shatan: In the Foreword: "I would like to thank the authors, Eve Salomon and Kinanya Pijl, for preparing this report which is intended to prompt constructive dialogue and reflection in ICANN. The Council ofEurope will remain actively involved in ICANN’s work." Jan Kleijssen, Director of Information Society and Action against Crime. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Greg: Thanks. I'd seen that, but was not clear how that statement affected (if at all) the report's status. Kinanya Pijl: Hi Jeff, the list of interviewees can be found on page 75 of the report. We did not talk to any other applicants. b. Community Application (See background slides) Action Item: Request to collect statistics on community applicants that went through unchallenged and those who were challenged and went through, and the number in reconsideration IRP. Slide 2 -- Background: Community Applications -- 2012 round -- applicants had the option of designating an application as community-based. In absence of string contention, that claim was taken on trust, as recommended in Implementation Guideline H. -- Covered in Module 4 of the Applicant Guidebook. Slide 3 -- Background: Community Priority Evaluation -- 4 criteria: 1) community establishment (0-4 points) 2) Nexus between Proposed String and Community (0-4 points); 3) Registration Policies (0-4 points); 4) Community Endorsement (0-4 points) -- Application needs 14 points. Slide 4 -- Questions and Concerns Related to the Topic -- Lack of transparency -- the Panel misinterpreted the applications -- Panel improperly applied the CPE criteria -- excessively high scoring threshold in the AGB -- High number of reconsideration requests Slide 5 -- Rationale for Policy Development -- May want to explore the topic of a community framework within the New gTLD Program and see to refine: -- Definition of community -- Concept of priority for community-based applications -- Process for awarding such priority -- Criteria and scoring threshold for determining if priority is applicable. 3. String Confusion Objections -- Concern with inconsistent outcomes -- Streamline the process Proposal from Registry Stakeholder Group String Sub-Team (see attachment) Recommendation 1: String Similarity Review -- That GNSO Policy #2 is satisfactory for the purpose of String Similarity. Recommendation that implementation of the policy can be improved pertaining to applications received by ICANN for singular and plural strings. Recommendation 2: String Confusion Objections -- Contention sets formed on a per-language basis. - One panel to review all documents. One determination that would apply to all the applications covered by the objection. Limited appeals process. -- Some discussion of whether there was unfairness in consolidation, or where the objector was an existing TLD operator. Not unanimity in the group. -- Example: .shop and derivations -- each handled separately. Idea would be that if you had a situation where you had an applicant that wanted to file objections on string confusion instead of filing multiple objections they could file one objection that would cover all of the strings.
From the Chat:
Paul McGrady: What about strings that aren't exact? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Paul: It would still be possible to request consolidation of objections, but they wouldn't be covered by this proposal. Jon Nevett: proposal also helps to avoid indirect contention sets Recommendation 3: Sword Tool -- That ICANN do away with the Sword Tool. -- Little correlation between the Sword Results and the actual outcomes of the String Similarity Review and String Confusion Objection Process and, thus, that the tool was more misleading to applications than helpful. Discussion: -- Agree with the recommendation. -- Tool is irrelevant since we have better information now. -- Call for a vote on getting rid of the Sword Tool: 9 green checkmarks of agreement; no marks of disagreement.