Dear Work Track members, Please find below the action items and discussion notes from the call on 28 November. 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 documents referenced on the call are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included below. Kind regards, Emily -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Action Items and Discussion Notes: 28 November 2017 Action Items: The Working Group will provide questions for Cheryl Langdon-Orr to bring to the GAC.  Question from 28 November call:  Could a commercially-based community application ever be considered a community application?  But, note that unless the GAC has given advice on this question they may not be able to answer the question. Notes: 1. SOI Updates: None. 2. Plenary Update: -- Met on 28 November. -- Discussed the drafting team activities -- predictability framework. -- Made good progress in getting the plenary members to indicate that there was value in further exploring the idea of a standing committee as an implementation method. -- More work to be done.  WG members should look at the Google Doc: Predictability Framework https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81... 2.  Continuing our discussions on Community Based Applications and Community Priority Evaluations -- paper prepared by Mark Carvell,  UK GAC representative, concerning GAC advice to date on Community Based Applications: Slide 4: GAC Views & Advice Relating to Community Applications -- Lack of clarity relates to lack of a clear definition of what is a "community". -- Support communities and community prioritization, but we have work to do to define communites. Slide 5: Issues of Public Interest Concern Identified by the GAC -- Concern about community-based applicants going up against "wholly commercially-based applicants". -- High bar for community-based applicants against commercially-based applicants. -- Costly delays from Reconsideration Requests, Cooperative Engagement Process, and Independent Review Process Panel. Discussion: -- 75% could encompass other rejections than CPE that failed for other reasons.  Such as applicants that weren't in contention. -- Is this GAC Advice?  This is a compilation and status of GAC Advice on community applications -- linked to the relevant formal GAC Advice. -- Summary is observations of those interested in this topic.  Can we have a frank discussion about community interests losing out to commercial interests? -- In the summary the internet users seem to be left behind in the process, or the community members standing behind that application. -- Consensus is that we should retitle the slide deck and call it GAC input relating to community applications. -- If the GAC calls this advice then it is advice. -- In Mark's document he calls out the advice given to the Board through the Communiques -- you can see the long list of reiterations around the equal treatment of applications and a number of elements. Slide 6: Previous GAC statements and advice in support of community-based applications on public interest grounds. -- Due preference given to applications with demonstrable community support. -- Consistent application of criteria when assessing community applications. -- Community evaluation processes will be improved in light of experiences of some community applicants in the recent round. -- Council of Europe on community applications will be considered by the WG. -- Question for the GAC: Could a commercially-based community application ever be considered a community application?  But, note that unless the GAC has given advice on this question they may not be able to answer the question.

From the chat:

Donna Austin, Neustar: is that 75% figure accurate? Michael Flemming: Does the paper attempt to define the public interest? Apologies as I have not yet been able to read it yet either? Michael Flemming: .* Donna Austin, Neustar: What's the status of the CPE Review? Emily Barabas: @Donna, a summary document of community application is available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735963/Community%20Applic... amie Baxter | dotgay: @Donna .. we've been trying to get info on the CPE review, but all we know at this point is that Scope 1 results were delivered to ICANN several weeks ago and that Scope 2 findings should have been delivered at this point. Jon Nevett: Did the GAC approve the paper or is it a committee of interested GAC members? Donna Austin, Neustar: Thanks Jamie Steve Chan: According to Emily's link, 5 Prevailed CPE and 21 Did not Prevail. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): QUESTION:   Thanks Steve for the link.  I have the same QUESTION as Jon Nevett re this summary - Is this paper approved by GAC? Steve Chan: @Jon, Anne, I'm not sure actually. What I do know is that they consider the paper factual in nature (e.g., statistics and a collection of GAC Advice) and will, or already have, posted on the GAC site. Trang Nguyen: There were 84 applications that were designated as community applications. Of these 51 have been delegated. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): thanks for the data Trang Trang Nguyen: 84 community applications. 51 delegated. 16 withdrawn. 4 in progress. 11 on-hold. 1 not approved. 1 will not proceed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): it is a piece of GAC work Emily Barabas: note, the above referenced spreadsheet only covers CPE results, which explains the discrepancy

From the chat:

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Is there any reason why we couldn't as a Work Team write to Mark with clarifying questions (e.g., status of doc within GAC, answer to Jon's question, etc.)?  I realize the fact that he's rotating out as UK GAC rep may complicate logistics, but it should be possible to have reasonable questions answered. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I will reach out to Mark and the GAC  via the secretary to clarify some of your questions 3. Continuing our discussions on Community Based Applications and Community Priority Evaluations from CC2 comments: Full text of responses is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0... 3.3.1 Do you believe that the implementation and delivery of CPE were consistent with the policy recommendations and implementation guidance provided by the GNSO?  If no, do you have suggested improvements to either the policy/implementation guidance or implementation? -- ALAC support adopted preferential pricing and considering Community applications for preferential pricing. -- RYSG and Afilias suggested a Community priority approach that is not "all or nothing". -- NCSG recommended improving transparency. -- Jannik Skous suggested eliinating the community application type. 3.3.2 There is a general sentiment amongst many in the community that the CPE process did not provide consistency and predictability in the 2012 round.  Do you believe this was the case and, if so, do you have examples or evidence of these issues? -- dotgay LLC, Afilias, RySG, and ALAC provided examples of issues with consistency and predictability. -- dotgay LLC, Afilias, and RySG provided suggestions for improving consistency and predictability. 3.3.3 Do you believe there is a need for community priority, or a similar mechanism, in subsequent procedures? Do you believe that it can be designed in such a fashion as to produce results that are predictable, consistent, and acceptable to all parties to CPE? -- ALAC responded that CPE is still reasonable if properly implemented. -- dotgay LLC suggested including review and evaluation of Public Interest Commitments in the CPE or another phase of the Program, and if deemed important for the community, then they should be required for any operator of the gTLD. -- vTLD Consortium, NABP recommended providing clarity on the public interest values Community TLDs are intended to serve. -- Afilias and RySG provided suggestions to reduce the possibility of gaming. -- Jim Prendergast responded that it is premature to make recommendations on this topic until the investigation undertaken by the ICANN CEO is complete. Discussion: -- Keep coming back to the definition of communities.  The AGB provided guidelines on who was eligible, but there there were new guidelines in the CPE process.  Drove a type of community application over others. -- Guidebook was very clear, but that shifted as CPE guidelines were published after applications were submitted. -- Overarching issue with predictability in the process -- proposal for an implementation team for subsequent rounds that would ensure that policy is implemented in the way it was written. -- Not sure that the predictability framework proposal would go to the issue of whether you are a community application or not. -- Where it could align is where you set up an evaluation panel and they start to set up their rules and they start adding words on how they are going to evaluate who fits the definition of community -- that sounds like implementation. -- Could go either way, depending on the words we put around it.  If we want it covered we should explicitly say so. -- There was really no reason to wait for the CPE to publish their guidelines after applications were submitted.

From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: Things that go to a "Standing Panel" would have general applicability, and would not be geared towards individual applications.  But as Karen says, if there are questions of general applicability,  that could be a topic for a standing panel Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2: If you go that direction, you make the Standing IRT the appeals Board for the determination in Community Priority Evaluation.  Not really appropriate. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) 2: Guidelines should be published before next round. Jon Nevett: Agree with Jamie here -- goes to predictability Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): we have opportunity to look at and hopefully redress that now Jamie