Dear WG members, This is a reminder of the Call for Volunteers per the following action item from the meeting on 12 January. (See Action Items and Notes below.): Response to the ICANN Board’s questions ACTION ITEM: WG members to respond by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 15 January by notifying staff if interested in joining a group to develop the response. Thus far the following WG members have volunteered: Sophie Hey, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Paul McGrady, Jeff Neuman, Jim Prendergast, and Elaine Pruis. Please let us know ASAP if we have missed anyone, or if you would like to volunteer, by replying to this message. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 5:00 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 January 2021 20:00 UTC Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2021-01-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 21.1: Geographic Names ACTION ITEM: Change designation to “Consensus”. Topic 29: Name Collisions ACTION ITEM: Change designation to “Consensus”. AOB: Response to the ICANN Board’s questions ACTION ITEM: WG members to respond by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 15 January by notifying staff if interested in joining a group to develop the response. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Discussion of Consensus Designations See attached Consensus Call Responses See attached Consensus Designations Also see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2021-01-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... Minority or other statements due by Monday, 18 January 23:59 UTC. Methodology for Consensus Designations: From Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines: Standard Methodology for Making Decisions – see: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:[1] * Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. · Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.[2] · Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. -- Auctions topic Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets – Only one where the outputs couldn’t be designated as Consensus, instead Strong Support but Significant Opposition. -- In looking at responses looked at number of objections, diversity (different groups/entities), representation. -- Strong Support but Significant Opposition is not consensus, but does indicate support. -- Leadership has tried to be conservative in making the Consensus Designations. Full Consensus: -- For those items for which no comments/objections were filed, those were considered “Full Consensus”. Details: Topic 2: Predictability Full Consensus on 2.1, 2.2, 2.4-2.8; Consensus on 2.3 Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds Full Consensus on 3.1-3.5, and 3.7; Consensus on 3.6 Topic 4: Different TLD Types Full Consensus on 4.2 and 4.3; Consensus on 4.1 Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments Full Consensus on 9.1-9.8, 9.13, and 9.14; Consensus on 9.9-9.12 and 9.15 Full Consensus on the importance of ongoing important work in the community on the topic of DNS abuse and a holistic solution is needed to account for DNS abuse in all gTLDs; Consensus on referring the topic outside of the SubPro PDP and Consensus on the inclusion of ccTLDs in the process. Discussion: -- Some members said we could have discussed the rationale more. When looking at the group as a whole a small minority of members opposed the recommendations. Any member who did not objection was considered as supporting the recommendation. -- If you look at the active members, the leadership considered that all of the recommendations had Consensus. -- Elaine Pruis has stated that she doesn’t not support all of the outputs under Topic 9. -- Even if we look at all of Topic 9 and the responses we still would have Consensus. If we looked at one level down that would be Strong Support but Significant Opposition. -- Need to be careful revising opinions after the end of the Consensus Call. -- Option to submit a minority statement/report. Topic 12: Applicant Guidebook Full Consensus on 12.1-12.8; Consensus on 12.9 and 12.10 Full Consensus on the fact that the Guidebook be translated into at least the 6 UN languages and that the translated versions should be publishes at or as close as possible in time to the English version. There is Consensus on the fact that "other translated version, including in the 6 UN languages must be available no later than two (2) months prior to the commencement of the application submission period." The reason this is not Full Consensus is due to the fact that a couple of members commented that the translated versions should be made available earlier than two (2) months prior to commencement of the application submission period. Topic 15: Application Fees Full Consensus on 15.2-15.6; Consensus on 15.1 and 15.7 Topic 17: Applicant Support Full Consensus on 17.2, 17.3, 17.5-17.14; Consensus on 17.1, 17.4, 17.15-17.18 - In general, Full Consensus on 17.1 and having the applicant support program, except to the extent that it has language related to the bid credit/multiplier - Full Consensus on the restrictions on assignments if Bid Credits/Multipliers are applied - Full Consensus on giving unsucessful applicants for Applicant Support the ability to keep their application alive by paying the remainder of the fee. - However, there is only Consensus on the gaming exception to being able to keep application alive; more specifically who can evaluate gaming and how that evaluation would be done. Topic 18: Terms & Conditions Full Consensus on 17.2, 17.3, 17.5-17.14; Consensus on 17.1, 17.4, 17.15-17.18 Full consensus that there be appeals/challenge mechanisms, but Consensus on whether the Ts and Cs should have a covenant not to sue even with those Appeals/challenge mechanisms. Topic 21: Reserved Names Full Consensus on 21.1-21.3 and 21.5-21.6; Consensus on 21.4 Agree as Consensus; only opposition is to 21.4 reserving "PTI". 21.1-21.3 and 21.5-21.6 Full Consensus Topic 21.1: Geographic Names Note objection from Christopher Wilkinson provided during the Consensus Call. ACTION ITEM: Change designation to “Consensus”. Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations Full Consensus on 24.1-24.2; Consensus on 24.3-24.6 Consensus Full consensus on not allowing plurals/singulars. Just consensus on whether plurals/singulars should be allowed if intended use is different. Topic 27: Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services Full Consensus on 27.1-27.17, and 27.18(i) and (ii); Consensus on 27.18(iii). The only element that was opposed by one member was allowing incumbent registry operators use their incumbency to automatically qualify financially during an evaluation of another TLD. Topic 29: Name Collisions Note objection from Anne Aikman-Scalese to 29.2 provided during the Consensus Call. ACTION ITEM: Change designation to “Consensus”. Topic 30: GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Full Consensus on 30.1, 30.5, and 30.7-30.19 ; Consensus on 30.2, 30.4 and 30.6. There was only one member that opposed the language on GAC Advice and removal of the "strong presumption" Topic 34: Community Applications Full Consensus on 34.2, 34.3, 34.5-34.10, 34.13-34.22; Consensus on 34.1, 34.4, 34.11 and 34.12 Although one person objected to giving Communities any priority, Leadership determined that many of the other elements had full consensus if Communities were given priority. In other words, although that member objected to communities in general, if there were communities, then a number of the outputs would be supported. Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets Consensus on 35.1-35.3, and 35.5; Strong Support but Significant Opposition on 35.4 Consensus on the notion on resolving contention sets through the means of an ICANN auction of last resort and that Communities should receive priority to resolve contention sets., In addition, there seemed to be consensus on private resolution of contention sets. There was significant opposition to using a sealed bid process, especially to the timing of the submission of a bid. Discussion: -- With the number of respondents that have opposition could this be “Divergence”. -- Many WG members did not respond and this was taken as support. -- Option to challenge the designation and/or file a Minority Statement/Report. -- If a WG member just objected to one part of a recommendation it was not understood that they objected to all of the recommendation, or recommendations in a topic. -- Consider keeping the leadership notes in the Final Report. -- The table of Consensus Designations is a public document for reference as it is posted to the wiki, so the leadership notes are accessible. Topic 41: Contractual Compliance Full Consensus on 41.1; Consensus on 41.2 3. AOB: Response to the ICANN Board’s questions -- WG members should let Staff know if they wish to work on a response to the Board. ACTION ITEM: WG members to respond by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 15 January by notifying staff if interested in joining a group to develop the response. ________________________________ ________________________________ [1] The designations “Full consensus,” “Consensus,” and “Strong support but significant opposition” may also be used to signify levels of “consensus against” a particular recommendation if the consensus position of the Working Group warrants it. If this is the case, any “Minority View” will be in favor of the particular recommendation. It is expected that designations of “consensus against” will be rare and Working Groups are encouraged to draft (and revise) recommendations so that a level of consensus can be expressed “for” rather than “against” a recommendation. However, it is recognized that there can be times when a “consensus against” designation is both appropriate and unavoidable as a practical matter. A “consensus against” position should be distinguished from a position of “Divergence” (or “No Consensus”), which is applied where no consensus has emerged either for or against a recommendation (i.e., the consensus level of the Working Group cannot be described as “Full consensus,” “Consensus” or “Strong support but significant opposition” either for or against a recommendation). [2] For those that are unfamiliar with ICANN usage, you may associate the definition of ‘Consensus’ with other definitions and terms of art such as rough consensus or near consensus. It should be noted, however, that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term ‘Consensus’ as this may have legal implications.