1. Work Tracks 3, 4, 5
Track 3 -- String
Contention, Objections, Disputes
Clarifying Questions:
a. Kavouss Arasteh: Do we
have a checklist of all those problems/difficulties with
respect to similarity/singular v. plural so that someone
could update it?
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It
would be very valuable to produce a list of the singular
v. plural, as well as group names with similar meaning.
In response to Paul McGrady's note -- there were initial
evaluations and objections -- should user confusion in a
trademark sense be part of an initial
application/evaluation, or as part of an objection? If in
the initital evaluation what factors would go into that
evaluation?
Action Item: Produce
a list of the singular v. plural, as well as group names
with similar meaning.
b. Alan Greenberg: Re: Level
playing fields: How much emphasis should be made on this
issue? Have we decided if this is problematic.
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — This
is an overall issue. Same with safeguards. No decisions
have been made at this point.
Action Items: Look at
all the objections that were filed, how they turned out,
consistency. Check to see if the CCT Review Team may be
doing this. Look at the role of the independent
objector.
c. Kavouss Arasteh: Who is
authorized to raise a question or objection based on the
public interest? Should we have some type of rationale?
Do we also accept political objections?
Answer (Jeff Neuman): In
2012 anyone was entitled to file a public interest
objection, but it did cost money. The grounds for the
objection were in the Applicant Guidebook. There was a
process to ensure that the claim had some merit. There
was no formal objection ground for political objections,
but the GAC or governments could file early warnings. The
GAC could always provide advice during the process.
Discussion Notes:
Paul McGrady: Look very
carefully at the GAC's role and how that played out in the
first round.
Ken Stubbs: Develop a
process and methodologies for dealing with objections to
avoid them dragging out.
Greg Shatan: Re: consistency
of outcomes -- we need to look at these things as
processes and how this relates to the auction process.
Jeff Neuman: Include in this
track contention resolution aspects, such as auctions,
indirect contentions, etc.
Jay Westerdal: Some of the
issues may take a year or two longer to resolve.
Jeff Neuman: Not sure how we
can have an impact on the previous round. Falls into how
we stick to the principle that we are not
advantaging/disadvantaging previous versus future
applicants.
Track 4:
Internationalized Domain Names
Clarifying Questions:
Paul McGrady: How far are we
allowed to go with respect to encouraging adoption of
internationalized domain names? Can we recommend that
ICANN lower the cost on IDNs?
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — It
might be that we could discuss issues -- but not exact
pricing -- that in theory that you could have a
recommendation that ICANN should have a subsidy, or that
ICANN should encourage.
Track 5: Technical &
Operations
Clarifying Questions:
Alan Greenberg: We should be
getting a report on whether the questions on the
accreditation process met the needs or should they be
changed.
Answer (Jeff Neuman) — I
think ICANN staff have said they want to participate in
this PDP WG. They should be active members and listed on
the wiki page.
Discussion Notes:
Mary Wong: Note that the WG
could ask for answers from staff for specific questions.
Alan Greenberg: I think we
want something written from them, but much of this is
implementation so it is not clear how deep we need to get
into it.
Avri Doria: We should make
sure we look at relates to the original policy that the
GNSO came out with that all registry requirements don't
need to be the same.
Jeff Neuman: I could see
that as a good issue for track 5.
Action Items: PDP WG
support staff will take the action to add staff to the WG
member list on the wiki. The PDP WG will direct specific
questions to staff as needed.
3. Letter from Steve
Crocker
Discussion Notes:
Jeff Neuman: I do think that
the creation of yet another group to look at these
questions would create a lot of overlap. I think these
questions are captured in the issues we have laid out and
if not we should make sure they are in there. We could
respond to the Board by thanking them and that these are
issues that are properly for the GNSO to consider.
Alan Greenberg: We can say,
"noted" and the items are in our work list.
Steve Coates: General
consensus is that this is a good letter. It seems that a
short response is necessary and appropriate. Any
questions with that approach?
Alan Greenberg: And we will
coordinate with the CCT Review Team.
Jeff Neuman: Amr notes that
these issues were brought up about the 2012 round in
Marrakech. We should make it clear that our jurisdiction
is only over subsequent procedures, not current TLDs.
Alan Greenberg: There is no
intent in the current ALAC advice to fix problems with the
current round.
Action Item: Staff
will assist in drafting a brief response to the Board.
4. Liaisons from
SOs/Acs
Discussion Notes:
It would be up to the SO and
AC. They would not have special status in this WG, except
for the GNSO Liaison. They may have liaison status in
their groups. May be useful perhaps with the GAC, if they
feel the need.