Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 12 September 2019. 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/2019-09-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. Role of Application Comment -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR..., page 51, Outstanding Items High-Level Agreements: -- Most were presented as implementation guidance. -- Also proposal for applicants to have a short time period to respond to public comments. Application Comment System Usability and Attachments: -- ICANN Org: Comment form does offer a number of the functions that the WG asked to have cover. Attachments are not searchable and sortable. Also could ask cost for review and evaluation Discussion: -- ICANN Org’s comments seem to be backward looking on the existing system. -- ICANN Org will try to use as much of the existing systems as possible. Will assess whether or not the tool is still fit for purpose and if not we will rebuild. -- Clarify that ICANN Org’s concern is not a technical concern for attachments, but that if we allow attachments that means that someone could attach a 300 page document to a comment and it would take the evaluation panel longer to review, with associated costs. -- Compromise is that the substance has to be in the comment itself and the attachment could only be used for reference or confirmation of what is in the comment. -- Still have an issue that anyone can set up an email and send in a comment but it doesn’t mean that they are a real person -- not validating that they are who they say they are. -- ICANN Org: Identify verification is very challenging to do particularly given the volume of applications and application comments. Right now we just make sure it is not a robot. -- Question: Why does the identify of the commenter matter at all? If the comment itself is valuable? Answer: There are two comments -- general comment period and comments that can impact scoring. The person making comments in a community priority evaluation should matter. Important to note that many of the same comments are posted to make it seem like there is widespread concern about an application, but that isn’t necessarily widespread. -- Key point here is that the verification process currently in place does not tackle the larger issue of gaming during public comment, although I realize that it helps reduce automated commenting. How Application Comments are taken into account and impact on scoring: -- ICANN Org -- what does the WG mean when ICANN should be more explicit in the AGB on how different types will or will not impact scoring -- helpful to be more clear about what we mean by “more explicit”. What should the new rules and guidelines be? -- WG is saying that it will still be left to the evaluators to consider those comments but the community should develop guidelines so that we don’t leave them so much discretion. -- Ensure that is a comment comes in that may impact the scoring then applicants should be able to address that directly. Discussion: -- Clarification on ICANN Org comments -- the evaluation panel has to look at those comments that were directed to them. It’s not a matter of whether or not they can choose, especially if that causes them to change a score, then they will have to seek clarification from the applicant. -- But the above isn’t documented in the AGB. -- Part of this is documenting what ICANN Org has already been doing in practice. -- Needs to be more transparency in how comments are considered. -- The WG is saying if the comment could have an impact on the scoring, before it is scored, then ICANN Org seeks clarification. -- For CPE in 2012 the evaluator had the opportunity to reach out at their discretion. -- Note that CPE is unique. One of the criteria for a community application was level of support and another was level of opposition. So there might need to be other issues to consider for Community Applications. Change in the length of time for application comment in relation to Community Priority Evaluation (CPE): -- Support for a longer comment period. -- Support for equal length comment period. -- “letters of opposition” should be considered a form of public comment and should adhere to the same submission deadlines. Concern about comments coming in years later for community applications. Should come in within a defined time period. Discussion: -- Timing of the last round should not be repeated. -- There needs to be an ending point. Need predictability. -- Need to have a beginning, middle, and end. -- 2012 AGB referenced public comment and community objection. No reference to “letters of Opposition”. They should be considered part of public comment. -- Most important to have predictability -- at least a beginning and end. Whether that beginning and end for CPE comment period is run at the exact same time as the general public comment period -- as long as it is predictable. -- If you look at 2012, was most of the substance came in during the public comment period. What came in later was people amplifying previous comments. Left the door open to gaming. -- Why should community applicants be subjected to longer comment periods just because ICANN org chose to put CPE at the end of the evaluation process. would standard applicants be open to longer comment periods if community priority is done at the beginning of subsequent procedures? Responding to comments that might impact scoring through Clarifying Questions; and Applicants given time to respond to the public comments prior to the consideration of those comments: -- NCSG: New Idea - The NCSG believes that if applicants are allowed to respond to comment, commenters should be allowed another round of comments (question 2.3.e.2) -- NCSG: New Idea - Last but not least, the broader community should be allowed to respond, critique and comment on the applicant’s response. It is very important to have this public response period, following applicant’s and something past experience shows it is critical for the future applicant guidebook to include. Discussion: -- Re: NCSG comment -- sounds like too much back and forth. -- Re: NCSG comment -- this is a traditional way of doing things. -- Two questions 1) does the comment affect scoring and the applicant doesn’t respond -- what is the consequence; 2) if the applicant does respond should the commenter be allowed to respond, and what are the consequences. -- Applicants have the option to respond or not to comments -- if the comment is positive, there is less reason TO respond, if the comment is negative, then evaluators may rely on that omission TO RESPOND as a presumption of some sort or not. -- Finish the loop -- make sure they did address the comment. -- Could support giving the commenter an opportunity to respond in a defined time and manner. -- Think about certain of number of days for comment, reply, comment. Only use for a limited purpose. b. Name Collisions -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR..., page 55 -- No high-level agreements. -- Very technical issue being addressed in other areas of the community. -- Not enough from a policy perspective. -- We do know that there is an NCAP Phase 1 study that is starting -- RFP, but don’t know if a vendor has been selected. Don’t know if Phase 1 will lead to Phase 2. Don’t know what Phase 2 would be. -- The PDP WG Co-Chairs asked the Council to clarify with the Board what it is thinking in terms of dependencies. GNSO Council drafted a note to send to the Board, Co-Chairs commented asking for more specificity, forwarded draft to the WG, GNSO Council will send to the Board. 3. AOB: Update on SLAs -- Where are we on providing more details with the SLAs? Some information provided by GDD but not the same level of detail as was provided to the contracted parties. -- Staff spoke with GDD to convey the problems we are trying to solve and when might they deliver. It is a non-negligible amount of work to get that information. Could the WG further refine the problem it is trying to solve. Perhaps GDD could tailor that information. -- We have seen ICANN use that data in certain ways. -- If we can’t get the context of what is behind the data then we can’t make any assumptions. -- Jim Prendergast will follow up with more comments via email.