Dear Working Group Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 March 2017. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript. Please also see the recording and transcript on the meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/9JLRAw. Kind regards, Emily ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Consider having tech support on calls to monitor for problems. 1. SOIs -- No updates 2. Work Track Updates Work Track 1 -- Christa Taylor: No update. If everyone could review the updates in the questions - that would be great. Work Track 2 -- Michael Flemming -- No update per se. Continuing meeting per the schedule. Recently started on the closed generics. Work Track 3 -- Karen Day -- Meets tomorrow at 1500 UTC. Robin Gross will lead the meeting. Continuing work on string related issues: objections, similarity, community-based objections. Work Track 4 -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr -- Met today. Topic was name collisions. Managed to resolve one or two questions and tabled another two. Will continue that work. 3. Community Comment 2 (CC2) First reading continued. (Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-...). ACTION ITEM: check the numbering and correct, as needed. ACTION ITEM: throughout the CC2 document, ask for an explanation regardless of whether the response is "yes" or "no" -- Trying to make sure that the questions are clear and for others to answer. Section 2.1 Base Registry Agreement: 2.1.1 -- any clarifications (note that numbering needs to be checked) 2.1.3 -- Restrictions relating to sunrise periods. No questions or clarifications 2.1.4 -- One of the issues was that this needs to have examples. Do we need examples? Fine with the answer at this point. Not very clear as drafted. Long sentences that are difficult to properly understand. Re: "Should the application form state" not clear what part of the application. -- Maybe the word "state" is not the most common meaning. Perhaps editing that sentence "should the application form explain..." -- What do we mean by "balance be struck between allowing the [repeat "the] the community"? -- That is ideomatic speech. Could be "balance be found". ACTION ITEM: clarify text in 2.1.4; replace the word “state” with “explain”; change “balance be struck” to balance be “found” From the chat: Paul McGrady: Can we draw a distinction between an evolution of a business plan and a change in the nature of the registry itself? 2.3 Reserved Names (renumber): 2.3.1 re: string requirements and 2.3.2 re: list of Reserved Names: ACTION ITEM: check the references against the Applicant Guidebook and add URLs. 2.3.3 -- Special Use Domain Names -- Is Raymond Zylstra's edit more clear? The question is saying that there is a 6761 procedure in the IETF and they will reserve the name when appropriate according to their procedure ("is appropriate" is correct). the last clause might be dangling. ACTION: Edit for 2.3.3 for clarity. -- The question about whether the Special Use Domain Names -- change it "Do you think that" instead of "Should..." 2.3.5 -- Re: reserved names -- Change to "right to reserve domain name[s]" Comments are answers rather than changes to the question. -- What is the basis to have these names reserved [audio dropped out]..why was the unlimited number of reserved names and where does 100 names come from? - The right came from the registry agreement. It was something that got negotiated in and then was put into the Applicant Guidebook. Specification 5 has the language on 100 names and no limit for reserving any other names subject to releasing them to an ICANN accredited registrar. -- Is this not warehousing TLDs? Perhaps the question is "Do you believe that the 100 and unlimited number should be reviewed?" -- The above comment seems to be an answer to the question, or a response. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: (It is my understanding they escaped the TMCH ... correct me if wrong) Michael Flemming: I think the question is correct as it is now. Alexander Schubert: In regard to "reserved TLD names": Work Track 2 also covers section 2.2.1.4.1 = Treatment of Country or Territory Names on Top-Level. Do we cover that later? 2.3.6 -- Question doesn't seem to be clear. -- Needs to be rewritten for clarity. -- Cross reference to the amendment. -- Before our PDP ends changes to the Registry Agreement will include these new reserved names. ACTION ITEM: clarify and reword. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: As the name suggests, icann-sla-monitoring was suggested by ICANN, although accepted by registries. Paul McGrady: We use "propose"-formative words 3 times in a short space. Can we mess with it to make the question more clear? Kavouss Arasteh: Pls just insert the reference to that amendment Rubens Kuhl: The amendment in question is this one: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/global-amendment-base-new-gtld-registr.... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_global-2Damendment-2Dbase-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dregistry-2Dagreement-2D2017-2D01-2D23-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JrglEjS5ajQIMG1kYGqRGUcgvktnkpAnx2hpZQLXABQ&s=MQxIHJOhIbaj0WQK4F4a1GWbWQIwu5ULzhHvu632ERQ&e=>Note that is not yet approved. 2.4 Registrant Protections 2.4.1 re: EBERO, COI, Data Escrow and Registry Performance etc. 2.4.3 re: EBERO funding model 2.4.4 re: Background screening -- Opens up a can of worms. Would have to get into signicant definitions as to what constitutes a breach. Concerned about how it is worded. -- The 4th line -- what do we mean by "information that is not readily available in some jurisdictions". -- Alluding to the fact that it was no always possible to do background screening if the entity was in a country that didn't allow that kind of background to be provided. ACTION ITEM: change "some jurisdictions" to "some countries". From the chat: Michael Flemming: I think the word breach allows for the individual answering the question to interpret a level of discretion for that at this point. It is rather difficult for us to define it at this point, but with a more formal consultation with ICANN, after we issue the question, I think we will be able to have a better outlook for what would constitute that certain type of breach. Steve Chan: @Jeff, that's right. Michael Flemming: not all countries are formally recognized? Rubens Kuhl: In some countries, different states have different rules... so jurisdiction looks better to me. Michael Flemming: that is why jurisdictions is used, it is much more flexible. Rubens Kuhl: Like California and New York. Michael Flemming: we could do something like countries/jurisdictions. 2.6 Closed Generics 2.6.1: no questions 2.6.2: ACTION ITEM: insert the provision from the Registry Agreement, Specification 11, clarify wording of the question. -- Is the question whether to revise the definition? Not clear or seems repetitive. 2.7.1: -- Comment: the question is loaded. Can we make it more neutral? This was never meant to be a blank check for ICANN to violate policy, the text should not imply that this is the case. --ACTION ITEM: change "if yes, please explain" to "please explain," reword to make more neutral. 2.7.2 - Comment: request for clarification on the word "submitted" and clarification on additional mechanisms mentioned beyond accountability mechanisms. - Answer: the accountability mechanisms do not go to the substance of the issue. The question is asking about this. ACTION ITEM: clarify text in 2.7.2. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies ..... 2.7.3 - suggestion: add "consistent with the bylaws" ACTION ITEM: insert "consistent with the bylaws" in the text of this question. Check for overlap between 2.7.3 and 1.3.1 From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): General question: Wouldn't we generally be interested in teh respondee's explanation of their answer - regardless of whether they answer "yes" or "no" and regardless of what the question is? If not, it would be helpul to understand why not. Thanks. Christa Taylor: Sorry Jeff, a bit delayed. There is a bit of an overlap with 2.7.3 and 1.3.1 2.7.4 - Comment: probably a good idea to remove the word "significant." ACTION ITEM: remove the word "significant" from this question. 2.8.1 From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Avri - back tracking thinking about 2.8.1 - wording is not correct IMO 2.8.2 - Comment: clarify that there are other exceptions ACTION ITEM: include the other exceptions to the Registry Code of Conduct 2.8.3 - Question: In the second to last sentence, what do the words "these" "issues" and "address" mean? - Response: leadership team can attempt to clarify text in this question. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): General question: Wouldn't we generally be interested in teh respondee's explanation of their answer - regardless of whether they answer "yes" or "no" a Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): replace "issues" with "claimed inefficiencies" Susan Payne: I think on 2.8.3 we should also ask "what safeguards are required" ACTION: clarify text of 2.8.3 to be more precise about the issues referenced. For example, replace "issues" with "claimed inefficiencies." Add question: "what safeguards are required"? 2.8.4 - no comments 2.10 - no comments 2.11.1 - no comments 2.12.1 - Comment inserted in the text - "I feel these questions should look for factual inputs. . ." - Response: the request for supporting documentation attempts to get at this. Comment regarding CCT-RT refers to the entire PDP. Will revisit in the second reading. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Can we ask ICANN for facts, namely, the outcome of any PICDRP proceedings? Rubens Kuhl: And it's hard to gather facts to measure deterrence. Do people acted good because they are good or because there could be consequences ? Ken Stubbs - Afilias: @kristina shouldn't this be public info. why shoul;d it not be disclosed 2.12.2 - suggestion: following the term public interest, add "as referred to in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws" - response: with the new reference in the articles of incorporation, we may need remove this question ACTION ITEM: consider if 2.12.1 should be deleted given the new articles of incorporation. 3.1.1 - no comments 3.1.2 - no comments From the chat: Paul McGrady: For 3.1.2, if "no" can we also seek examples? ACTION ITEM: If response is "no," also ask for examples. 3.1.3 - no comments 3.1.4 - comment: decisions made by whom? - response: decisions made by objection dispute panels... - ACTION: clarify that this question refers to decisions made by objection dispute panels. Encourage explanation of response whether it is “yes” or “no.” 3.1.6 – comment: change "rounds" to "application windows" ACTION ITEM: change "rounds" to "application windows" 3.1.7 - split into two questions 3.1.8 - no comments 3.2.1 - no comments 3.3.1 - - Comment: clarify the text "true to the policy" in the second to last sentence. ACTION ITEM: adjust text to clarify the meaning of "true to the policy" in the second to last sentence. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Like stated before: It seems there were problems with the CPE's. So GAC several times called for an appeals mechanism to investigate potential inconsistencies ..... - response: this seems to speak to a possible response and not the formulation of the question. 3.3.2 - no comments 3.3.3 - no comments 3.3.4 - no comments 3.3.5 From the chat: Heather Forrest: 3.3.5 - should we ask for specific examples? ACTION ITEM: ask for specific examples in 3.3.5 3.3.6 - suggestion: include as a sub-question, if we have a proposal on the table, perhaps we can put that out for comment? ACTION ITEM: consider including the proposal for comment. 3.4.1 3.4.2 - Kristina Rosette: question needs to be clear that they should be handled the same, may need to explain the process that ccTLD use. From the chat: Susan Payne: can we give a link to something which explains how they are handled in ccTLDs? to ensure everyone is aware Alexander Schubert: The ccTLDs are determined by ISO! Alexander Schubert: So it wouldn't be ICANN but ISO who does that...... Heather Forrest: Note for the notes - the point on 3.4.2 was raised by Kristina Rosette, not Susan Payne Rubens Kuhl: IDN ccTLD has such a process, detailed at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_fast-2Dtrack-2D2012-2D02-2D25-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=i09BEEvfPipICu6_hnaf3PKfBS2yfu9vSvouYX3OnGA&s=o0jBWqWTkFS3tkfVXxob_jBOQ8gsBaQG-UFKSmIuX2U&e=> . Alexander Schubert: Then let's say it in 3.4.2.: "IDN-ccTLDs" Alexander Schubert: Also we might ask: Should private auctions be prohibited (or: did they created harm - speculation - etc)? ACTION ITEM: clarify the question and link to ccTLD process: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_fast-2Dtrack-2D2012-2D02-2D25-2Den&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=i09BEEvfPipICu6_hnaf3PKfBS2yfu9vSvouYX3OnGA&s=o0jBWqWTkFS3tkfVXxob_jBOQ8gsBaQG-UFKSmIuX2U&e=> . 3.4.3 - Comment: replace "noted issues" with "raised concerns" ACTION ITEM: replace "noted issues" with "raised concerns" in 3.4.3. 3.4.4 - no comments ACTION ITEM: add “please explain” to 3.4.4. 3.4.5 From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Also we might ask: Should private auctions be prohibited (or: did they created harm - speculation - etc)? Alexander Schubert: I guess in th next rond we will have people applying with nothing other in mind than to "cash in" in private auctions..... Alexander Schubert: rond = round ACTION ITEM: add this question about the use of auctions to 3.4.5, phrase the question in a neutral manner. 3.5 3.5.1 & 3.5.2 ACTION ITEM: check for overlap with questions in WT2. 3.5.2 - Comment: is this question necessary? - We can be more clear about whether there should be new accountability mechanisms and whether these mechanisms are good. ACTION ITEM: clarify the text in question 3.5.2. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: 3.5.1 is valid as ICANN always said: "Sorry there is no appeals mechanism - and please do not abuse our other accountability mechanisms" 4.1.1 - no comments 4.1.2 - no comments 4.1.3 - no comments 4.1.4 - no comments 4.2.1 - no comments 4.3.1.1 - no comments 4.3.1.2 - no comments 4.3.1.2.1 - no comments 4.3.2 - no comments 4.3.2.1 - no comments 4.3.2.2 - no comments 4.3.2.3 - no comments 4.3.2.4 - no comments 4.3.2.5 - no comments From the chat: Christa Taylor: Minor formatting - line break on 4.3.2.5/.6 ACTION ITEM: add line break on 4.3.2.5/.6. 4.3.2.6 - no comments 4.3.2.7 - no comments 4.3.2.8 - no comments 4.3.1.1 - no comments 4.4.1 - no comments 4.4.2 - no comments 4.4.3 - no comments 4.4.4 - no comments 4.5.1 - no comments 4.5.2 - no comments Misc. questions 1. no comments From the chat: Kavouss Arasteh: Consensus by Exhaustion Phil Buckingham: additional Q suggestion : Should applicants use an ICANN financial templated model or should they be allowed to provide their own financials model (s) 2. ACTION ITEM: Change the word "contract" so it is not confused with a legal contract. 3. no comments 4. no comments