Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 August 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Aug. 13, 2018

      Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 13 August 2018. 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/2018-08-13+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... 

Please also see the attached referenced slides.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Notes:

1.  Agenda review/SOIs: No updates.

2.  Topic: Registrar support for new registries

Slide 5: ICANN Channel model

Slide 6: Foundational Questions

Slide 7: Angles of the issue

Slide 8: Possible solutions; not approved

Slide 9: Possible solutions: to be considered (1/3)

Slide 10: Possible solutions: to be considered (2/3)

Slide 11: Self-allocation impact assessment

Slide 12: Possible solutions: to be considered (3/3)

Discussion:

-- ICANN subsidizing the development of wholesale resellers -- because many registrants prefer to have a single registrar this there needs to be a wholesale process.   ICANN could develop some kind of a commercial program.  Don't like the idea of ICANN subsidizing the development.  Shouldn't use resources from registries and registrars to develop markets for strings that were poorly funded.

--  Don't think that each of these three different solutions would be the only solution.  

-- Relating to discussing market possibilities usually relates to a scenario -- so this could relate to a predictability framework.
...
From the chat:
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): QUESTION: how to avoid situation where that particular TLD is saying "the initial deposit is 1M USD, non refundable " and that wholesale registrar needs to be covered by ICANN

Jim Prendergast: support for a TLD doesnt end with integration.  There is also ongoing customer support functions that continue on as long as a TLD is supported.  Would those costs also be covered by ICANN?

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Question two - why not adding a suggestion to AGB something like "before venturing into TLD business it might be a good idea to have an interaction with ICANN accredited Registrars community to estimate technical integration issues/ market ideas e.t.c"  or something like that

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and I think we need to avoid covering really wild solutions, like "to sign our RRA first you need to procure that particular software solution to ensure smooth work e.t.c." - and with requirement of procurement of high end software platform or hardware platform (so the vendor has both money and PR and ICANN pays it all)

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): limit of 100 domain names is extremely low for GEO tlds due to obligations before the local governments (sometimes number of streets is higher than few hundreds), but it was better than nothing

Katrin Ohlmer: +1 Maxim

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): comment: Brand TLDs follow marketing ideas of the company, and low number of domains does not mean lack of success of that particular TLD

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): around 1M USD might resolve issue with the starters pack :)

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): which is a lot

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): or gold deposits

Jeff Neuman: There is nothing stopping a registry from switching from pre-pay to post pay to encourage registrars to sell their TLD

Jeff Neuman: Some things should be left to market forces

Jeff Neuman: (In my personal opinion)

Jeff Neuman: We should discuss all 3 [possible solutions] in an initial report

Jeff Neuman: but the pros and cons should be laid out clearly

Jeff Neuman: One thing I am not 100% clear on is if this can be solved with an easing of vertical integration restrictions

Christa Taylor: Emerging markets where there are few ICANN registrars and registries have to rely on resellers is also an unexpected hurdle that ideally there would be some type of plan worth developing.

Jim Prendergast: I think this deliberation would value greatly from a concerted outreach to registrars 

3.  Process to achieve consensus

See the proposed work plan: proposed work plan is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1skIJTtVUlst1vkopc52_NYzZMRTs3muvXfcOjeUY...

Consensus Call Process (slides 14, 15, and 16)

-- Review public comments to review draft recommendations where we think they may need to be changed, or to create new recommendations.

-- Default position is generally understood to be the 2012 implementation.

-- Even if we work out some parts in sub teams, the consensus call must be in the full WG.

Discussion:

-- Following this process does this mean that the 2012 implementation will become a policy recommendation of the PDP WG?  Even in the sense that it has diverged from the 2007 policy?

-- This is a very complex question (above): Do not believe that if we are unable to reach a consensus that what happened in 2012 will become policy.  We will reflect in the final report we will indicate the level of consensus and say where there was no consensus to change it, but not that it would be policy.

-- There will be some vote of the Board on the recommendations.

-- As we are inviting GAC members to participate and get their feedback if there were areas where the GAC has provided their comments and we have attempted to deal with them, then we hope the Board will have enough information to have a stalmate with respect to possible conflicts between Board advice and GAC advice.

-- Sent the initial report to the GAC and requested comments.  The GAC is reviewing and developing comments.

-- During the consensus call, Co-Chairs may ask if a WG member is stating a position as an individual, or as a representative of a group.

-- Did ask ICANN Org and the Board to review the Initial Report and respond.  A response from ICANN Org was sent on 08 August: Here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-langdon-orr-...
...
From the chat:
Robin Gross: Will the board of directors have any vote or approval of our group's recommendations (as happened in last round)?

Rubens Kuhl: We have to sort out 2007 recommendations that were likely not a good idea, like first-come-first-serve while there is pent-up demand, and GNSO recommendations that were overturned to worse. 

Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: How will be avoid a "stalemate" at the Board level where our advice may conflict with GAC Advice on Sub Pro?  historically this "stalemate" delays forward progress.  QUESTION

Anne Aikman-Scalese: what is the status of GAC outreach on the Initial Report?

Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): GAC is in process of reviewing a draft comment on the report - as prepared by GAC secretariat

Donna Austin, GNSO Liaison: I think this discussion illustrates why we should work hard to reach consensus where we can. If we don't, it will become an implementation issue and we'll see a rinse and repeat of what we had in 2012.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would also expect work between the GNSO and GAC  via their Liaisons will also assist this time around Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thank you Taylor!

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Donna.  

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Indeed Donna!

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what do we do then with the GAC consolidated (not sure) view?

Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): ...it highlights elevant items that correspond to existing advice

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thanks Taylor - good to know!

Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Will the Board be commenting on the Initial Report?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): a Spokesperson (if needs be)

Rubens Kuhl: Anne, different from CCWGs, Board does not usually comment on GNSO PDPs... so I would be surprised if that happens in this one. 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): We have asked them to respond

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thanks Jeff  - again this should help to expedite the process. 

Rubens Kuhl: What I would expect would be ICANN org GDD and OCTO comments. 

Jim Prendergast: bascially said its a lot to cover and will do their best but will aslo outline where they didnt have tme to respond

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yup 

Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Can we extend the time deadline?

Steve Chan: It was basically an acknowledgement of receipt and that GDD is working on comment.

Jim Prendergast: but thats was for ICANN org - dont think it covers Board

4.  ICANN63 session planning

Slide 18: Tentative ICANN63 Session Timing:

Day 1: Saturday, 20 Oct 2018: Full WG: 09:00-13:15

Day 3: Monday, 22 Oct 2018: Work Track 5: 09:00-12:00

Questions for the full WG session:

-- Where do we envision we will be at this stage?   What should the purpose/anticipated outcome be?

-- We do have a draft Work Plan (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1skIJTtVUlst1vkopc52_NYzZMRTs3muvXfcOjeUY...) Would be operating in Sub Teams for a month or so.

-- Also the Supplemental Initial Report may be out for Public Comment.

-- These will be a working session of the full WG.

-- Schedule is tentative, so there is some flexibility -- such as switching with the WT5 slot or on Saturday.

-- But, hard to know where there might be conflicts; if they can be identified that will help with planning.
...
From the chat:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): our Aspirations are in the plan :-)  

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would thin initial reporting / seeking input on the 5 additional topics is a sure aim

5. AOB: None

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 August 2018

Julie Hedlund

lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson

tags

participants (2)