Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 07 January 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/2019-01-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2gf.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: Create a timeline of the review/analysis of the various report comments and how they will be incorporated. ACTION ITEM 2: Re: SSAC overarching comment -- ask the SSAC and the Board where they believe that the NCAP is and possiblity dependencies. ACTION ITEM 3: Consider via email the question of how to define round closure. ACTION ITEM 4: Request from ICANN staff a list of unresolved 2012 applications, current status, and reason for lack of resolution. Circulate to the WG. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): -- No Updates were provided. 2. Work Group Updates (e.g., Sub Groups, Work Track 5, Supplemental Initial Report) Work Track 5: -- Supplemental Initial Report published 05 December for public comment. Comments are due 22 January. See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-names-wt5-initial-2018-12-05-en. [icann.org] -- Webinar will be held Wednesday, 09 January at 20:00 UTC to see if there are questions, but not meant to be a substantive discussion. -- Encourage your communities to send in their comments. -- Possible LAC Webinar, but not currently scheduled, nor is it an official meeting as none are planned for other languages. -- Comment period closed for Supplemental Initial Report; staff in process of putting comments into a analysis tool. The full WG will review the comments: Sub Groups Analyzing Comments on Initial Report: -- Role is to organize the comments to see if there are patterns and convergence on recommendations to the full WG. -- Substance will be discussed with the full WG. -- Meeting weekly. Sub Group A: Overarching issues, pre-application topics (rounds, communications prior to round(s)). See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zDdzlBwLCz5m2sNXui6N6pporbUq-lDFEwf.... [docs.google.com] Sub Group B: Application period, evaluations. See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133WbhWYB4M4kT6DqSfiCR2-ij7jxNkLj5EWZ.... [docs.google.com] Sub Group C: Almost completed accountability mechanisms, will be completing other comments, and moving on to community applications. See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MQmo1B6zBqGXYFRF2pKZXPhGmz0JfZhIaMxK.... [docs.google.com] -- Question: Could there be a timeline for all of the parallel efforts? 3. Continued Review of Items Referred from the Sub Groups to the Full Working Group Top of Page 7: SSAC comment -- Concerns about SubPro not properly taking into account dependent activities, and therefore moving too quickly. - Not sure where the name collision analysis project (NCAP) stands? Could ask SSAC re: dependencies. Their comments suggest that they would leave it to the community as to possible dependencies. The WG is making progress on possible recommendations on many of the dependencies. - To define what we are asking the Board we should go back to the chart of the Board resolution from 2017 to ask what the Board is asking.

From the chat:

Jim Prendergast: it might be best to ask the SSAC that question too. Jeff Neuman: @Jim - I agree we should ask Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): Anne as far as I undertand the Name Collision Program is very much in its 'formative' phase and even when begun is a multiyear planned project Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): But Yes we need to Ask for an update Avri Doria: NCAP is not budgeted yet. Donna Austin, Neustar: Is there any way that we can get the Board's view on whether there is a dependancy, because that may be more important to understand than the SSAC's view. Jim Prendergast: it would be good to clarify as well if NCAP is a dependency in the mind of SSAC as well as the Board. Thats a pretty major issue we have to deal with if it is. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): Good point @Donna Donna Austin, Neustar: But while we're getting that information it should not toll our work. Donna Austin, Neustar: I think the NCAP is the result of a Board request. Avri Doria: yes NCAP came about becasue of the Nov 17 resolution. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes Donna - last I heard the budget was being revised and the structure has been reworked but the Board did tell us that they adopted advice they received from the SSAC and we have a communication from the Board about the advice they adopted as to the "dependency". I think the SAC report does not say this depends on NCAP per se but rather that no next round should go forward til name collision issues are resolved. Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Jeff - I am talking about the Board resolution related to a prior SAC report advising the Board. We have a chart that Steve prepared related to the Board's letter to Sub Pro. Christopher Wilkinson: So... NCAP is about Name collissions - correct? Jim Prendergast: yes Steve Chan: I believe Anne is referring to this Board resolution: https://features.icann.org/consideration-ssac-recommendations-sac047-sac058-... [features.icann.org] Steve Chan: The resolution refers to a scorecard, which can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/bm/briefing-materials-2-redacted-23jun... [icann.org] Steve Chan: The Board actually adopted the scoredcard, although within the scoredcard, it states: "The Board accepts this advice and will ask the GNSO Subsequent Procedures PDP to include this recommendation in its work." This is in respect to SAC090, which is an, "SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace" Steve Chan: And this WG's worksheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PrXjzhhdwU2O9k8oF6RG8pohqwBVz_UdYr4Z... [docs.google.com] Anne Aikman-Scalese: re name collisions - Yes - Steve - very precisely stated. It's SAC 90 that creates the potential "dependency" since the Board adopted that and it states that various risk assessments should be done prior to "adding new names" to the TLD space. Page 7, Defining Round Closure, Board comment: - Sub Group A discussed what it means to close a round, because Sub Group A is examining the comments on whether the future introduction of gTLDs will be in the form of rounds, and if it is, how do you determine when one round ends and a new one begins. - There have been a number of comments in favor of doing rounds with some type of predictable time table in between. At some point you need to be able to say that a round is closed. - Confusing to continue to speak of "rounds" - could talk about various groupings of applications. However, most of the comments do reference "rounds". Whatever we call it there is an application window (phased, batched, etc.) that opens and later closes. Prior to opening up the next application window there is a concept of when is it appropriate, from a cost-recovery perspective, to say that the window is closed to determine if we have a surplus and if so what to do with it. - Comment in Sub Group A seem unanimous that there should be at least one application window in the form of a round. -- ACTION ITEM: Take this up on email.

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Speaking of a "round being closed", do we have a list yet of the applications still pending from 2012 and their current status? QUESTION Vanda Scartezini: I know that at least one string is pending for decision but would be good to know the whole list Steve Chan: @Anne, the New gTLD micro site should help provide that list. If you go to this site: https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/viewstatus [gtldresult.icann.org] Steve Chan: You should be able to filter down. For instance, filtering Application Status to Active provides a list of 22 applications. Vanda Scartezini: thanks Steve. Phil Buckingham: @ Vanda , Anne, I can send you the list . At least 10 contention sets out 234 STILL remain unresolved 7 years since Jan 2012. .Music . gay .hotel . kid(s) come to mind . This obviously excludes the highly contentious outstanding cases re . Amazon & .Web Vanda Scartezini: thanks Phil , is amazing we still have unsolved strings under discussion... Anne Aikman-Scalese: @STeve - thanks Steve - however, I have requested that we receive a formal list from staff because there are policy issues related to defining rounds and we need to consider these issues from the standpoint of the full Working Group. Jeff indicated we woudl receive this list and that it would be circulated to the full WG. Steve Chan: @Anne, Jeff said that after I commented in chat here :) You'll see an action item is now captured. Page 7, What if Consensus Cannot Be Reached, Comment from the Board: - Default position: If there is no consensus to change a policy then the policy remains as it was for the 2012 round, at least in cases where the default is still feasible. - There may be issues where we can't reach consensus right now, but we don't want to forgo the opportunity to keep reviewing these types of issues for subsequent application windows without stopping the process completely. - Will indicate in the Final Report for each recommendation the level of support received, including divergent views. - The GNSO Council would adopt and forward recommendations that reach the level of consensus or full consensus. Could forward in theory recommendations that don't reach that level, but that's not typical.

From the chat:

Anne AikmanScalese: COMMENT: The protocol for Working Group guidelines is that there are Consensus levels specifiee and if applicable, Minority views. The GNSO then has to make its recommendation to the Board regarding those items. Anne Aikman-Scalese: JEff - I think the GNSO Council has to decide what it is formally recommending to the Board. Steve Chan:Yes Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd 2:Yes Anne Aikman-Scalese:Donna makes a good point. I think GNSO Council has "oversight", even if they do not have a habit of taking up an issue with a PDP recommendation. They also have to deal with the fact that communications from the Board ultimately have to be handled at the GNSO Council level because if these are not reflected in policy recommendations, the Board will come to the Council to ask why. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. would that include addressing issues raised by minority interests in the ICANN community that are left unaddressed or create further dissadvantage simply because existing policy (or status quo) plays to the benefit of the majority? Christopher Wilkinson: In view of the changes that have taken place since 2012, i suggest that the GNSO Council should co-opt for these purposes additional members from the other SO/ACs most directly concerned. Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Christohper - interesting observation - for example, ALAC does not have a vote on Council. I think the structure contemplates that ALAC, GAC, and others provided direct advice to the Board. The Board ends up having to "mediate" this advice, which of course slows things down. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jamie, I understand and appreciate you concern, but my sense is that the Council is reluctant to debate issues that were discussed by a PDP WG and recommendations made. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Where it gets really interesting is that when the GNSO advises the Board, it takes a 2/3 vote to override it. When the GAC advises the Board, it takes 60% vote to override it. So when GNSO and GAC advice conflict, the Board tends to come back to tell us all to "work it out".This of course slows things down if we have not worked it out before the recommendations go to the Board. Maybe that is why the Board wants us to clarify that existing policy from 2012 applies unless there is a clear recommendation otherwise and/or we have Board resolutions that modify that policy. Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Donna .. the concern here is for some subgroups of the new gTLD program will never get a fair shake because the louder & larger voices in the community maintain control over the smalller voices in the community. For example, will the community TLD program ever get to serve at its best if some are trying to keep it from getting in the way of their interests. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jamie, sadly that's a challenge of the MS model.