Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 15 July 2019
Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 15 July 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/2019-07-15+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): Kathy Kleiman is now on the faculty of American University Law School. 2. Review of summary document: (continued): a. Applicant Freedom of Expression (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc...) – start at Input on Implementation Guidelines – General, top of page 10; -- From last week: It seemed that most commenters is that we should continue the policy that was approved in 2008 by the ICANN Board, but that we needed to try in implementation guidance more specific with respect to how that consideration should take place. -- It’s one thing to say that Freedom of Expression should be considered, but another to put that into practice. Give more concrete guidance in the AGB wherever possible. 1) Input on Implementation Guidelines - General -- ICANN Org: Be as specific as possible. -- Provide practical examples to evaluators. -- Balance with freedom of expression with all users. -- Not sure we have agreement to change from the 2008 policy approved by the ICANN Board. -- Providing consistency and clarity is a step forward. -- There are examples where we consider the use or intended use of a string in these types of evaluations. -- Questions: What were the original rules? What were the problems in the 2012 round? Answer: There were no rules that you couldn’t apply for a particular string, but based on evaluation of string contention. Found that there were no clear guidelines and up to the independent objector to use his/her analysis, and evaluators based it on their own beliefs. Most of the comments were that to the extent possible we need to be more clear and provide more guidance. 2) Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO -- From Kathy Kleiman: Then we must expressly reference the Morality and Public Order findings and standards in referencing the new Applicant Freedom of Expression. I don't see material reference anywhere in our materials here. It all has to be balanced -- But there was evolution between the original references and what went into the AGB. We could reference the AGB. -- Should change the high-level agreement to include references to Morality and Public Order findings. Protecting applicants’ Freedom of Expression rights should be balanced with other recognized rights. -- Should be considered when deliberating on the Objection section. ACTION: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. 3) Suggested criteria to ensure that denial of an application does not infringe on FX rights: -- Should be considered when deliberating on the Objection section. -- Question: ICANN org's comment before the start of 2.3.4. suggests that some of the assumptions about evaluation were incorrect and criteria was applied. do we know what the criteria was that was applied? b. Universal Acceptance, page 11 Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence Suggestions for additional work on this topic: -- Section 1.2.4 of the AGB talks about ”Notice concerning Technical Acceptance Issues with New gTLDs” -- Not even primarily and issue of registrar acceptance but much more needs to be done to resolve this issue. Came up midstream in the last round, as in name collisions. -- Seek clarification on ALAC comment: New Idea: ALAC - Registries and Registrars, if they are owned by the same entity, should be Universal Acceptance (UA) ready as part of their application. This means that their systems should be ready for IDN registrations, ready handle IDN and non-IDN New gTLDs consistently on nameservers and other machines and able to manage any Email Address Internationalization (EAI), i.e. <nativelanguage>@<idn>.<idn>, as part of the contact information and be able to send and receive emails from these type of addresses. In addition, Registries and Registrars should take affirmative actions to ensure that their suppliers are also UA ready. -- What they were saying is if you are offering registrations in the Chinese language, you should be able to get and have email that is in that language about your registration -- such as support questions, web site tools, third party suppliers of services, etc. -- Should the WG in its recommendations be urging some specific steps to address the problems? Answer: Will rewrite the high-level agreement text. -- Good to get an update from the USAG/ICANN on the state of UA and in particular on their progress. Include a link to the USAG work in the Final Report. -- This isn’t about TLDs not working, but third party applications working or not. ICANN has addressed the IDN issues from 2012, but some third parties have not. -- What more can the SubPro WG do that the USAG is not already doing. There is a new idea from the ALAC with respect to registries and registrars that we need to decide whether to include. -- So maybe one solution is stronger language from ICANN elaborating on the potential problems IDN applicants could face with usage of their domains. Clearly ICANN knows it’s a problem. Thy have spent millions on UASG efforts. But the last communication was not good for new applicants and players in the gTLD space.
Hi All, Good meeting today -- important subjects! I was asked to provide some wording to reflect in 2.3.3 High level agreement that the fairness and balance of the Applicant Guidebook continues in this area. I have done so below: · + Most commenters agreed that it would be helpful to provide additional implementation guidance in relation to protecting applicant freedom of expression rights. · + Such guidance for applicant freedom of expression rights does not displace or replace the fairness and balance protections for “generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under principles of international law” and other community rights and legal rights as recognized in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook. Best, Kathy On 7/15/2019 12:50 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 15 July 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/2019-07-15+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro....
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Notes and Action Items:*
**
*Action Items:*
ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance.
ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text.
*Notes:*
1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): Kathy Kleiman is now on the faculty of American University Law School.
2. Review of summary document: (continued):
a. Applicant Freedom of Expression (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc...) – start at Input on Implementation Guidelines – General, top of page 10;
-- From last week: It seemed that most commenters is that we should continue the policy that was approved in 2008 by the ICANN Board, but that we needed to try in implementation guidance more specific with respect to how that consideration should take place.
-- It’s one thing to say that Freedom of Expression should be considered, but another to put that into practice. Give more concrete guidance in the AGB wherever possible.
1) Input on Implementation Guidelines - General
-- ICANN Org: Be as specific as possible.
-- Provide practical examples to evaluators.
-- Balance with freedom of expression with all users.
-- Not sure we have agreement to change from the 2008 policy approved by the ICANN Board.
-- Providing consistency and clarity is a step forward.
-- There are examples where we consider the use or intended use of a string in these types of evaluations.
-- Questions: What were the original rules? What were the problems in the 2012 round? Answer: There were no rules that you couldn’t apply for a particular string, but based on evaluation of string contention. Found that there were no clear guidelines and up to the independent objector to use his/her analysis, and evaluators based it on their own beliefs. Most of the comments were that to the extent possible we need to be more clear and provide more guidance.
2) Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO
-- From Kathy Kleiman: Then we must expressly reference the Morality and Public Order findings and standards in referencing the new Applicant Freedom of Expression. I don't see material reference anywhere in our materials here. It all has to be balanced
-- But there was evolution between the original references and what went into the AGB. We could reference the AGB.
-- Should change the high-level agreement to include references to Morality and Public Order findings. Protecting applicants’ Freedom of Expression rights should be balanced with other recognized rights.
-- Should be considered when deliberating on the Objection section.
ACTION: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance.
3) Suggested criteria to ensure that denial of an application does not infringe on FX rights:
-- Should be considered when deliberating on the Objection section.
-- Question: ICANN org's comment before the start of 2.3.4. suggests that some of the assumptions about evaluation were incorrect and criteria was applied. do we know what the criteria was that was applied?
b. Universal Acceptance, page 11
Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence
Suggestions for additional work on this topic:
-- Section 1.2.4 of the AGB talks about ”Notice concerning Technical Acceptance Issues with New gTLDs”
-- Not even primarily and issue of registrar acceptance but much more needs to be done to resolve this issue. Came up midstream in the last round, as in name collisions.
-- Seek clarification on ALAC comment: New Idea: ALAC - Registries and Registrars, if they are owned by the same entity, should be Universal Acceptance (UA) ready as part of their application. This means that their systems should be ready for IDN registrations, ready handle IDN and non-IDN New gTLDs consistently on nameservers and other machines and able to manage any Email Address Internationalization (EAI), i.e. <nativelanguage>@<idn>.<idn>, as part of the contact information and be able to send and receive emails from these type of addresses. In addition, Registries and Registrars should take affirmative actions to ensure that their suppliers are also UA ready.
-- What they were saying is if you are offering registrations in the Chinese language, you should be able to get and have email that is in that language about your registration -- such as support questions, web site tools, third party suppliers of services, etc.
-- Should the WG in its recommendations be urging some specific steps to address the problems? Answer: Will rewrite the high-level agreement text.
-- Good to get an update from the USAG/ICANN on the state of UA and in particular on their progress. Include a link to the USAG work in the Final Report.
-- This isn’t about TLDs not working, but third party applications working or not. ICANN has addressed the IDN issues from 2012, but some third parties have not.
-- What more can the SubPro WG do that the USAG is not already doing. There is a new idea from the ALAC with respect to registries and registrars that we need to decide whether to include.
-- So maybe one solution is stronger language from ICANN elaborating on the potential problems IDN applicants could face with usage of their domains. Clearly ICANN knows it’s a problem. Thy have spent millions on UASG efforts. But the last communication was not good for new applicants and players in the gTLD space.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (2)
-
Julie Hedlund -
Kathy Kleiman