2016-03-21 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG

The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group is scheduled to take place on Monday, 21 March 2016 at 22:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

15:00 PDT, 18:00 EDT, 22:00 London, 23:00 CET, +1 09:00 Sydney

for other places see:  http://tinyurl.com/j8pf2eq

PROPOSED AGENDA:

1. Roll Call/SoIs
2. Discussion Regarding Community Perspective on PDP Progress
3. Discussion Regarding Steps Ahead (e.g., requesting input from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies)
4. Walk Through of Subjects/Issues
5. AOB

Mp3

Transcript

AC Chat

Attendance

Apologies:  ENDO Atsushi, Ilya Bazlyankov, Jim Prendergast, Susan Payne

On audio only: none

Notes/Action items:

1. Notify/advise GNSO Council that there are community concerns about this PDP progressing too quickly (e.g., GAC, ALAC, CCT Review Team)

2.  Quick Look Mechanism: Staff confirmed that it was applied to all three of the most recent GNSO PDPs, including this one.  See: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-quick-look-mechanism-19feb16-en.pdf.

3.  Go out initially to the SOs/ACs on the overarching issues, but not getting into each of the separate work items/sub groups.  Move forward on those after processing the overarching issues.  Issues: Could result in more comment periods, but should provide more focused responses.  No objections to this approach.

4.  Walk Through of Subjects/Issues -- Clarification Questions:

Work Stream 1 -- Process/Support/Outreach

a. Alan Greeberg: Was there ever a reconciliation of the money taken from the reserve?  If there is a deficit does this need to be added to the applicant fees?  Answers: Jeff Neuman believes that ICANN staff feels that it is still in that process.  Carlos: A presentation was given to the CCT Review Team.  Action Item: Get the presentation that was provided to the CCT Review Team and ask for more data if necessary/desired.

b. Jannik Skou Thomsen Trampedach: Clarification To Chairs: To what degree is this group supposed to provide "detailed" implementation guidelines rather than addresing a principle frameworks with suggestions for "things/issues" to change/implement. Example: Is job done by suggesting we need categories of strings with requirements fit for each categories ? Or are we supposed to suggested exact criteria for each category (GEOs/Brands/cultural/non for profit TLDs etc?

Answer: Jeff Neuman: Previously we provided high-level principles, but not implementation details.  Perhaps more guidance is needed, but it depends on how deeply we get into criteria.  Since 2007 the GNSO developed policy & implementation guidelines.  Avri Doria: There is a formal procedure for doing that implementation oversight work.

Work Stream 2: Legal/Regulatory -- Clarification Questions:

a.  Khaled: With whom will the registry be signed and what is the jurisdiction/controlling law? And what is the mechanism for the applicant to decide?

b. Rubens Kuhl: Can we invite ICANN Legal to join the PDP to help address these questions?  Jeff Neuman: Yes, we can and it would be very beneficial to have ICANN Legal staff join.  Karen Lenz and Christine Willet have also offered to help out and participate.

Action Items: 

Reference documents:

Issues/Subjects Overview