The following call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group is scheduled to take place on Monday, 10 April 2017 at 15:00 UTC.

08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 16:00 London, 17:00 CEST

for other places see: http://tinyurl.com/hbbcyu5

Agenda:

1. Welcome/review agenda

2. SOIs

3. Presentation and Q&A with Competition, Consumer Choice & Consumer Trust (CCT-RT) leadership.

4. AOB 

For this meeting and in relation to agenda item 3, we will be joined by Jonathan Zuck, Jordyn Buchanan, and Drew Bagley.

Mp3

AC Recording

Guest speakers: Jonathan Zuck, Drew Bagley, Jordyn Buchanan 

Dial outs:   Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Kavouss Arasteh, 

Apologies:   Sara Bockey,  Kristina Rosette, Ken Stubbs 

On audio only: None

Slides:

Actions/Discussion Notes: 

1. Presentation and Q&A with Competition, Consumer Choice & Consumer Trust (CCT-RT) leadership (see attached slides):

-- Interim report -- still some studies in the field: DNS abuse, trademark holders, impact of things at a regional level and of parking.

-- Currently in a public comment period to the end of April.  Convening in Johannesburg to go over comments.

-- Slides include questions from the PDP WG.  Open up for discussion and get questions answered.

-- CCT-RT could provide some topic prioritization, rather than policymaking.

Slide 2: Macro Questions/Suggestions:

-- CCT-RT's task is to submit recommendations to the Board and they are the body that would accept or reject them.  The recommendations are aimed at who would be implementing them.  Explains why there is more than one group associated with a recommendation.

-- Different about this review: ICANN staff have asked that at least a subset of the RT remain intact to help talk about implementation.  Intention to remain engaged and keep the discussion open.

-- Re: conflicting outcomes, could happen.  Address in implementation.

-- Will consider word usage and also re: making recommendations more precise.  Keeping them more granular made it easier to talk about them.

Slide 3: Recommendation 10 (slide 3): Debate remains as to which PDP (RPM or SubPro).

Slide 4: Recommendation 14 (slide 4):

-- Survey of end users reveals risk and opportunity.  Some expectation of relationship between top level domains and the usage of those domains.  Talking about trying to create incentives to match user expectations -- having restriction on TLDs; using top level name as a way to navigate the web.  Talk about this as something to be cautious of.

-- Examples: end users going to a TLD that ended in .photography would expect a web site to have something to do with photography.  Where the trust relationship exists.  Not a recommendation to create mandates.  Identification of a risk in consumer trust.

-- By "user expectation" it was almost you know it when you see it definition.  Concerns on how these expectation move into the territory of content -- that there is an expectation of content managing the expectation of a TLD word.

-- The end user would know it when he or she saw it.  That would be the user expectation.  This was part of a larger survey on trust.  Suggested that there was a user expectation that the top level domain would be an indicator of use.

-- When we are talking about user trust and expectation and "semantic web" that is almost playing a cruel trick on users.  You set them up with something they can trust, such as .bank, but then they get something that they don't know they can trust.  How can we use the term "user trust" when there is such an unknown?  Question deserves further thought.  Maybe consumer education is a component as well as incentives.  How to mitigate that risk looking forward without getting ICANN into content management.

-- GAC is likely to say something -- to what extent do you expect that?  Comments are reinforced by end user expectation.  Will need to look at hard in highly regulated industries.

-- How do strings become more trustworthy if ICANN gets involved in content as opposed to where we are now?  What in the survey got us to enforcing compliance?  There are commitments that .bank made and adhering is a function of ICANN compliance today.  The recommendation is about incenting these kind of commitments.  May need to think about it from a policy perspective without making it mandatory.

-- The comments and statements by the GAC that have gone before are already part of the set of issues that we need to address.

-- We see this expectation as a risk for future trust.

From the chat:

John Laprise: RE: Trust (apologies I'm in a loud environment)- The new gTLDS are simply extending the long tail of trust. The original gTLDs will always (barring force majeure) be "most trusted" with ccTLDs following. New gTLDs are highly unlikely to ever instill the level of trust that .com does. Trust comes from saying what you're going to do and and then doing it repeatedly, over time. We can declare the first but the execution is not our call. We don't control Trust and have little influence over it.

avri doria: The fact that they [GAC] have already said that should be in our considerations already.

John Laprise: Are we distinguishing end user trust from organizational/system trust? It sounds like we are conflating the two.

Paul McGrady: I think we may be conflating trust with consumer expectation.  Trust needs to hold steady.  Consumer expectations change based upon new products and services.  We should distinguish between the two.

Alan Greenberg: @John, it is the jump from trust of the org to trust of ANY use of that TLD that is the difficult part..  Currently my bacnk uses a .com, and I *know* I cannot trust every .com. So the question is what is different to make me consider .bank differently, and by extension, can I presume I can also trust .doctor.

John Laprise: Thanks for the clarification: I revert to my previous assertion: Trust comes from saying what you're going to do and and then doing it repeatedly, over time. We can declare the first but the execution is not our call. We don't control Trust and have little influence over it as it pertains to end users.

Donna Austin, Neustar: @Alan, with regard to .doctor, the word has many different meanings and is not just about a doctor of medicine so how do you apply trust in that context?

Rubens Kuhl: It's also of notice that some restricted registries operate on a pre-registration verification system, while others verify after registration (and among those there are ones doing 100% checks, and other doing sampling).

John Laprise: @Alan I agree but IMO that requires an immense public advertizing campaign to introduce and convince the public that a new gTLD is worthy of trust.

Kavouss Arasteh: Why .Doctor shoul apply any other thing than Medcin

John Laprise: And there's no guarrantee of success, especially if domains are not scrupulous.

Donna Austin, Neustar: @John, I would argue that the absence of an immense public advertising campaign regarding the introduction of new gTLDs and explaining to consumers that they exist is one of the reasons why folks don't know whether to trust something that doesn't have .com at the end of it.

John Laprise: @Donna That's part of it but the larger component is the socialization of brands and the use of the original gTLDs for two decades.  All original Internet users _know_ the original gTLDs

Kavouss Arasteh: Why there should be no tust to .com but thrust to .bank?

John Laprise: @Kavous: ask end users. .com is a known quantity to them; .bank isn't.

Recommendation 33 (slide 5):

-- Frustration with data availability for doing the competition analysis, safeguards, etc.  There are a number of data-oriented recommendations.

-- Note sure those data would be available by the time the PDP WG makes its decisions.

-- High-priority items have about an 18-month time frame.

Recommendation 34 (slide 6):  Will understand better once we get our first DNS abuse report.  So many variables that go into DNS abuse.  Good to have ongoing regular data.

Recommendation 35 (slide 7):  Goes back to the idea of consumer trust and trying to do a cost-benefit analysis.

Recommendation 36 (slide 8):  Will take back to clarify what "undue" preferences means.

Recommendation 38 (slide 9): No issues.

Recommendation 39 (Slide 10):

-- Voluntary PICs in first round came about in a complicated way.  In the next round provide enough time for all members of the community to weigh in to provide the safeguard that these are in the public interest.  Make sure there is plenty of time for that.

-- That will require that everyone quites tinkering with the rules.

From the chat:

Michael Flemming: Would, however, certain TLDs have committed to PICs if GAC did not offer advice on this?

Recommendation 43 (slide 11):

-- Somewhat open ended.  Low application rate from the Global South.  Made some attempts to understand that rate.  There were some inequities.

-- Recommendations for improving the outreach program, but also take a step back -- should our goal be to get more applications from the Global South, or make sure everyone who might apply finds out in time to do so.  If the decision is made the applications are the priority that would require different recommendations.

-- I note that you say that the Global South needs to be defined.  Another term is the "developing world" or countries with "developing economies".    This particular recommendation is not about targeting developing economies, but applications by businesses in developing economies.  Question is deciding whether it is priority to get those applications.

Recommendation 46 (slide 12):

-- Correct that this is inconsistent terminology.  Meant to be the same as "Global South" or "developing economies".

-- Valid question as to whether recommendation would pertain to more than just operating costs.  Question to consider if we want to encourage applications from the developing world.  May be less relevant if application costs come down.

Recommendation 47 (slide 13):  Partly aimed at PDP WG is guidelines for submission to be included in the AGB -- more clarity on format for advice from the GAC.

Recommendation 48 (slide 14): No questions.

Recommendation 49 (slide 15): No questions.

Recommendation 50 (slide 16): Will take back the PDP WG question as advice.

2. Work Track Updates:

Work Track 1 (Christa Taylor): Meeting on 11 April 2000 UTC.  Topics: Further discussing costs and ceilings and RSP program and Donna Austin's proposal.

Work Track 2 (Michael Flemming): Meeting on 13 April at 2100 UTC to continue discussion on closed generics.  Last week looked at pros and cons.  Feedback was orientied more to the pros.  This week look at the cons further to establish the potential harm.

Work Track 3 (Robin Gross): Meeting on 10 April at 2000 UTC.  Continue discussion with community issues: objections, evaluation, etc.  Continue discussion of Council of Europe report.  Continue discussion of issues raised on the last call re: costs versus benefits.

Work Track 4 (Cheryl Langdon-Orr): Meeting on 20 April at 2000 UTC.  Continuing conversation on name collisions.

3. Drafting Teams:

-- Email lists are activated.

-- First drafts will be appearing over the next week or so.

-- Clarify that the update that the first thought drafts will go to just those Drafting Teams, not yet to the full PDP WG.

4.  CC2 Public Comment:  Reminder people of CC2 and the need to help your groups to get responses.

5. Update on Geographic Names Webinar:

-- Passed the deadline for speakers.

-- List of speakers on the wiki https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/display/NGSPP/Geographic+Names+Webinar+and+ICANN59+Session.

-- Presentations are due by the 18th.

-- In the process of requesting the sessions for Johannesburg.-- Is there anyone from GAC?  Yes, GAC Working Group on the Protection of Geographic Names will present.  Expression of interest from Olga Cavalli.