GNSO - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Face-to-Face Meeting - Hyderabad

ICANN57 Proposed Agenda (3 November, 13:45-18:30)

Welcome and introductions (5m)
Current Status (10m)
Update from CCT-RT and RPMs PDP (10m)
Work Track-based discussions
1. WT1 (45m)
  1. What went wrong with the Applicant Support Program in the 2012 round? Were the issues related to the guidance in the Joint Applicant Support WG’s Final Report, the implementation (and timing issues), the scope of the support, systemic issues, other, or a combination of multiple factors? How can these issues be improved or resolved? Is there a need for such a program in future rounds?
  2. From RSP Accreditation to Third-Party Certifier - what is the most effective method to meet the needs of RSPs, Registries, Registrars, Applicants, and possibly registrants/end/users? How will existing RSP’s be treated differently from new RSP’s? What are some ways to ensure the best practices are attained to ensure security and stability?
2. WT2 (45m)
  1. Is a single Registry Agreement still suitable for the needs of all new gTLDs moving forward? Some have argued that different “categories” of new gTLDs warrant differential treatment in the Registry Agreements which are more suited to their TLDs’ unique characteristics. Do we need to consider allowing for category based agreements and what is the justification for such? If yes, how does this balance with ICANN’s “non-discrimination” obligations as well as its ability to manage contracts for thousands of gTLDs? Or, if we agree on one single base agreement, how should the single base agreement address the various needs of different categories?
  2. Reserved Names. In the 2012 round for new gTLDs strings were reserved at the top and second levels.
    1. The names that were reserved at the top-level were set forth in the Applicant Guidebook and were therefore not eligible to be applied for. The names reserved at the top level included all single and 2 character strings and certain ICANN/IANA names (eg., ICANN, IETF, EXAMPLE, SSAC, TLD, etc.). Subsequent to the GNSO policy development process, IOC and Red Cross Names were added by the ICANN Board. Through the Names Collision debate, .home, .corp and .mail were also declared ineligible for delegation. Are any changes to the Applicant Guidebook required moving forward?
  3. Specification 5 to the Registry Agreement sets forth the strings that are to be reserved from registration at the second level. Some of the strings were removed from reservation (eg., the majority of 2 characters), while others provided for the release subject to certain conditions being met. In addition to ICANN-mandated reserved names, the Registry Operator is permitted to reserve up to 100 names for promotional and/or operational use by the Registry Operator. The Registry Operator is also permitted to reserve an unlimited amount of strings at the second level for any purpose, including the designation of premium names, founders programs, auction, etc.. Do any changes need to be made to the reserved names policy, the names to be reserved, the process for the release of reserved names, and/or the interaction between the release of reserved names and the rights protection mechanisms (including Sunrise and Claims).
  4. In the 2012 round a Continuing Operations Instrument was required to be submitted in the form of a Letter of Credit to fund an Emergency Back End Registry Operator. The very specific requirements for this COI proved to be difficult for a number of registries to meet.
    1. Do we still need the EBERO function?
    2. If so, what other options are there to fund the EBERO functions?
    3. Also, some registries, such as Brand TLDs, consider that a Continuing Operations Instrument is not required due to the nature of their TLD. This spans into the background of EBERO requirements, as well, but would the Continuing Operations Instrument be required for TLDs that would qualify for an exemption to the Code of Conduct for the RA?
3. WT3 (45m)
  1. The SubPro Working Group has discussed at length whether the introduction of new gTLDs on a going forward basis should be in “rounds” like the 2012 round or on a first-come, first-served process. A number of proposals have emerged including (a) starting with one or two rounds to handle pent-up demand and then moving to a first-come, first-served process, or (b) a hybrid approach whereby there is a predictable schedule of rounds per year giving more predictability for when public comments and objections procedures to be held.
  2. Whether or not applications for future new gTLDs are accepted in rounds or other batch groupings vs. being accepted in an open & ongoing process ("first come, first served") will impact, among other things, the string contention process and objections. What are some of the foreseeable impacts to string contention and objection processes with either choice? How should those factors be weighed? Should the community decide first what application acceptance methodology will be used in subsequent procedures and then deal with the downstream issues? Or should the effects and resolution of these issues, such as string contention, be fully dealt with in order to drive the application methodology?
  3. In order to determine what the role of an Independent Objector (IO) will be, if any, in subsequent application procedures it is necessary to both review what happened during the 2012 round and what has happened in both the community and world at large since the 2012 round. For example: What was the community's impression of the role the IO played in the 2012 round? Did it live up to expectations? Did the IO act in the community's best interest? Has the level of awareness within the community and consumers risen to the level that an IO is no longer necessary? Would an ongoing application process necessitate that an IO be in place to ease the burden of constant vigilance on the part of the community & consumers?
4. WT4 (45m)
  1. Should technical competence be shown during the application process or only required to be shown prior to signing a gTLD agreement? Should financial capability be shown during the application process or only required to be shown prior to signing a gTLD agreement? If one or both of those capabilities are not met, would the string be offered to other contention set members or only be available in subsequent procedures?
  2. IDNs - Should single character IDNs be allowed in languages where a single character could denote a word or phrase? In the 2012 round, the ICANN Board made a decision to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Should IDNs continue to have higher priority in application processing? How should IDN variants be treated?
  3. What suggestions do you have for improving the application criteria and evaluation processes? Were the right questions asked? Was the way the questions were asked aligned with expectations of evaluators? Were the thresholds for passing appropriate? How can questions be made more clear to avoid the overwhelming number of clarifying questions that plagued the 2012 round? Were there issues with consistency for evaluation results?
  4. Name Collisions – During the 2012 round, it was determined that certain strings be prevented from moving forward (.home, .corp, .mail) for “name collision” reasons. Are there additional High Risk strings that can be identified prior to the launch of subsequent procedures? What is the methodology that should be used in determining “high risk strings”?
AOB
Parking Lot