Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
15:30
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
17:06
and short turn around on comments please
Anne Aikman-Scalese
19:29
May we have the link to the doc please?
Julie Hedlund
19:42
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT_gMRSkQ/edit?usp=sharing
Emily Barabas
19:43
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT_gMRSkQ/edit#gid=1908811665
Anne Aikman-Scalese
19:57
Thank you.
Paul McGrady
22:43
Amen
Becky Burr
23:02
does this language parallel GAC language?
Maxim Alzoba
25:21
hello all , sorry for being bit late
Marc Trachtenberg
29:49
Seems clear that this is not referring to the same refund schedule. If not why call it out as the applicant could just use the standard refund schedule?
Susan Payne
30:35
agree Donna
Marc Trachtenberg
30:39
Applicant should be able to withdraw and get a full refund
Marc Trachtenberg
32:34
Not worth trying to figure out the details now. I always would prefer specificity but no way to have that here without knowing what the change will be. Its too late to create a whole new structure now
Alan Greenberg
33:29
Leaving details to later is a cop-out if we are not sure it is implementable.
Marc Trachtenberg
33:44
Can't raise my hand but would like to comment
Jeffrey Neuman
33:56
Perhaps if we say it must be within a certain amount of days of the announced change
Jamie Baxter
33:58
+1 Donna
Paul McGrady
33:58
Seems like you should get your money back if ICANN pulls a switcheroo.
Susan Payne
34:41
they still have to be impacted by the material change for te serendipitous withdrawee to get a refund. In the closed g scenario the applicant withdrawing obviously has to have applied for a closed G
Susan Payne
34:47
+1 Marc
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
35:20
It's important to acknowledge that the investment of applying for a new gtld/s is more than just the $185k application fee.
Emily Barabas
38:57
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8QSRChrVNI/edit#gid=123470843
Marc Trachtenberg
40:44
If its a brand TLD then it should NOT be operated by anyone other than the Brand Owner without the Barnd Owner's control
Marc Trachtenberg
41:30
How will the EBERO protect the brand?
Maxim Alzoba
41:36
if the brand dies, there is no reason for ebero for the TLD in question
Paul McGrady
42:04
+1 Alan. There is no harm here that ICANN needs to get involved in.
Marc Trachtenberg
42:59
Hand
Susan Payne
43:10
I'd prefer we didn't change the name. We've been using this term throughout
Maxim Alzoba
43:14
EBERO is a post mortal porcess
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
43:33
Agree Susan, let's not change the name now.
Maxim Alzoba
43:46
process, so there is no reason to support zombie TLD for the dead brand TLD
Kathy Kleiman
43:55
I think we should change the name here => Operational protections for registry database.
Jeffrey Neuman
44:04
If a registry goes down, the content still exits on a nameserver....the content is not erased. Its just end users can get to it without knowing the IP address
Jeffrey Neuman
44:29
sorry, the content exists on a hosting server :)
Martin Sutton
44:59
Registrant protection is most relevant to the purpose of the existing policy. The EBERO does not serve any relevance to brand TLD model.
Kathy Kleiman
45:02
It seems there are circumstances where a .brand might need help... right, technical failures
Susan Payne
45:06
I also believe this is firmly about registrant protection. it's about ensuring that those who have built their digital presence on a domain within a TLD that fails, do not lose that digital presence. recognising the cost to transition to a new domain is not insubstantial
Elaine Pruis
45:58
They’re not preserving content. Content lives with hosting companies. Registries just resolve queries as to where content is hosted
Maxim Alzoba
46:14
also it will create legal risks for EBEROs and the whole idea
Elaine Pruis
47:05
If the registrant doesn’t pay their hosting bill the content goes away
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
47:18
There may be a need for a future PDP about retirement of gTLDs, similar to retiring ccTLDs. If a 'brand' at some point no longer exists because of consolidation or something else, what happens?
Maxim Alzoba
47:20
for example - court orders the brand to shut down the TLD … and EBERO keeping the zombie copy will do something wrong
Marc Trachtenberg
48:02
@ Kathy - this is the Brand's problem. It shouldn't be forced to have this protection. This is help that is not wanted
Maxim Alzoba
48:42
EBERO is not a protection for a TLD - it is a death of a TLD, and just zombie copy of the last state of the TLD
Marc Trachtenberg
49:07
+1 to Susan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:09
the dreaded ( and seemingly random) double mute ...
Phil Buckingham
49:31
agreed Susan
Kathy Kleiman
49:34
OK
Kathy Kleiman
49:40
Tx Susan
Paul McGrady
49:48
+1 Susan.
Maxim Alzoba
49:59
new hand
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:00
Thx @Susan
Martin Sutton
50:12
It reminds me of miss-selling insurance - it’s not relevant and probably can’t make any claim anyway
Jeffrey Neuman
50:25
ok, Maxim, you are after Paul
Annebeth Lange
50:36
@Susan +1
Kathy Kleiman
50:59
Not raised by me, raised by ICANN Org :-)
Alan Greenberg
51:13
Really good point Paul.
Jim Prendergast
51:41
is .wed still alive? how much $$ has icann spent on that one?
Jeffrey Neuman
52:08
@Jim - yes, and they spend very little....
Maxim Alzoba
53:05
strictly saying , after EBERO the brand is not a registry (due to a loss of the Registry contract)
Emily Barabas
54:13
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=2136691260
Maxim Alzoba
55:24
for a generic TLD - a TLD could be given to the better Registry (but not for a Brand, if nothing really weird happens )
Annebeth Lange
55:58
Agree, Maxim
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:01:04
and hopefully a good block of time for this topic :-)
Steve Chan
01:01:46
Back to the sheet used to discuss Registrant Protections: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8QSRChrVNI/edit#gid=53966201
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:38
a question from the grammar perspective, is it possible to slightly ban ? I thought it is a binary process - yes or no
Paul McGrady
01:03:23
They said specifically that what the Board did last time is not binding on the future.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:03:43
But they did make clear that the Board was not interested in a complicated process based on subjective determinations that will result in di[psutes
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:47
GAC Beijing Communique - April 11, 2018 - 2. ExclusiveAccess• Forstringsrepresentinggenericterms,exclusiveregistryaccessshouldserveapublicinterestgoal.• Inthecurrentround,theGAChasidentifiedthefollowingnon-­‐exhaustivelistofstringsthatitconsiderstobegenericterms,wheretheapplicantiscurrentlyproposingtoprovideexclusiveregistryaccess§ .antivirus,.app,.autoinsurance,.baby,.beauty,.blog,.book,.broker,.carinsurance,.cars,.cloud,.courses,.cpa,.cruise,.data,.dvr,.financialaid,.flowers,.food,.game,.grocery,.hair,.hotel,.hotels.insurance,.jewelry,.mail,.makeup,.map,.mobile,.motorcycles,.movie,.music,.news,.phone,.salon,.search,.shop,.show,.skin,.song,.store,.tennis,.theater,.theatre,.tires,.tunes,.video,.watches,.weather,.yachts,.クラウド[cloud],.ストア[store],.セール[sale],.ファッション[fashion],.家電[consumerelectronics],.手表[watches],.書籍[book],.珠宝[jewelry],.通販[onlineshopping],.食品[food]
Paul McGrady
01:04:25
Isn't banning closed generics the ultimate interference with content?
Marc Trachtenberg
01:05:05
What is a legitimate public interest goal? That's the whole problem'
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:05:34
Agree Marc, there is no agreement on that point.
Elaine Pruis
01:05:42
Its hard to argue that the list pasted by Steve should be removed from the general public use to allow for a closed generic
Elaine Pruis
01:06:12
Sorry, Kathy. Not Steve.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:06:51
@ Elaine - I don't think its hard to argue that. But we disagree on this point
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:07:23
The Board could decide to reject the GAC advice on closed generics on the back of a PDP that could not reach agreement on this point.
Elaine Pruis
01:07:24
.movie?
Marc Trachtenberg
01:07:44
@Elaine - same reasoning applies for all
Marc Trachtenberg
01:09:09
+1 to Paul. Enough already
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:43
We did need to give it all one last review based on the public comments which we have now reviewed
Paul McGrady
01:12:05
Happy to address that right now.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:12:07
HAND
Paul McGrady
01:14:14
@Kathy - or banning them
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:32
Agreed Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:14:54
well if you all agree to recommend at this stage banning closed generics that is an agreement ;-)
Marc Trachtenberg
01:14:59
We have no agreement on anything
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:15:39
The Board has to have a 60% majority to reject GAC Advice. Not sure that failure to develop policy within a PDP can serve as a reason to reject GAC Advice. Issues of the Public Interest are actually inherent in the ICANN Board fiduciary duty. Agree with Alan and Kathy that GAC Advice is standing Consensus Advice. from a practical standpoint, if we don't have agreement, the Board will likely send GNSO "back to the drawing Board" as to what would serve the Public Interest in the Closed Generic context.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:15:44
Global public interest even MORE difficult to define. Same in CHina as in Israel?
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:51
it might change over time (the global public interest)
Martin Sutton
01:16:33
…..”If you apply for a closed generic please note it will be unpredictable”
Elaine Pruis
01:17:28
Avri said there is no policy on closed generics, so the 2012 status can’t be assumed to allow for closed generics. Banning was temporary policy.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:18:04
HAND
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:18:05
Banning was a temporary decision, it was not a policy.
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:39
a poll?
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:18:46
No poll
Jim Prendergast
01:18:54
if there is no consensus support, then how can we make a recommendation?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:19:28
Not talking about a poll. Talking about measuring levels of support (in accordance with the GNSO Operating Procedures) for the various options.
Paul McGrady
01:19:37
@Jeff - we have to be very careful to no claim there is consensus or rough consensus on this or any other wording that is going to represent to the community that the WG came to the conclusion that 2012 AGB should be changed in some way. This is the point in the process where we have to trust you and CLO to respect the non-agreement we have reached.
Paul McGrady
01:19:50
+1 Marc
Annebeth Lange
01:20:00
Marc, +1
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:20:16
Agree Paul and Marc
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:31
Were not seeing ANY degree of consensus other than your agreeing to disagree at this point @Paul but we DO want to put something about the non decision (if that is the case as it seems) in the final report thus this airing of the topic again
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:43
no consensus does not mean no result, it is a result of non-consensus
Annebeth Lange
01:21:58
+1, but Greg has a good point that we should explain why we cannot reach agreement
Marc Trachtenberg
01:22:11
Except that then we will be arguing with those who want to hijack the reasoning for no consnensus to make their point
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:21
exactly @Annebeth
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:22:37
Haven't they been suspended for 12 years already.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:59
cryogenic actually ;-)
Marc Trachtenberg
01:23:00
No consensus is most accurate
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:02
maybe the status quo - until the next time?
Paul McGrady
01:23:04
@CLO, it certainly is OK to put the details of non-agreement to change the 2012 AGB in the Deliberations section, but not to pretend there are levels of agreement that might rise to a rough consensus that would convert one of the 3 non-agreed options into a Recommendation.
Paul McGrady
01:23:31
@Greg - no agreement on banning these and calling it a suspension.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:44
@Paul you have not hear the term 'Rough Consensus"from either Jeff or I
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:57
heard
Marc Trachtenberg
01:23:59
We do not have consensus on Greg's approach. Its an end run around no consensus
Marc Trachtenberg
01:24:13
HAND
Annebeth Lange
01:24:16
Suspension can be a good solution
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:21
We have no consensus on anyhong in this WG atm
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:31
anything
Elaine Pruis
01:24:34
Suspension makes sense
Greg Shatan
01:24:36
A suspension is not a ban. Consensus on an agreed result is not an end run around no consensus.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:38
sorry and I mean on this topic
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:45
NOT overall ;-)
Paul McGrady
01:24:50
@CLO - just being careful here since this is the first we have heard of the idea of ranking the three ideas.
Annebeth Lange
01:25:06
@Alan +1 - no poll
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:09
Noted @Paul
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:25:12
Do not support a indefinite suspension. This is one of the most active PDP WGs with consistent attendance. Discussing this for another two to three years isn't going to change much.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:25:25
HAND
Greg Shatan
01:25:32
No consensus is a divergence of opinion where no result can be found.
Jim Prendergast
01:25:38
I could support a suspension. There is significant amount of implementation work that will need to be done and that allows for more work on it.
Elaine Pruis
01:25:43
“Suspension until a policy can be created” not by this group obviously
Terri Agnew
01:25:44
Reminder to lower hand once you have asked your question.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:25:50
I got you Marc after Paul...unless you want to pre-empt him this time
Paul McGrady
01:26:02
@Alan - respectfully, delegitimizing the work of this WG by calling it "unbalanced" is very troubling.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:26:13
I will let Paul jump on the grenade first
Paul McGrady
01:26:16
OK for Marc to go first
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:23
The *most* we can do is make a recommendation if there was (and there is not) any degree of agreement for such
Paul McGrady
01:26:25
:-)
Marc Trachtenberg
01:26:39
I'll go an be quick
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:26:44
+1 Greg - saying nothing at all is just asking for litigation against ICANN. If we say "suspension for further policy development", we are telling applicants you are taking a risk and we are limiting risk for ICANN.. Applicants in the next round can get priority by applying cause no other applications will be permitted.
Greg Shatan
01:27:00
We can also recommend that this be worked on and a permanent result should be arrived at.
Elaine Pruis
01:27:11
+1 Anne
Jeffrey Neuman
01:27:19
FYI, the GAC Advice does not include the term "Global Public Interest"....It states: "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a publicinterest goal.'
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:55
Well noted @Jeff... Thank you
Marc Trachtenberg
01:27:56
@ Jeff - I am sure that different GAC members have VERY different ideas of what is in the public interest
Marc Trachtenberg
01:28:23
We are not here to protect ICANN from litigation
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:46
Thanks @Anne
Susan Payne
01:28:49
what's the point of suspension? isn't that just a ban by another name in practice. are we seriously suggesting a new PDP will have a different outcome to this one?
Annebeth Lange
01:28:52
@Anne - predictability is essential
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:28:53
We have know way to understand the harm. What about rather than an suspension, a number of closed generics be allowed in order to better understand whether the perceived harm is real or are there benefits to Internet users and innovation in the domain name space.
Elaine Pruis
01:29:43
We have no consensus that Closed Generics should be allowed as well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:29:43
@Marc we have focussed on *predictability* throughout most of our work and it is an overarching goal of our work for the record
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:30:16
@Paul - you get priority and you are not banned.
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:18
@Paul - we have rejected that argument too -
Elaine Pruis
01:31:19
The WG recommendation is not to allow for Closed Generics. That’s a leap
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:32
in light of all that happened on this issue AFTER the 2012 Guidebook
Greg Shatan
01:31:55
Suspension can be limited until the next Sub Pro or even earlier; it can be very clear that we don’t want it to be permanent.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:32:01
The fallback on this topic could just as easily be 2012 implementation versus the 2012 silence on the topic. In all other areas, 2012 IMPLEMENTATION is the fallback.
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:07
+1 Greg
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:38
We hear you @Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:48
but we hear everyone
Paul McGrady
01:32:52
There is nothing keeping the Board from sending this back. They can send it back as an EPDP.
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:07
good question
Marc Trachtenberg
01:33:32
If we could give any guidelines we could provide then we wouldn't be where we are
Elaine Pruis
01:33:45
Get disinterested parties to consider the question.
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:10
future group will have future charter, so there is no need to try
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:44
no
Jeffrey Neuman
01:34:47
@Maxim - if we can provide some guidance to the board on "how to resolve this issue" as opposed to what the resolution is, then that could be helpful
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:55
ANy future group should surely refer to our discourse and experiences post 2012 Guidebook and re last Rpund as well as all other discussions on the matter
Kathy Kleiman
01:35:12
Agree with Cheryl
Annebeth Lange
01:35:35
+1 to Cheryl
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:37
I think there is a difference between a "Closed Generic that serves a Public Interest" versus determining that a Closed Generic is "in the Global Public Interest". Further policy development efforts should be focused on the former.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:36:45
We could refer consideration of an Objection mechanism to further policy development via EPDP.
Jim Prendergast
01:37:14
in the next 7 minutes....
Martin Sutton
01:37:17
Making policy decisions based on actual data, such as Donna proposes, would be valuable. Presently, we are simply relying on assumptions.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:38:14
+1 Anne
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:38:17
Exactly Martin, at least give the applicant the opportunity to justify or speak to their business case and explain any public interest aspects.
Annebeth Lange
01:38:17
Perhaps such idea could be included in the charter of a EPDP, Martin
Paul McGrady
01:38:27
Aspirational work by hypothetical future group + suspension = ban
Elaine Pruis
01:38:32
@ Martin, perhaps calling in economists and ethicists for their opinion
Marc Trachtenberg
01:38:43
+1 tp paul
Paul McGrady
01:38:47
Avri and Becky made it clear that the last round suspension isn't still in affect.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:39:06
Cannot support a suspension.
Susan Payne
01:39:12
The trouble is Greg that the suspension creates a de facto status quo then. future work will be stymied by those who have no incentive to compromise since the new status quo suits them just fire
Susan Payne
01:39:23
fine
Marc Trachtenberg
01:39:44
@ Greg - So is ICANN moving to a level below consensus based approach to creating policy?
Paul McGrady
01:40:01
+1 Susan
Marc Trachtenberg
01:40:12
+2 Susan
Greg Shatan
01:40:36
Marc, we have had that level as long I’ve been around. It’s called “strong support but significant opposition.”
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:40:57
@Paul - I don't agree with your conclusion about what Avri and Becky said. All they said was "it's not policy". It's a question of how 2012 was implemented. We should recommend EPDP now so it gets started faster versus leaving it for months and ending up with the Board sending it back to GNSO
Greg Shatan
01:41:06
And that is considered a level of consensus as I recall.
Greg Shatan
01:41:31
2 minute drill! Red zone!!
Marc Trachtenberg
01:41:32
I don't think there is strong support for a suspension. And its also an end run to get no closed generics
Terri Agnew
01:41:34
The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled on Thursday, 10 December 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:41:47
Thanks Terri
Kathy Kleiman
01:41:55
I think there is pretty diverse support for a suspension.
Paul McGrady
01:42:06
@kathy - no, there isn't
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:13
Tx Jeff and Cheryl!
Marc Trachtenberg
01:42:13
@ Kathy - I disagree
Elaine Pruis
01:42:14
Yes there is
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:19
thanks all
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:42:19
I think there is pretty diverse support for no suspension.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:25
You all have actually achieved a great deal today people THANK you ALL
Greg Shatan
01:42:27
We wont know until we find out.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:42:29
Fortunately your thought is not enough to make decisions
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:33
We herd you all
Annebeth Lange
01:42:34
Thanks all, interesting discussion
Julie Hedlund
01:42:36
Topics for Thursday, 10 December 0300 UTC: Topic 21: Reserved Names; Topic 21.1: Geographic Names; Topic 4: Different TLD Types
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:42:49
there is pretty diverse support for suspension and further policy work recommendation
Susan Payne
01:42:53
+1 donna - agree, no suspension