Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Kathy Kleiman
30:13
What other session?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
30:27
QandA with the ExCo
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
30:47
one of the many prep week calls just ended
Andrea Glandon
31:02
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
31:41
;-) @Jeff
Anne Aikman-Scalese
32:03
Someone raised an issue in that session re .doctor and .docteur - it referred to Sub Pro
Maxim Alzoba
32:20
so if. doctor terminated, it would be taken care after ;)
Emily Barabas
33:38
Here is the document on screen: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlFCp9cCks7WySF1bqMbFJEg-IpCOoMNQsfIQs4QYcU/edit
Anne Aikman-Scalese
34:32
Thanks Maxim - I don't know the status of .doctor - what is it and also is there a .docteur waiting in line?
Maxim Alzoba
37:51
. doctor is alive
Maxim Alzoba
37:54
http://whois.nic.doctor/
Anne Aikman-Scalese
39:08
@Maxim - thank you.
Paul McGrady
39:28
We use "framework" to refer to what the NGPC and then we refer to it (I think) as a reference to the document we are going over now. Can we clarify?
Jim Prendergast
41:03
too many frameworks?
Alan Greenberg
41:25
Is there a pointer to the safeguards?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:31
Good catch @Paul Noted
Anne Aikman-Scalese
43:00
Does "supports" the program mean that the WG AFFIRMS the NGPC approach?
Emily Barabas
43:51
The document currently in screen is available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-2-05feb14-en.pdf
Emily Barabas
43:57
on screen
Gg Levine (NABP)
44:59
Up to registry operator to determine.
Justine Chew
45:15
That would likely be a question for governments as well.
Gg Levine (NABP)
47:35
Does framework include annex showing sample strings per group?
Justine Chew
47:56
It's footnoted
Maxim Alzoba
49:19
some applicants were from tax heavens
Maxim Alzoba
50:18
but does it play for Netherlands? most EU might think it is tax heaven
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:21
Certainly NT @Jeff!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:24
NOT
Maxim Alzoba
50:29
so it is not for us to decide
Phil Buckingham
50:30
agreed Jeff
Susan.Payne
50:47
I don't think the jurisdiction of incorporation would significantly impact would it? ICANN has the power to impose sanctions, including cancelling the RA
Martin Sutton
51:06
Weren’t the safeguards imposed after the applications were made? So how could they have been avoiding the safeguards?
Maxim Alzoba
51:16
@Susan, ICANN just follows the law
Maxim Alzoba
51:35
and sanctions are not for non for profit to establish
Gg Levine (NABP)
51:49
+1 Jeff
Kathy Kleiman
53:16
"Closed Entry Requirements in Multiple Jurisdictions" --> seems to invoke a more common standard
Maxim Alzoba
54:29
is Delaware better than some island in term of taxes?
Maxim Alzoba
54:40
it is not for us to deciee
Paul McGrady
54:43
Great example as "hotels" could also refer to a type of office set up which is not regulated much at all. Depends on the use of the TLD.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:41
I think with the Board because they are the ones that have to deal with GAC Advice. GAC may give advice this time that is specific to the four categories and you don't want conflict between a panel decision and GAC Advice - that is untenable for the Board.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:27
Oopd - ost my phone connection - see chat!
Paul McGrady
58:41
@Kathy - would also be the application itself
Kathy Kleiman
59:06
Sure, Paul.
Paul McGrady
59:23
If an applicant is going to roll out a TLD that sounds regulated but will be using it for a nonregulated purpose, the application needs to say that.
christopher wilkinson
59:49
@Panel? That would become the embryo of a multi-sector global regulator. That would become BIG…!!
Paul McGrady
01:00:59
@Anne - the Board would be a backstop. If the GAC gives GAC Consensus Advice for an application that passed the Panel, the Board would then have to act on the GAC Consensus Advice (or not).
Martin Sutton
01:01:01
Could the GNSO be the panel, providing recommendations to the Board?
Justine Chew
01:01:45
I lean towards NGPC-like entity with consultation with GAC.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:02:18
@Martin - Not sure this is a GNSO thing. Seems like it should be person(s) familiar with regulated industries
Katrin Ohlmer
01:03:22
The GAC could be in a position to make recommendations, as they should be familiar with regulated industries in their country
Annebeth Lange
01:03:31
Isn’t the Board a kind of a panel representing the multistakeholder society? By the way, do we have anyone from the GAC on the call tonight?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:03:53
do we have history on the Board being able to reduce Panel rulings? I thought we were talking about an independent Panel ruling? Are we talking about an internal ICANN panel that is subject to the ICANN Board review?
Justine Chew
01:04:15
@Paul, commitment in "using it for a nonregulated purpose" would still need to go into the RA.
Paul McGrady
01:04:28
@Justine - I agree with that.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:04:52
If the TLD is to be operated "in a way that is consistent with applicable laws," wouldn't that ve a governmental thing?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:38
It seems a Panel is getting the greatest tracking here as a way forward then, with the Board using all its normal rights and safetynets etc., Yes?
Paul McGrady
01:06:39
@Gg, but this is for "highly regulated" strings, not regulated strings. TO a certain extent, all businesses have regulation. That sort of garden variety situation is not what we are trying to address.
Paul McGrady
01:07:27
Agree with Alan. A Panel will not get in the way of either the GAC or the Board nor restrict the mechanisms that they each have under the Bylaws.
Paul McGrady
01:07:43
@Alan - yes
Annebeth Lange
01:07:56
@Alan, I agree
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:08:15
I thought the Board deferred to independent Dispute Resolution Providers
Justine Chew
01:09:14
Do we anticipate for GAC to communicate with applicant on how to resolve concerns triggered by [this] GAC Advice? Is there a need for it?
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:50
routine monitoring is not a part of job, as I understand
Jeffrey Neuman
01:10:23
There is a "geographic names panel"
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:58
for compliance dept of ICANN
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:04
who would serve on it?
Justine Chew
01:12:16
An evaluation panel is good.
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:17
panelists :)
Paul McGrady
01:12:32
Lots of panels. None of which can take away GAC mechanisms or Board responsibilities.
Justine Chew
01:13:12
If we go with an evaluation panel, then we will have to amend point no. 2 and work in that evaluation/panel.
Annebeth Lange
01:13:19
@Justine, sounds good. These kind of panels are more some people doing evaluation.
Paul McGrady
01:13:22
@Kathy - ICANN would hire it out like they do with the geo names panel, string confusion panel, etc. It is not a panel like WIPO panelists.
Paul McGrady
01:13:33
+1 Jeff
Annebeth Lange
01:13:41
+1 Jeff
Martin Sutton
01:14:00
In effect, NGPC was the panel last time but that is not a reasonable model to take forward. I agree with Paul that a panel is the most effective way forward.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:16
Here is information on the 5 "Panels" for the 2012 round:
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:18
DNS Stability Evaluation Panel [PDF, 554 KB]Financial/Technical & Operational Capability Evaluation Panels [PDF, 308 KB]Geographic Names Panel [PDF, 733 KB]Registry Services Evaluation Panel [PDF, 198 KB]String Similarity Evaluation Panel [PDF, 143 KB]
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:26
Well the links didn't work.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:34
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/evaluation-panels
Justine Chew
01:15:02
Agree @Martin, which is why I lean towards an NGPC-like entity and in consultation with GAC.
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:08
Tx Jeff!
Annebeth Lange
01:15:24
+1 Justine
Paul McGrady
01:16:04
@Justine - requiring the ICANN Board to create a new Board committee and baking in an GAC consultancy requirement is going to be a big mess
Justine Chew
01:16:24
Yes
Susan.Payne
01:16:46
+1 paul that would be a mess. and hugely onerous for the board
Katrin Ohlmer
01:17:15
+1 Justine
Phil Buckingham
01:17:24
would the composition of the panel include a GAC member ?
Paul McGrady
01:17:26
@Jeff, this is exactly the kind of thing we can trust to a Panel. And, it leaves the GAC and the Board to both act as backstops under their own mechanisms.
Alan Greenberg
01:17:57
I agree with Paul.
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:23
But we seem to have a fairly narrow scope of review for GeoNames
Paul McGrady
01:20:25
@Jeff - can we ease some of Kathy's concerns by baking in that the Highly Regulated Strings Panel waits to make its decision until the close of public comment period following reveal day?
Kathy Kleiman
01:20:56
That's interesting, tx Paul! I'm thinking...
Justine Chew
01:20:56
I can be persuaded
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:30
@Paul - would close of public comment come before/after Early Warning deadline?
Justine Chew
01:21:36
The composition of the panel might do the trick.
Martin Sutton
01:21:41
Agree Jeff - it takes the pressure of the GAC and Board to review all, just the outliers need their attention
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:48
Is the Panel going to apply the NGPC Framework or some new Framework?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:22:29
+1 on Public comment as to regulated strings
Paul McGrady
01:24:13
@Jeff - exactly right. If I apply for .Antibiotics and I don't self-identify, the HRSP tells me to adopt the PICS or they bounce me. That way, the GAC doesn't have to be vigilant and they can deal with anything the HRSP misses.
Justine Chew
01:25:28
Good to place evaluation post public comment. Public comment may help pick up applications which did not self-identify but should have.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:45
noted @Justine
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:26:13
Sorry I have to step away for a moment - need to reserve comment on this HRSP
Paul McGrady
01:26:20
@Justine - agree. Public comment will help inform the HRSP's decision.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:26:24
Panel of Experts in Regulated Industries
Annebeth Lange
01:26:46
And the mandate to call for experts?
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:25
different jurisdictions, different regulations
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:27:31
Makes sense that HRSP should be able to consult with SMEs
Susan.Payne
01:27:34
but how is this different to having a panel determine community priority? that's pretty broad
Paul McGrady
01:28:07
@Maxim - that is why getting the public comment in before a decision by the HRSP makes sense.
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:16
1. Self-categorization, 2. Panel should have power to add specialists and experts, 3) Timing - to follow Early Warnings and Public comment
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:20
for example armament manufacturing - highly regulated, but very differently
Susan.Payne
01:28:28
plus, if we are saying this is too complex for a panel why woud we think the Board can do this!
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:27
you absolutely need to have the GAC Advice
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:35
Otherwise you're going back to square one
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:45
we can not prevent it from happening
Justine Chew
01:29:59
@Jeff, point no. 2 "(i.e. this is not an evaluation element of the program)" needs to be deleted or amended.
Justine Chew
01:30:29
GAC Early Warning comes in during Public Comment period.
Paul McGrady
01:30:41
But there is nothing prohibiting Early Warnings before the close of the public comment period.
Susan.Payne
01:30:52
most of the GAC members didn't do any EWs. Australia did practically all of them until they ran out of time
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:02
Unless we make it clear, then it is not part of the express rules
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:15
Yup we sure did @Susan
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:39
great!
Alan Greenberg
01:32:58
WE should check with ICANN staff as to what the norm is and whether this is allowed/forbidden/optional
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:24
We should check with the GAC and see what the governments say
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:33:52
What do we think about .missiles?
Justine Chew
01:34:05
We have to mention there is an evaluation
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:05
.drones
Jamie Baxter
01:35:15
If an applicant is subjected to this evaluation does that change their application costs, or how is the expense for the evaluation covered?
Paul McGrady
01:35:18
@Kathy - .drones are fine if Paramount pictures is applying to run a video game off of it featuring The Borg. But, they better say so in their application or else the HRSP will bounce them.
christopher wilkinson
01:35:22
The Panel would need an ICANN budget to finance the multiple calls on Experts.
Kathy Kleiman
01:35:59
But Paul, what is Sony is doing a moving on the army?
Kathy Kleiman
01:36:15
movie
Susan.Payne
01:36:54
what are you saying Kathy - assume you're OK with that no? free speech and all?
Justine Chew
01:37:08
+1 Jeff because it's not an evaluation that an applicant opts for.
Annebeth Lange
01:37:20
+1 Jeff
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:37:26
So does the issue of whether or not it is highly-regulated depend on PICs to limit eligibility to videogame use?
Paul McGrady
01:37:35
@Jeff - well done!
Annebeth Lange
01:37:46
Good discussion!
Paul McGrady
01:37:51
A big call today!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:52
Thanks everyone good work progressing this
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:38:01
and Now... … ...
Justine Chew
01:38:09
Not sure there is an issue with timing because aren't we recommending that Early Warning be done during public comment period?
Maxim Alzoba
01:38:17
in some countries video games are highly regulated :)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:38:39
True Maxim
Susan.Payne
01:38:39
what's the page no please
Paul McGrady
01:38:50
@Maxim - see - public comment is already working. :-)
Emily Barabas
01:38:58
approximately p 80, Susan
Susan.Payne
01:39:15
cheers emily
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:37
we should forbid.iana from being used by non PTI
Maxim Alzoba
01:41:42
.exe ;)
Justine Chew
01:41:47
Is it a must that we stick to just acronyms?
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:17
and.html
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:43:19
Shouldn't we have SSAC input on this?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:43:33
@Anne - why?
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:40
ssac is not fast
Jeffrey Neuman
01:44:01
SSAC didn't care that their full name was not reserved or that the full name of IANA is not protected
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:33
@Susan, sorry, I don't understand your question above. Happy to talk offline!
Alan Greenberg
01:45:02
Given the audience for these entities is VERY limited, I can't see going to the wall over these.
Justine Chew
01:45:24
The rise of alternative roots does concern me also. This approach with PTI might update the practice of just sticking to acronyms.
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:35
And sacred . Pdp
Justine Chew
01:47:32
In the Initial Report, the question was asked after the full strings
Justine Chew
01:48:14
Please read my rationale
Justine Chew
01:48:54
I said rationale not chat
Javier Rua-Jovet
01:49:04
powerful logic Jeff!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:09
the COmment
Justine Chew
01:49:53
"which is consistent with preliminary recommendation 2.7.1.c.1 of the SubPro Initial Report."
Justine Chew
01:50:46
I was answering Anne's question
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:50:56
Let's ask for Public Comment on what the ALAC wants!
Annebeth Lange
01:51:03
Are anyone really interested in that long TLDs?
Javier Rua-Jovet
01:51:27
true
Javier Rua-Jovet
01:51:38
ahhh. ok
Maxim Alzoba
01:51:39
. org iana
Paul McGrady
01:51:53
@Annebeth - we could just pass a rule against dumb top levels. It would catch it. :-)
Annebeth Lange
01:52:12
@Paul - ha, ha!
Javier Rua-Jovet
01:52:32
moving on
Justine Chew
01:52:35
You raised it @Alan!
Paul McGrady
01:52:50
I get to agree with Alan twice in one call!!
Javier Rua-Jovet
01:52:53
@Alan raised and he ended it!
Jim Prendergast
01:52:57
that rule would have saved a lot of people a lot of $$ in 2012
Paul McGrady
01:53:21
@Jim +1!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:39
part of building consensus @Alan ;-)
Alan Greenberg
01:55:09
@Paul, I'll try to not let that happen again.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:55:10
Does it require Consensus Policy to determine reserved names or can it be determine otherwise?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:55:20
+1 Paul
Maxim Alzoba
01:55:23
thanks all, have to drop
Paul McGrady
01:55:45
Thanks Jeff
Jim Prendergast
01:56:24
if there are slides for that meeting, could we get those ahead of time? thanks
Annebeth Lange
01:56:39
Thanks all
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:56:46
+1 Jim - we need the slides
Katrin Ohlmer
01:57:15
Will we continue to review "can't live with" next thursday then?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:57:48
thx
Javier Rua-Jovet
01:57:55
Great super productive call!
Jim Prendergast
01:57:55
and could we get July calendar items for those meetings. sorry to be a nudge but need to do some planning/scheduling
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:58:16
During ICANN 68 - are you kidding?
Justine Chew
01:58:21
Could we get the time of the Thursday's call?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:58:26
Whew!
Jim Prendergast
01:58:41
@justine - same as this
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:59:02
Thanks all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:03
Thanks everyone, we shall … continue on... Bye for now..
Javier Rua-Jovet
01:59:03
yesssss!
Katrin Ohlmer
01:59:06
Bye
Javier Rua-Jovet
01:59:07
bue