What other session?

QandA with the ExCo

one of the many prep week calls just ended

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

;-) @Jeff

Someone raised an issue in that session re .doctor and .docteur - it referred to Sub Pro

so if. doctor terminated, it would be taken care after ;)

Here is the document on screen: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlFCp9cCks7WySF1bqMbFJEg-IpCOoMNQsfIQs4QYcU/edit

Thanks Maxim - I don't know the status of .doctor - what is it and also is there a .docteur waiting in line?

. doctor is alive

http://whois.nic.doctor/

@Maxim - thank you.

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?

too many frameworks?

Is there a pointer to the safeguards?

Good catch @Paul Noted

Does "supports" the program mean that the WG AFFIRMS the NGPC approach?

The document currently in screen is available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-2-05feb14-en.pdf

on screen

Up to registry operator to determine.

That would likely be a question for governments as well.

Does framework include annex showing sample strings per group?

It's footnoted

some applicants were from tax heavens

but does it play for Netherlands? most EU might think it is tax heaven

Certainly NT @Jeff!

NOT

so it is not for us to decide

agreed Jeff

I don't think the jurisdiction of incorporation would significantly impact would it? ICANN has the power to impose sanctions, including cancelling the RA

Weren’t the safeguards imposed after the applications were made? So how could they have been avoiding the safeguards?

@Susan, ICANN just follows the law

and sanctions are not for non for profit to establish

+1 Jeff

"Closed Entry Requirements in Multiple Jurisdictions" --> seems to invoke a more common standard

is Delaware better than some island in term of taxes?

it is not for us to deciee

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.

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.

Oopd - ost my phone connection - see chat!

@Kathy - would also be the application itself

Sure, Paul.

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.

@Panel? That would become the embryo of a multi-sector global regulator. That would become BIG…!!

@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).

Could the GNSO be the panel, providing recommendations to the Board?

I lean towards NGPC-like entity with consultation with GAC.

@Martin - Not sure this is a GNSO thing. Seems like it should be person(s) familiar with regulated industries

The GAC could be in a position to make recommendations, as they should be familiar with regulated industries in their country

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?

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?

@Paul, commitment in "using it for a nonregulated purpose" would still need to go into the RA.

@Justine - I agree with that.

If the TLD is to be operated "in a way that is consistent with applicable laws," wouldn't that ve a governmental thing?

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?

@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.

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.

@Alan - yes

@Alan, I agree

I thought the Board deferred to independent Dispute Resolution Providers

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?

routine monitoring is not a part of job, as I understand

There is a "geographic names panel"

for compliance dept of ICANN

who would serve on it?

An evaluation panel is good.

panelists :)

Lots of panels. None of which can take away GAC mechanisms or Board responsibilities.

If we go with an evaluation panel, then we will have to amend point no. 2 and work in that evaluation/panel.

@Justine, sounds good. These kind of panels are more some people doing evaluation.

@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.

+1 Jeff

+1 Jeff

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.

Here is information on the 5 "Panels" for the 2012 round:

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]

Well the links didn't work.

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/evaluation-panels

Agree @Martin, which is why I lean towards an NGPC-like entity and in consultation with GAC.

Tx Jeff!

+1 Justine

@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

Yes

+1 paul that would be a mess. and hugely onerous for the board

+1 Justine

would the composition of the panel include a GAC member ?

@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.

I agree with Paul.

But we seem to have a fairly narrow scope of review for GeoNames

@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?

That's interesting, tx Paul! I'm thinking...

I can be persuaded

@Paul - would close of public comment come before/after Early Warning deadline?

The composition of the panel might do the trick.

Agree Jeff - it takes the pressure of the GAC and Board to review all, just the outliers need their attention

Is the Panel going to apply the NGPC Framework or some new Framework?

+1 on Public comment as to regulated strings

@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.

Good to place evaluation post public comment. Public comment may help pick up applications which did not self-identify but should have.

noted @Justine

Sorry I have to step away for a moment - need to reserve comment on this HRSP

@Justine - agree. Public comment will help inform the HRSP's decision.

Panel of Experts in Regulated Industries

And the mandate to call for experts?

different jurisdictions, different regulations

Makes sense that HRSP should be able to consult with SMEs

but how is this different to having a panel determine community priority? that's pretty broad

@Maxim - that is why getting the public comment in before a decision by the HRSP makes sense.

1. Self-categorization, 2. Panel should have power to add specialists and experts, 3) Timing - to follow Early Warnings and Public comment

for example armament manufacturing - highly regulated, but very differently

plus, if we are saying this is too complex for a panel why woud we think the Board can do this!

you absolutely need to have the GAC Advice

Otherwise you're going back to square one

we can not prevent it from happening

@Jeff, point no. 2 "(i.e. this is not an evaluation element of the program)" needs to be deleted or amended.

GAC Early Warning comes in during Public Comment period.

But there is nothing prohibiting Early Warnings before the close of the public comment period.

most of the GAC members didn't do any EWs. Australia did practically all of them until they ran out of time

Unless we make it clear, then it is not part of the express rules

Yup we sure did @Susan

great!

WE should check with ICANN staff as to what the norm is and whether this is allowed/forbidden/optional

We should check with the GAC and see what the governments say

What do we think about .missiles?

We have to mention there is an evaluation

.drones

If an applicant is subjected to this evaluation does that change their application costs, or how is the expense for the evaluation covered?

@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.

The Panel would need an ICANN budget to finance the multiple calls on Experts.

But Paul, what is Sony is doing a moving on the army?

movie

what are you saying Kathy - assume you're OK with that no? free speech and all?

+1 Jeff because it's not an evaluation that an applicant opts for.

+1 Jeff

So does the issue of whether or not it is highly-regulated depend on PICs to limit eligibility to videogame use?

@Jeff - well done!

Good discussion!

A big call today!

Thanks everyone good work progressing this

and Now... … ...

Not sure there is an issue with timing because aren't we recommending that Early Warning be done during public comment period?

in some countries video games are highly regulated :)

True Maxim

what's the page no please

@Maxim - see - public comment is already working. :-)

approximately p 80, Susan

cheers emily

we should forbid.iana from being used by non PTI

.exe ;)

Is it a must that we stick to just acronyms?

and.html

Shouldn't we have SSAC input on this?

@Anne - why?

ssac is not fast

SSAC didn't care that their full name was not reserved or that the full name of IANA is not protected

@Susan, sorry, I don't understand your question above. Happy to talk offline!

Given the audience for these entities is VERY limited, I can't see going to the wall over these.

The rise of alternative roots does concern me also. This approach with PTI might update the practice of just sticking to acronyms.

And sacred . Pdp

In the Initial Report, the question was asked after the full strings

Please read my rationale

I said rationale not chat

powerful logic Jeff!

the COmment

"which is consistent with preliminary recommendation 2.7.1.c.1 of the SubPro Initial Report."

I was answering Anne's question

Let's ask for Public Comment on what the ALAC wants!

Are anyone really interested in that long TLDs?

true

ahhh. ok

. org iana

@Annebeth - we could just pass a rule against dumb top levels. It would catch it. :-)

@Paul - ha, ha!

moving on

You raised it @Alan!

I get to agree with Alan twice in one call!!

@Alan raised and he ended it!

that rule would have saved a lot of people a lot of $$ in 2012

@Jim +1!

part of building consensus @Alan ;-)

@Paul, I'll try to not let that happen again.

Does it require Consensus Policy to determine reserved names or can it be determine otherwise?

+1 Paul

thanks all, have to drop

Thanks Jeff

if there are slides for that meeting, could we get those ahead of time? thanks

Thanks all

+1 Jim - we need the slides

Will we continue to review "can't live with" next thursday then?

thx

Great super productive call!

and could we get July calendar items for those meetings. sorry to be a nudge but need to do some planning/scheduling

During ICANN 68 - are you kidding?

Could we get the time of the Thursday's call?

Whew!

@justine - same as this

Thanks all.

Thanks everyone, we shall … continue on... Bye for now..

yesssss!

Bye

bue