https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit#

Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

Emily was faster :-)

Page 30 of the Google doc

order of IDNs was drawn. Not rndomized

Correct, Jim.

Great!

or is a draw = to randomizartion?

I support Greg's modification -- morning fingers :-)

"save for applications for IDNs"

Sugesst you look at making the insertion after the word "randomize", e.g. "with idns taking priority at a group and randomnized separately"

nice wording

"which were treated separately but for which queueing was also randomized"

+1 Anne

yes, with AGB

+1 Anne

Yes to publishing at the same time.

+1 Jim

+1 Jim

What's the purpose of the Applicant Guidebook?

Is it to document all elements of the application, evaluation and other related information?

+1 Donna.

"at the same time AS the AGB"

Applicant guide should refer to where to find it

+1 for having it in the AGB. If not in the AGB, it seems appropriate to have it published prior to the application window opening.

Who objects to having in the AGB package? Not sure why this is being considered so final that changing it is a die in the ditch issue.

I agree with the support for having it in AGB. New comers will have enough of a time trying to find info on this.

@Jeff, can we add a brief explanatory note to the effect of what you just said re: the Implementation Guidance?

Suggestion: move ICANN HQ to Nevada where they know how to allow honest random processes.

I agree that it makes sense to put it in the AGB. And if not, I support Jamie that it should be published in advance.

Cool. Thanks @Jeff.

What do we do when we are split?

We said at the beginning of this PDP that we wouldn’t make changes to the existing policy if we couldn’t reach consensus to do so.

We seem to have changed the rules...

Agree with Alan

audio is breaking

Agree with Alan

I agree with Robin here, but it is too bad that we cannot agree on this.

@Robin, technically speaking, there is no existing policy on this.

That is true, Justine.

Priority only means priority of evaluation, right? Not priority rights over all other strings. So, for non-contention set IDNs, all we are talking about is non-contested IDNs making their way to market a little fast than non-contested non-IDNs, right? If so, is this a major issue?

Are you saying that staff implementation does not result in a practice that gets affirmed? That will certainly slow the process going forward. Look at all GDD decisions along the way.

We said we wouldn’t change what we did last time, so if it was policy via PDP or an insert into the guidebook after, we said we wouldn’t change it without a consensus to do so.

implementation is not a policy

@Anne - it could get affirmed If the group agrees to affirm. But here we do not have agreement to affirm. Nor is there agreement to reject

with lack of definition of public interest it is hard to do something against it

No IDNs at all would be a major policy change, and would require the decision of the WG.

we do not have agreement on this

Many, many commenters were registries

does it make comments invalid?

Given the length, intensity and complexity of our first report, it was largely an expert incumbent group that responded.

Does the category the item falls in depend in whether or not the Board approved it?

We've talked about this before - it's not a surprise.

Alan is correct.

implementation does not go into policy

on full auto

Agree with Alan - that is what we said. We applied this to many topics.

we do not approve or disapprove board decisions

We need to be consistent

I have no concern of the outcome but we cannot change the rules of this PDP because of how the text in this doc. is worded.

The lack of agreement to change the practice implemented in the 2012 round leads to the retention of what was practiced.

@kathy - Alan is correct in that PICs would be in the same category

The "policy" also had first come first served

@paul - correct

There is agreement that we not do first come first served

@Jeff: absolutely not. Voluntary private interest commitments are an unlimited, unbounded, bilateral, unreviewed set of anything a registry might want -- regardless of law, consensus policy or due process. It's an unlimited dumping ground -- that's not a policy.

@Alan, I agree

AGB as implemented

@kathy - PICs were the solution that ICANN org decided would be implemented to address GAC Advice

This is not different (except without the GAC Advice)

@Jeff -- and the kitchen sink went in. ICANN Staff never reviewed the voluntary private interest commitments in many cases had absolutely no alignment with GAC advice.

@Paul, but some of the 2007 GNSO Policy were displaced by different implementation.

hand up

@Jeff - how did the Community do that?

where/when?

@Justine - correct and I think any implementation that runs afoul of the Policy is fair game.

@Jeff - where in the 2007 Policy does it say first come first served?

Therefore, we have no agreement to do it a different way...

bye all, have to drop for SCBO

@Kathy - When did the community approve this?

@Jeff: I just askedyou that :-)

The ground rules of the PDP were that if there is no agreement, we fall back to the 2012 practice.

As long as we cannot agree on a change, my view is that we must be consistent and leave it as AGB as implemented, that os 2012 practice

@Greg - that elevates implementation over policy decisions.

That can't be right.

Yes Annebeth - that has been the understanding all along in the PDP.

The lack of agreement to change what was implemented in the 2012 round therefore leads to the retention of that implementation in subsequent rounds.

@Jeff - I think conflating this with Closed Generics is a problem. One could well argue that the creating a prohibition of Closed Generics after applications were in ran afoul of Policy ("All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore, no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the selection process."). This prioritization of IDNs isn't of the same ilk at all.

We can change any previous implementation we want, provided we have consensus to do so.

AGree Jeff - which means that the staff practice would stand based on our ground rules where there is no agreement.

Conflating with PICs also makes no sense.

@Kathy, that wasn’t what I was saying, If there is implementation that violates policy, it should not be considered “status quo.”

That's fine Jeff.

hand raises

raised

@Jeff, I agree

Consistence is important

Kathy, The Chair trumps a raised hand.

Agree, Annebeth.

@Jeff - its not about emotion. Its about whether or not it violated a policy. that is the consistency issue here

IDN Prioritization didn't seem to violate a policy. Conflating it with Closed Generics stacks the deck against the pro-closed generics folks in the next topic. Unfortunate.

We have not heretofore made a distinction in the "fallback to 2012" ground rules based on a conclusion as to whether or not the item was policy or implementation. If we start trying to do that, we will never get to the next round.

For the next round of public comment- right here -- let's add: "In the absence of agreement, our default recommendation is to continue to prioritize IDNs first -- as we did in the first round." And ask -- what do Commenters think. Pleasae make this nice and bold :-)

so people can find it easily...

Folks, I don't think we have enough time left to appropriately discuss Closed Generics. This is an important issue and I think it should get a fair hearing. It also would be nice if we could have a call about it where it wasn't already conflated with a fairly minor Staff implementation change.

https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en#2.a

my hand up too

There would have to be a criteria applied to any decision of this kind by the board, otherwise it becomes too subjective.

I think the threshold should be lower for approval of closed generics. Generally allow them.

I agree Robin.

@Alan, how would you prevent a string of challenges and appeals?

My hand has been up for a long tiem

@Alan, have we defined a "good" vs "bad" closed generic?

@KAthy, I thought I explicitly said that the Board decision was final and not appealable by any of the regular reconsideration measures.

@Alan, I just don't know how to make that implementable in light of existing Bylaws. That's why I'm asking...

@Kristine, that is why we have a Board. It is composed of people from all parts of the community and we appoint them because we beleive we trust their judgement. ANd if something is viewed to be "good" by the vast majority of the sitting Board (say 90%), then it is good. If the community disagrees, there are Empowered Community actions the community can take.

@Jeff - that's not what George and others were saying

The Empowered Community actions are very limited and I don't believe they would expand to disagreement with the Board on a closed generic string.

Agree with Jim

Rationale to resolution: The NGPC is also requesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue. The President and CEO should provide the GNSO with information needed to support this request.

This issue demonstrates why it's possible many large applicants may go ahead to apply for Closed Generic Strings in a speculative manner in order to establish priority. Due to the majority PDP position, they will thus be able to bar such applications in subsequent rounds where a new policy may apply. In other words, plant a flag on the moon and prohibit anyone else from landing there after you do so. The application does not get approved, but the applicant refuses to withdraw and gets priority.

@Donna, we could add a Bylaw including this as an action the EC could take, but I really don't think that is needed in this case,

Sorry, I fell out. My net is awful, where I am. Had problems getting contact again. Will read transcript

@Alan, that would take a very long time.

It seems a little late...

and Kathy??

@Alan - I don't think EC powers apply either in terms of Board approval of a specific application.

I agree that the public interest is important, but shouldn't we also try to balance this with one of the goals of new gTLDs is introduce competition and innovation. Closed generics places limitations on innovation.

@Paul, that's a stretch

Again, our ground rules say with no agreement, we revert to the 2012 round AS IMPLEMENTED

If anything would survive of its own accord, it's a Board-created policy with enormous public input.

@Alan, agree

I think Paul is right because the previous policy was explicit in not being ongoing.

@Alan, I'd argue this is an outstanding implementation issue because of the impact of the Board's options on applicants.

+1 Paul

We need to get to absolute clarity on what happens if we don't adopt an affirmative Policy ban on closed generics (which has never been adopted, by the way)

@Jeff, good idea

@Jeff - that will only work if the Leadership doesn't presuppose an outcome.

I think we need to develop a solution. If we want applicants to innovate in the next round, we need to make sure their hands aren't tied.

+1 Kristine

+1 Kristine.

Agree Kristine. We need clarity on this point.

The Framework on Global Public Interest is important here - good "test case" for the discussion in Cancun on that particular topic.

Let me clarify...it

@Jeff - would you consider moving this topic to the Face to Face meeting?

It's possible an outcome is "it seems applicants CAN mostly do what they want within the existing rules...let's codify some form of a ban" (Not saying that's likely, but possible.) But we should explore it to make sure we aren't unduly prejudicing new applicants.

@Anne - only IF it looks like we can make progress

We could consider Alan's proposal and it would solve the conflict with the EPDP.

I need to drop soon

+1 Kristine. Time for us all to get flexible and creative here.

Need to drop.

agree Alan

Let’s use the Board resolution rather than George’s interpretation.

+1 Martin.

Clearly people on the Board felt strongly :-)

That says something about the policy that they adopted...

Agree with Jeff. We should participate in good faith and assume others are as well.

But George

Next meeting: Thursday, February 20th at 15:00 UTC for 1 hour

George's words are useful for helping us understand what the Board did... and why

Thank you!

bye all