[NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [liaison6c] Minutes | New gTLD Program Committee

[Robin Gross]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: February 5, 2013 1:11:50 AM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Minutes | New gTLD Program Committee
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new- 
> gtld-10jan13-en.htm
> Minutes | New gTLD Program Committee
>
> 10 January 2013
> Note: On 10 April 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program  
> Committee, comprised of all voting members of the Board that are  
> not conflicted with respect to the New gTLD Program. The Committee  
> was granted all of the powers of the Board (subject to the  
> limitations set forth by law, the Articles of incorporation, Bylaws  
> or ICANN's Conflicts of Interest Policy) to exercise Board-level  
> authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New  
> gTLD Program. The full scope of the Committee's authority is set  
> forth in its charter athttp://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gTLD.
>
> A Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of  
> Directors was held on 10 January 2013 at 16:00 UTC.
>
> Committee Chairman Cherine Chalaby promptly called the meeting to  
> order.
>
> In addition to the Chair the following Directors participated in  
> all or part of the meeting: Fadi Chehadé (President and CEO), Chris  
> Disspain, Bill Graham, Olga Madruga-Forti, Erika Mann, Gonzalo  
> Navarro, Ray Plzak, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, Judith Vazquez  
> and Kuo-Wei Wu.
>
> Francisco da Silva, TLG Liaison, was in attendance as non-voting  
> liaisons to the committee.
>
> Heather Dryden, GAC Liaison, was in attendance as an invited observer.
>
> Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison sent apologies.
>
> John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary), Akram Atallah (Chief  
> Operating Officer), Megan Bishop, Michelle Bright, Samantha Eisner,  
> Dan Halloran, Jamie Hedlund, Karen Lentz, Margie Milam, Cyrus  
> Nemazi, Amy Stathos and Christine Willett were also in attendance.
>
> Main Agenda:
> Reporting Structure
> Maturing the DNS Industry
> Enforcing Applicant Commitments
> Closed Generic Strings
> Consumer Choice Review
>
>
> 1.     Main Agenda:
>
> The Chair provided an overview of the Agenda before the Committee.
>
> o   Reporting Structure
>
> Christine Willett provided a review of a proposed regular reporting  
> structure to the Committee, including a monthly status update and  
> reporting against key milestones. A portion of that information  
> will then be provided to the community as a part of regular  
> external reporting.
>
> Ray Plzak requested consideration of how the Board members that are  
> not on the Committee could be provided with the public reporting so  
> that the Board members are prepared and informed on issues prior to  
> the release to the community. Ray also suggested that a definitive  
> meeting schedule would be helpful for the Committee.
>
> The General Counsel and Secretary reminded the Committee that at  
> the time of its establishment, it was decided that the Board  
> members not on the Committee would be provided with information on  
> the Program at the same time information is provided to the public,  
> but that process can be revisited and designed in a manner to  
> assure that that there are no additional advantages given to Board  
> members who receive this information prior to the community.
>
> Ray requested that at minimum, the Board has to have clear and  
> simultaneous communications on the release of this information, at  
> the time that it is circulated to the community. The Board should  
> not be surprised by the release of information.
>
> George Sadowsky noted that the metrics are valuable for reporting,  
> but the Committee needs to remain aware of the qualitative issues  
> that are essential for the Committee to discuss. The reporting  
> cannot be designed in a way that it would omit the essential issues.
>
> The Chair confirmed that reporting on issues is part of the  
> expected reporting. There has to be an allowance for management to  
> do their job, so the Committee needs to be aware of their oversight  
> role. The Chair agreed with Ray's suggestion of providing timely  
> information to the Board.
>
> Christine then provided a review of the sample of the report, in  
> advance of the applicant webinar scheduled for the following day. A  
> large focus of the report was on the status of the initial  
> evaluation work.
>
> Mike Silber commented that the monthly reporting is well done, but  
> noted that there are some issues that have to be addressed by the  
> Committee that cannot fall off of the agenda. Mike requested some  
> information on how to track issues outside of Christine's reporting.
>
> The President and CEO acknowledged frustration expressed by Mike,  
> and confirmed that while Christine is busy on the operational side,  
> ICANN has hired a Vice President of gTLD Relations, Cyrus Nemazi,  
> to help manage some of the relationship side issues as a complement  
> to Christine's operational role.
>
> o   Maturing the DNS Industry
>
> The President and CEO provided an update to the Committee on his  
> efforts relating to his discussions with various DNS Industry  
> leaders, including the forthcoming CEO Roundtables. Part of the  
> work of maturing the DNS industry is related to filling out the  
> ICANN team that can guide the New gTLD Program in a professional  
> manner. The CEO Roundtable s will include discussions on how to  
> raise the profile of the DNS sector, including recognizing the  
> responsibilities and opportunities that exist.
>
> o   Enforcing Applicant Commitments
>
> The Chair introduced the topic is addressing GAC advice by  
> enforcing applicant commitments. The Chair queried that this is not  
> necessarily a topic for the New gTLD Program Committee alone, and  
> may be appropriate for the full Board, particularly in relation to  
> considering GAC advice.
>
> The COO noted that ICANN's response to the GAC's Communiqué from  
> Toronto, which addressed this issue, so some guidance from the  
> Committee would be of value.
>
> Heather Dryden noted the import of this issue for the GAC, and the  
> need to have a strong response for the GAC.
>
> Chris Disspain noted that though there is a need to respond to the  
> GAC, there should not be a rush to a solution, and the proposed  
> mechanisms provided by staff required significant discussion.  
> Commitments cannot be made to the GAC that cannot be met. However,  
> the Committee could surely signal that it is committed to work on  
> this issue. Chris proposed that the issue be handled more in depth  
> at the Los Angeles Board workshop.
>
> Bill Graham cautioned that there has to be rapid response to the  
> GAC, but further discussion on a potential resolution could wait  
> for the 20 days until the workshop. Mike Silber agreed.
>
> Ray Plzak agreed with Chris's proposal on a communication to the  
> GAC, and noted that it was premature to take any action towards a  
> resolution. Erika Mann agreed with Ray's comment.
>
> George Sadowsky concurred that the Committee is not ready to take  
> action on this issue, and work needs to be done to best implement a  
> response to the GAC advice.
>
> The General Counsel and Secretary noted that there were some great  
> ideas arising out of this discussion that can be considered. First,  
> formal resolution on a solution is not necessary to respond to the  
> GAC. Second, the full Board must determine if GAC advice is being  
> accepted, which will require more work towards a proposal. John  
> suggested the identification of a member of the Committee to serve  
> as a shepherd for this issue through the Board, in preparation for  
> a more fulsome discussion at the Board's upcoming workshop.
>
> Chris Disspain volunteered to serve as the shepherd.
>
> Olga Madruga-Forti noted that it is important to empower the staff  
> to come back with proposed solutions, using guidance provided by  
> the Committee.
>
> The Chair expressed his agreement on the direction noted by the  
> Committee, and it will be considered at the workshop in Los  
> Angeles. He noted that he will coordinate with the Chair of the  
> Board on providing a response to the GAC at this issue.
>
> o   Closed Generic Strings
>
> Karen Lentz made a presentation to the Committee on the issue  
> emerging on closed generic strings. Much of the discussion has  
> focused on the Code of Conduct, which is part of the Registry  
> Agreement that concerns nondiscriminatory access that registries  
> are required to offer to registries regarding selling registrations  
> in the TLDs. This is a separate issue from who is allowed to  
> register a name in a TLD. There are certain applications identified  
> where, because of the string applied for and what the applicant has  
> said in the application about how they intend to use it, there's a  
> concern that the registration policy for domain names in the TLD is  
> not appropriate. The Code of Conduct does not address eligibility  
> requirements that a registry might have or who can register domain  
> names. Under the current rules, there's nothing that would prevent  
> the use of closed generics, which is focused on the issue of who  
> can register a name. There is the need for some clarity on this  
> issue in the community. By way of background the policy  
> recommendations that serve as the basis for the New gTLD Program  
> did not address the question of who is allowed to register in a  
> TLD. It would be difficult to try to create rules for or definition  
> of a closed generic string at this time.
>
> The Chair inquired about the role of exemptions to the Code of  
> Conduct as it relates to the closed generic issue.
>
> Karen clarified that the exemption provision is a separate from the  
> issue of how generic strings are used. The exemption is for the  
> purpose of identifying those who don't plan to offer registrations  
> externally, and only serves as an exemption from having to offer  
> the TLD to all registrars. The exemption has nothing to do with an  
> ICANN decision, for example, on whether an exempted registry may  
> limit the actual registrations in the TLD.
>
> Mike Silber noted that the global public interest also guides  
> ICANN, and that has to be factored in. Many of the Board members  
> will be uncomfortable approving TLDs that are seen as a land grab,  
> as opposed to expansion of the DNS.
>
> George Sadowsky agreed with the clarification of the two issues as  
> presented by Karen, but noted that there should be consideration of  
> whether registrants are allowed to look at qualifications for  
> registering in TLDs. The global public interest has to be  
> considered, and there has to be consideration of who decides how  
> this is considered when faced with an application for an exemption.  
> Some of the applicants have clearly already considered that they  
> wish to seek an exemption, and some of these may go directly  
> against the spirit of the creation of the exemption. We have to  
> address this issue now.
>
> Erika Mann commented that she approaches this issue differently.  
> It's important to clarify the definition of the public interest.  
> This is a separate endeavor from understanding generic strings,  
> which can be considered breaking apart those that are within a  
> regulated sector and those which are not. It's important to look  
> for viable solutions, such as consideration of a misuse of  
> dominance provision. The Committee would benefit from additional  
> discussion on this topic at the workshop.
>
> Olga Madruga-Forti thanked Karen for her paper and summary. Olga  
> noted that there seems to be some consensus in the Committee that  
> this is a problem that has to be dealt with, and noted that there  
> may be some concerns of competition policy that should be  
> incorporated into the consideration of the global public interest.
>
> Gonzalo Navarro noted that this issue is not going to be resolved  
> now and that the conversation deserves more time.
>
> Heather Dryden contributed that some GAC members have identified  
> concerns related to these issue. Further conversation is welcomed.
>
> The Chair summarized that that Committee needs more time and  
> clarity on this issue. A serious discussion is to follow in Los  
> Angeles.
>
> The COO noted that we have to be careful in how we address this  
> situation, as the applications have been presented based on what is  
> in the Guidebook, and we need to be aware of changes that could  
> affect their applications. We have to give careful consideration to  
> this issue.
>
> o   Consumer Choice Review
>
> Ray Plzak introduced the topic of the Consumer Choice review that  
> is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, noting that it is  
> necessary to begin preparations for that review. The issue is  
> raised as appoint of information.
>
> The Chair called the meeting to a close.
>
> Published on 4 February 2013
>
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130205/5dfb3c46/attachment.html>