Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]> > Date: February 5, 2013 1:11:50 AM PST > To: liaison6c <[log in to unmask]> > 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 > [log in to unmask] > 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: [log in to unmask]