PDP-Dec05 New gTLDs committee teleconference minutes

PDP-Dec05 Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
Committee Teleconference

5 October 2006

Proposed agenda and documents

Committee members present
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars C.
Tom Keller - Registrars C.
Marilyn Cade - CBUC
Philip Sheppard - CBUC
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Ken Stubbs - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee

GNSO Council Liaisons
Bret Fausett - ALAC Liaison

Observers:
Werner Staub - Core
Chuck Gomes - Verisign
Alexander Schubert - dotBERLIN
Dirk Krischenowski - dotBERLIN
Ray Fassett - dotJOBS

ICANN Staff
Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel
Denise Michel - Vice President Policy Development
Kurt Pritz - Vice President, Business Operations
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
Tina Dam - IDN Program Director
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy officer
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat


Absent:
Alistair Dixon- CBUC - apologies
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Ross Rader - Registrars C.
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - apologies
Lucy Nichols - Intellectual Property Interests C - apologies
Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee
Maureen Cubberley - Nominating Committee appointee - apologies
Robin Gross - NCUC
Mawaki Chango - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC

MP3 Recording

Transcript

Bruce Tonkin opened the meeting with an overview of the current stage in the PDPDec-05 process
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00221.html

The Initial Report was published for public comment, and a meeting was held in Amsterdam to consider the public comments and finalise a set of recommendations.

Currently the task force had reached step 9(c) in the GNSO PDP Process:
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA

Dr Liz Williams would produce the Final Report for consideration and voting by the Council (step 10).

The objective of the call was to review the set of recommendations and agree on any improvements as a Committee prior to the publication of the Final Report.

There was not a post-Amsterdam consolidated list of comments. Chuck Gomes's submitted the following comments, as an individual and not on behalf of the Registry constituency, re string checks which were discussed during the meeting:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00219.html
New gTLD Process with Gomes Edits 7 Sep 06

Process for string checks:

(1) ICANN Staff will make a determination and may engage appropriate expert advice. [Wouldn’t it be a good idea to put a time limit on this (e.g., 14 calendar days)? I am okay with allowing a little flexibility here but applicants should be told up front how long this step will take, thereby achieving the objective of a timely and predictable process.]

(2) Public comment (which may include input from Governments or the
GAC) that is specific to the criteria for a new string. [If public and or GAC comments are requested for string checks, then the comment period would need to be very brief (e.g., 7 calendar days), otherwise the overall process could be dragged out too long. I am assuming that string checks will occur before the full evaluation of applications and that comments would be solicited immediately upon receipt of applications. In other words, I am assuming that if comments are solicited regarding string checks, that any such comment period would be separate and prior to other comment periods in the process. If a string check comment period is part of the process, then it seems like it would be a good idea to post the strings as soon as possible at the beginning of the process. For example, once it is determined that applicants have satisfied administrative application requirements (paid application fees, provided necessary information, etc.): 1. the strings should be posted for comment as well as sent to the GAC for comment (if applicable) and a short deadline for comments should be communicated; 2. ICANN staff should start it’s process for string checks at the same time that strings are posted for comment and should have at least 7 days after the end of the comment period to complete the string checks; 3. As necessary, questionable strings should be referred to the panel of experts.]

(3) If staff think there may be an issue, then it is put to a panel
of experts with appropriate background. [The panel of experts should be formed and in place prior to the end of the application period.]

String criteria:

(a) That the TLD string should not be confusingly similar to an
existing TLD string. Confusingly similar means there is a likelihood of
confusion on the part of the relevant public.

(b) The string must not infringe the legal rights of any third
party.
(consistent with current requirements of Registered Name Holder - see
clause 3.7.7.9 of the gTLD registrar accreditation agreement)

(c) The string should not cause technical issues (e.g not
.localhost, .exe etc) [How will this be evaluated? As much as feasible, clear criteria should be provided in advance of the application process. If a review by experts is needed, then the experts should be identified and prepared to do the review before the end of the application period.]

(d) The string should not be <controversial, political, cultural,
religious terms> (develop text related to public policy issues with GAC) [Guidelines should be developed by the GAC prior to the issue of the RFP and should be included in the RFP. Any necessary review by the GAC should have brief time frames so it may be helpful if the GAC establish a standing committee to expedite any such review.]

(e) The string should not be a reserved word. [Does this mean reserved strings as in current registry agreements? Should clarify.]

Dispute resolution:

(a) A dispute resolution process using independent arbitrators where
existing registry operators could challenge a decision made by ICANN
staff regarding whether or not a new gTLD string is confusingly similar
to an existing gTLD string. If a string is successfully challenged as
being misleadingly similar, then no operator may subsequently register
it except in cases where affected parties mutually agree to terms allowing such registration.

(b) A dispute resolution process using independent arbitrators where
existing trademark holders could challenge the string, based on UDRP. [Would this happen before the full evaluation happens? It seems like that would be a good idea. There should be a brief time frame for filing disputes and a specific timeframe for arbitrator decisions.]

Action Items:

1. Philip Sheppard to provide language to clarify "confusing" in 2.5.2.1.
2. Philip Sheppard to provide language in 2.5.2.4, changing ‘country’ to ‘public policy’ on ‘morality’, more currently used terms .

3. A letter from the Chair, Bruce Tonkin to the GAC requesting that Guidelines developed by the GAC prior to the issue of the RFP itself.

Proposed timelines:

19 October 2006 -- distribute draft Final Report to staff for internal checking

26 October 2006 -- distribute draft Final Report to new TLDs committee for checking

9 November 2006 -- distribute completed Final Report to GNSO Council

16 November2006 -- GNSO Council call to sign off Final Report

wc 20 November 2006 -- post and distribute Final Report to supporting organisations and advisory committees.

Use Final Report for further consultations with GAC, for GNSO public forum and for any other meetings at December Sao Paolo meeting.

Board report off after GAC input has been received.

Bruce Tonkin adjourned the meeting and thanked all the participants.

Meeting adjourned at 14:05 UTC. (16:05 CET)