|
|
| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
| *ICANN's [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en Bylaws]; and | | *ICANN's [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en Bylaws]; and |
| *ICANN's [https://www.icann.org/en/registry-agreements Registry Agreement] | | *ICANN's [https://www.icann.org/en/registry-agreements Registry Agreement] |
|
| |
| ==Deference to other ACs, SOs, and PDPs==
| |
| The scope of the Working Group was substantial and had the potential to cross into territory being separately investigated by other PDP working groups. For example, the SubPro Working Group declined to engage with intellectual property issues, to avoid duplication of effort with the [[PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs|Policy Development Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs]].<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490775 Work Track 2 - Scope], SubPro Workspace</ref> The Working Group also identified possible overlaps in scope with the [[CCWG-IG|Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability]] and endeavored to ensure that they were not overstepping their charter in such areas.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490779 Work Track 3 - Scope], SubPro Workspace</ref> The Working Group also deferred to the decision making of the [[Universal Acceptance Steering Group]] on the topic of [[Internationalized Domain Name|internationalized domain names]].<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490781 Work Track 4 - Scope], SubPro Workspace</ref>
| |
|
| |
| == Working Group Tracks and Output ==
| |
| The WG for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP was tasked with determining what, if any, changes to policy were required from those adopted pursuant to the GNSO’s 2007 report and recommendations. The Final Issue report identified a broad range of topics and issues for discussion. Initially, four work tracks (WTs) were established to divide the issues into subject areas. In 2018, a fifth work track was initiated to examine the issue of geographic names at the top level.
| |
|
| |
| * WT1 - Overall Process, Support, and Outreach
| |
| * WT2 - Legal/Regulatory/Contractual Obligations
| |
| * WT3 - String Contention/Objections and Disputes
| |
| * WT4 - Internationalized Domain Names, Technical/Operational Issues
| |
| * WT5 - Geographic Names at the Top Level
| |
|
| |
| ===WT1: Overall Process, Support & Outreach===
| |
| Work Track 1 focused on applicant support, outreach, and process concerns. Key topics included applicant support, clarity of application process, application fees, and equity issues.
| |
|
| |
| ===WT2: Legal, Regulatory, & Contractual Obligations===
| |
| Work Track 2 focused on reserved names, the base [[Registry Agreement|registry agreement]], a refined policy for implementation of registrant safeguards, and conceptualizing how the global public interest might be represented, defended, or addressed in policy-making around new gTLDs.
| |
|
| |
| ===WT3: String Contention, Objections, & Disputes===
| |
| Work Track 3 focused on a review of the processes and engagement with string contention and objections to applications. It also addressed issues related to [[Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure|PICDRP]] and [[Registration Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure|RRDRP]], the two established dispute resolution procedures from the New gTLD Program that do not involve intellectual property.
| |
|
| |
| ===WT4: [[Internationalized Domain Name|Internationalized Domain Names]], Technical & Operational Issues===
| |
| Work Track 4 addressed internationalized domain names and engaged in a review of applicant requirements related to technical, financial, and operational concerns.
| |
|
| |
| ===WT5: Geographic Names at the Top Level===
| |
| WT5 utilized a shared leadership model, with co-leaders from ALAC, GAC, ccNSO, and GNSO. The subject of geographic names was a topic of much discussion at [[ICANN 59]], with two cross-community sessions. The Working Group submitted this work track's final report as an annex to their final report, without amendment.<ref name="subpro" /> Although the Work Track examined a variety of issues related to inconsistencies between the AGB and the GNSO's 2007 Report guidance, it was unable to reach consensus on any changes to the policies outlined in the Applicant Guidebook. The Final Report of the Work Track concluded in part:
| |
| <blockquote>After extensive discussion, the Work Track was unable to agree to recommendations that depart from the 2012 implementation, which it has considered the baseline throughout deliberations. Therefore, it recommends updating the GNSO policy to be consistent with the 2012 Applicant Guidebook and largely maintaining the Applicant Guidebook provisions for subsequent procedures. This brings GNSO policy in line with implementation, which the Work Track considers a significant achievement given the diversity of perspectives on this issue and the challenges in finding a compromise acceptable to all parties.<ref>For more detail on Work Track 5's process, refer to [https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+5%3A+Geographic+Names+at+the+Top-Level Work Track 5] in the PDP workspace</ref></blockquote>
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Final Report and Recommendations== | | ==Final Report and Recommendations== |
| The Working Group's Final Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on January 20, 2021.<ref>[https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Read-the-SubPro-PDP-Newsletter---January-2021-Edition.html?soid=1122025845763&aid=qJxZ65sQtok SubPro Newsletter], January 2021.</ref> The Council approved the Final Report and submitted its "Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration" to the ICANN Board on February 2, 2021.<ref name="subpro" /> | | The Working Group's Final Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on January 20, 2021.<ref>[https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Read-the-SubPro-PDP-Newsletter---January-2021-Edition.html?soid=1122025845763&aid=qJxZ65sQtok SubPro Newsletter], January 2021.</ref> The Council approved the Final Report and submitted its "Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration" to the ICANN Board on February 2, 2021.<ref name="subpro" /> |
| | |
| ===Central Recommendations and Themes=== | | ===Central Recommendations and Themes=== |
| | |
| ====Predictability Framework and SPIRT==== | | ====Predictability Framework and SPIRT==== |
| | |
| The report emphasizes the need for consistent, predictable outcomes for application and dispute procedures. The Working Group recommended the adoption of a Predictability Framework (contained in Annex E of the Final Report), as well as the creation of a Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT, pronounced "spirit") to monitor, assess, and propose resolutions to situations that might impact the operation of the New gTLD Program.<ref name="subpro" /> The Predictability Framework identifies a limited number of such situations, including changes in ICANN's operations, changes to policies related to or affecting the New gTLD Program, and new policy proposals that may affect the program. Under the guidance, emergency decisions that may impact the program should be "narrowly tailored to address the emergency situation."<ref name="subpro" /> The Working Group recommended the maintenance of a change log, so that the GNSO and applicants may be kept apprised of changes to the program. In addition, the WG proposed an amendment to the refund procedure so that applicants who are adversely affected by policy changes may withdraw and receive a refund of fees. | | The report emphasizes the need for consistent, predictable outcomes for application and dispute procedures. The Working Group recommended the adoption of a Predictability Framework (contained in Annex E of the Final Report), as well as the creation of a Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT, pronounced "spirit") to monitor, assess, and propose resolutions to situations that might impact the operation of the New gTLD Program.<ref name="subpro" /> The Predictability Framework identifies a limited number of such situations, including changes in ICANN's operations, changes to policies related to or affecting the New gTLD Program, and new policy proposals that may affect the program. Under the guidance, emergency decisions that may impact the program should be "narrowly tailored to address the emergency situation."<ref name="subpro" /> The Working Group recommended the maintenance of a change log, so that the GNSO and applicants may be kept apprised of changes to the program. In addition, the WG proposed an amendment to the refund procedure so that applicants who are adversely affected by policy changes may withdraw and receive a refund of fees. |
| In its rationale for these proposals, the WG noted: | | In its rationale for these proposals, the WG noted: |