3,197
edits
Changes
Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (view source)
Revision as of 18:54, 18 June 2021
, 2 years ago→Final Report and Recommendations
==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 it to the ICANN Board on Febrary 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 Febrary 2, 2021.<ref name="subpro" />
===Central Recommendations and Themes===
===Central Recommendations and Themes===
====Predictability Framework and SPIRT====
====Predictability Framework and SPIRT====
The enforcement of [[Public Interest Commitments|Registry Voluntary Commitments]] was a subject of much discussion at [[ICANN 70]]. The SubPro Working Group's guidance on the subject largely maintains the status quo regarding the use of RVCs by applicants. The WG did recommend expanding the jurisdiction of the [[PICDRP]] to expressly incorporate Registry Voluntary Commitments. On page 49, in response to the ICANN Board's follow-up query regarding ICANN's Bylaws (which have changed since the 2012 round); the WG provided this explanation:
The enforcement of [[Public Interest Commitments|Registry Voluntary Commitments]] was a subject of much discussion at [[ICANN 70]]. The SubPro Working Group's guidance on the subject largely maintains the status quo regarding the use of RVCs by applicants. The WG did recommend expanding the jurisdiction of the [[PICDRP]] to expressly incorporate Registry Voluntary Commitments. On page 49, in response to the ICANN Board's follow-up query regarding ICANN's Bylaws (which have changed since the 2012 round); the WG provided this explanation:
<blockquote>To the extent that some registries will want to make voluntary commitments in response to public comments, Government Early Warnings, GAC Advice, etc., it is understood by the Working Group that having these commitments reflected in Registry Agreements even if they fall outside of ICANN’s core mission is consistent with the Bylaws where neither ICANN itself nor any third party under ICANN’s control is required to pass judgment on ‘content’. In such cases, it is understood that using an independent third party as an arbiter to determine whether there has been a violation of the commitment would be consistent with ICANN’s mission even if ICANN were ultimately required to rely on that third party decision to enforce a pre-arranged contractual remedy, which could include sanctions and/or termination of the Registry Agreement.<ref name="subpro" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>To the extent that some registries will want to make voluntary commitments in response to public comments, Government Early Warnings, GAC Advice, etc., it is understood by the Working Group that having these commitments reflected in Registry Agreements even if they fall outside of ICANN’s core mission is consistent with the Bylaws where neither ICANN itself nor any third party under ICANN’s control is required to pass judgment on ‘content’. In such cases, it is understood that using an independent third party as an arbiter to determine whether there has been a violation of the commitment would be consistent with ICANN’s mission even if ICANN were ultimately required to rely on that third party decision to enforce a pre-arranged contractual remedy, which could include sanctions and/or termination of the Registry Agreement.<ref name="subpro" /></blockquote>
===Public Comment===
The public comment period for the GNSO's report was closed on June 1, 2021. The report received 14 comments during the comment period.<ref>[https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gnso-gtld-subsequent-procedures-final-outputs-22apr21/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Public Comment on SUBPRO Final Outputs], April 29 - June 2, 2021</ref> Several overarching themes were identified in the staff report on the public comment proceeding:
* Many commenters found the final outputs to be a triumph of the [[Multistakeholder Model]], and a large subset of those commenters also encouraged the board to pass the final outputs as-is, out of deference to community consensus and the bottom-up approach of the entire PDP;
* Several comments emphasized the need to quickly implement subsequent procedures (and by extension to launch the second round of new gTLD applications), whether because of public perception of ICANN's capacity to perform its role, or because of perceived pent-up demand for a new application round; and
* Some commenters, while broadly supportive of the recommendations in the report, had reservations about particular topic areas or foresaw other dependencies to be resolved before a new application round could commence.<ref name="finalpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-gnso-gtld-subsequent-procedures-final-outputs-15jun21-en.pdf Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], June 15, 2021</ref>
==Board Action==
The board placed the final report on the agenda for its regular meeting on June 21, 2021.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2021-06-21-en ICANN.org Archive - Board Material: Agenda], June 21, 2021</ref> At [[ICANN 71]], when conversation touched upon SUBPRO, there was a general expectation that the board would launch the [[Operational Design Phase]] of the PDP.
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}