ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAAB
1
Recommendation NumberRecommendation LanguageTarget of RecommendationPrerequisite or Priority LevelDoes SubPro Currently Address?How?What Else Needs To Be Done?Additional Information or Clarifications Needed?Public Comment Review ReferencesBoard Resolution ActionCategoryNew considerations for SubPro from Board Resolution?
2
9The ICANN community should consider whether the costs related to defensive registration for the small number of brands registering a large number of domains can be reduced.
SubPro and RPMsPrerequisiteNoThe recomendation appears to be directed more at the RPMs WG, with the text stating that, "uneven distribution of costs of defensive registrations to a small number of trademark holders may be an unanticipated effect of the current RPM regime..." It is likely beyond the remit of the SubPro PDP to affect that RPM regime, so it is unclear what actions may be needed from the SubPro PDP.

The SubPro PDP may want to coordinate with the RPMs PDP to determine if one or both the PDPs should be responsible for considering this recommendation.

Potential Recommendation from the PDP: Additional data collection should be completed regarding (1) patterns of renewal for defensive registrations over time to determine if this is an issue that has persisted (2) scope, utilization, and impact of new services on the market that seek to address this issue. 		Not included in public comment reviewNote the recommendation and pass the recommendation through to the noted community groups for their consideration.Passing throughNo
3
12Create incentives and/or eliminate current disincentives that encourage gTLD registries to meet user expectations regarding (1) the relationship of content of a gTLD to its name; (2) restrictions as to who can register a domain name in certain gTLDs based upon implied messages of trust conveyed by the name of its gTLDs (particularly in sensitive or regulated industries; and (3) the safety and security of users’ personal and sensitive information (including health and financial information). These incentives could relate to applicants who choose to make public interest commitments in their applications that relate to these expectations. Ensure that applicants for any subsequent rounds are aware of these public expectations by inserting information about the results of the ICANN surveys in the Applicant Guide Books.
SubProPrerequisiteNoThe SubPro PDP has not thouroughly considered the findings from the Nielsen surveys, which at a high level indicated that, "the public believes that websites have different extensions to “properly identify the purpose or owner or to give an indication of content or function.” As such, the PDP WG has also not considered whether it believes that creating incentives or removing potential barriers (e.g., application fee, annual fees, possible need for RSEP) to operating restricted TLDs is in the best interest of the program.

Possible methods to incentivize verified TLDs could include fee reduction or a priority in the application process like the one given to Communities. Potential additional areas of discussion: Does the WG want to create incentives for verified TLDs - deeper dive into pros and cons? How would it be determined if a verified TLD is in the public interest? Does the WG want to consider "inserting information about the results of the ICANN surveys in the Applicant Guide Books"		In 2.3.2: Global Public InterestNote the recommendation and pass the recommendation through to the noted community groups for their consideration.Passing throughNo
4
14Consider directing ICANN org, in its discussions with registries, to negotiate amendments to existing Registry Agreements, or in consideration of new Registry Agreements associated with subsequent rounds of new gTLDs, to include provisions in the agreements to provide incentives, including financial incentives, for registries, especially open registries, to adopt proactive anti-abuse measures.ICANN Board, RySG, RrSG, GNSO, SubProHighPartiallyThe PDP WG has not looked specifically at introducing financial incentives for registries to adopt practive anti-abuse measures, but it has considered the prevention of abuse in the context of section 2.3.2 of its Initial Report on the Global Public Interest. There, the PDP WG has preliminarly recommended maintaining the mandatory Public Interest Commitment (PIC) framework, as well as refining the process, scope, and applicability of voluntary PICs. The SubPro PDP may want to specifically consider whether it supports including, "provisions in the agreements to provide incentives, including financial incentives, for registries, especially open registries, to adopt proactive anti-abuse measures." The PDP WG may want to review the DNS Abuse Review performed on behalf of the CCT-RT.

If the PDP WG were to recommend financial incentives, the WG may want to consider the financial impact of doing so and whether it is within the remit of the PDP WG to make such recommendations.

Jeff Note: The WG has also addressed the topic of DNS Abuse as being a community wide discussion instead of one specifically geared at only the new gTLDs.

Potential Recommendation could state that the WG acknowledges ongoing work in the community on this issue and supports the community taking steps to address these recommendations through community-wide discussions, as opposed to discussions that focus only on the new TLDs going forward. 		In 2.3.2: Global Public InterestPlace this recommendation in “Pending” status. The Board directs ICANN org to facilitate community efforts to develop a definition of “abuse” to inform further action on this recommendation. To negotiate “anti-abuse measures”, a common understanding of what “abuse” means must first be reached.Pending StatusIs definition of "abuse" a gating factor for PDP in making any recommendations?
5
15ICANN Org should, in its discussions with registrars and registries, negotiate amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Registry Agreements to include provisions aimed at preventing systemic use of specific registrars or registries for DNS Security Abuse. With a view to implementing this recommendation as early as possible, and provided this can be done, then this could be brought into effect by a contractual amendment through the bilateral review of the Agreements. In particular, ICANN should establish thresholds of abuse at which compliance inquiries are automatically triggered, with a higher threshold at which registrars and registries are presumed to be in default of their agreements. If the community determines that ICANN org itself is ill-suited or unable to enforce such provisions, a DNS Abuse Dispute Resolution Policy (DADRP) should be considered as an additional means to enforce policies and deter against DNS Security Abuse. Furthermore, defining and identifying DNS Security Abuse is inherently complex and would benefit from analysis by the community, and thus we specifically recommend that the ICANN Board prioritize and support community work in this area to enhance safeguards and trust due to the negative impact of DNS Security Abuse on consumers and other users of the Internet. ICANN Board, RySG, RrSG, GNSO, SubProPrerequisite
(provisions to
address
systemic
DNS Security
Abuse
should be
included in
the baseline
contract for
any future
new gTLDs)		NoThis recommendation appears to target existing registry operators and registrars, whereas recommendation 14 also seeks to amend the base registry agreement for future new gTLD procedures. The PDP WG should consider whether they believe recommendation 15 is relevant to its work. This recommendation may be most appropriately addressed by registries/registrars and ICANN org, utilizing the prescribed contract negotiation processes.

Potential Recommendation could state that the WG acknowledges ongoing work in the community on this issue and supports the community taking steps to address these recommendations through community-wide discussions, as opposed to discussions that focus only on the new TLDs going forward. 		[Add point here about DNS Abuse being addressed by the wider community]In 2.3.2: Global Public InterestPlace this recommendation in “Pending” status. The Board directs ICANN org to facilitate community efforts to develop a definition of “abuse” to inform further action on this recommendation. To negotiate amendments to address DNS Security Abuse measures, a common understanding of what “abuse” means must first be reached.Pending StatusIs definition of "abuse" a gating factor for PDP in making any recommendations?
6
16Further study the relationship between specific registry operators, registrars and technical DNS abuse by commissioning ongoing data collection, including but not limited to, ICANN Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) initiatives. For transparency purposes, this information should be regularly published, ideally quarterly and no less than annually, in order to be able to identify registries and registrars that need to come under greater scrutiny, investigation, and potential enforcement action by ICANN org. Upon identifying abuse phenomena, ICANN should put in place an action plan to respond to such studies, remediate problems identified, and define future ongoing data collection.
ICANN Board, RySG, RrSG, GNSO, SubPro, SSR2-RTHighNoThis recommendation appears to primarily focus on continuing to commision studies around specific registry operators, registrars, and technical DNS abuse. If the PDP WG is in agreement that this exercise should take place, could develop similar recommentation(s).

In connection to recommendation 14, the PDP WG may want to consider data collected by the CCT-RT related to this subject to determine if any additional measures, including financial incentives, should be recommended.

Potential Recommendation could state that the WG acknowledges ongoing work in the community on this issue and supports the community taking steps to address these recommendations through community-wide discussions, as opposed to discussions that focus only on the new TLDs going forward. 		[Add point here about DNS Abuse being addressed by the wider community]In 2.3.2: Global Public Interest[This action pertains to a portion of the recommendation language - refer to bold text.] Note the portion of the recommendation and pass it through to the noted community groups for consideration. The Board is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider.

Footnote: The Board is also taking action to pass through portions of Recommendation 16 to the community groups with the appropriate remit.		Passing throughNone
7
17ICANN should collect data about and publicize the chain of parties responsible for gTLD domain name registrations. 
ICANN Board, EPDP, RySG, RrSG, GNSO, SubPro, SSACHighNoThis recommendation appears to be focused primarily on the Registrar data, especially as it concerns potential reseller relationships, within the Whois information. Recommending changes to the information collected and displayed within Whois is likely beyond the remit of this PDP WG, but the WG should affirm that this is the case.

Potential response/recommendation: The WG understands the issue and believes that it should be addressed in the context of the EPDP. 		[Unlikely - better for EPDP or elsewhere]In GeneralThe Board notes that reseller information is already displayed within the publicly available WHOIS, reliant upon all contracted parties complying with ICANN Consensus Policies and contractual obligations to provide such data. To this extent, the recommendation is accepted. The Board notes, however, that the CCT-RT addressed this recommendation to a number of community groups. The Board notes that to the extent these groups may produce policy outcomes that impact this work, those will be taken into account when appropriate.AcceptedNone
8
23ICANN should gather data on new gTLDs operating in highly regulated sectors to include the following elements:
a) a survey to determine 1) the steps registry operators are taking to establish working relationships with relevant government or industry bodies; 2) the volume of complaints received by registrants from government and regulatory bodies and their standard practices to respond to those complaints;
b) a review of a sample of domain websites within the highly regulated sector category to assess whether contact information to file complaints is sufficiently easy to find;
c) an inquiry to ICANN Contractual Compliance and registrars/resellers of highly regulated domains seeking sufficiently detailed information to determine the volume and the subject matter of complaints regarding domains in highly regulated industries;
d) an inquiry to registry operators to obtain data to compare rates of abuse between those highly regulated gTLDs that have voluntarily agreed to verify and validate credentials to those highly regulated gTLDs that have not; and
e) an audit to assess whether restrictions regarding possessing necessary credentials are being enforced by auditing registrars and resellers offering the highly regulated TLDs (i.e., can an individual or entity without the proper credentials buy a highly regulated domain?).
 
To the extent that current ICANN data collection initiatives and compliance audits could contribute to these efforts, we recommend that ICANN assess the most efficient way to proceed to avoid duplication of effort and leverage current work.
ICANN org, SubProHighPartiallyHighly sensitive strings and strings in highly regulated industries were discussed in section 2.3.2 of the Initial Report, on the Global Public Interest. At present, the PDP WG is not preliminarly recommending any additional measures, but is asking a question during the public comment period about whether certain strings should be operated as a verified TLD. The recommendation is primarily focused on additional data gathering in the future and if the PDP WG is in agreement that this exercise should take place, could develop similar recommentation(s).

To the extent that the CCT-RT has already collected data related to areas identified in the recommendation, the PDP WG could consider whether those findings might impact ongoing policy development work.

Jeff Note: This seems to be more of a compliance activity as opposed to one that will aid in moving forward. The issue we need to decide is whether to maintain the PICs that ICANN has included for future "sensitive" strings.

Potential next steps: Determine if the WG wants to affirm PICs that the GAC required for category one TLDs in the 2012 round and whether to recommend PICs for future sensitive strings? If yes, the WG may want to develop a framework for determining what is sensitive or in a "highly-regulated" sector? [Could provide guidance without being definitive. Could ask applicants to self-identify. If there is a panel involved, the more important that there be criteria developed.]
In 2.3.2: Global Public InterestPlace the recommendation in “Pending” status and request ICANN org to provide a report on volume and nature of complaints received regarding gTLDs operating in highly-regulated sectors. This report will inform Board’s decision on next steps and whether the data warrants conducting audits or requesting further information from contracted parties. Additionally, the outcome of the implementation of Recommendation 1 will inform the Board’s decision on next steps and whether this recommendation can be adopted to move into costing discussion phase of implementation.Pending StatusConsider if the PDP needs the referenced data before and if it makes any recommendations related to gTLDs in highly-regulated sectors.
9
25To the extent voluntary commitments are permitted in future gTLD application processes, all such commitments made by a gTLD applicant must state their intended goal and be submitted during the application process such that there is sufficient opportunity for community review and time to meet the deadlines for community and limited public interest objections. Furthermore, such requirements should apply to the extent that voluntary commitments may be made after delegation. Such voluntary commitments, including existing voluntary PICs, should be made accessible in an organized, searchable online database to enhance data driven policy development, community transparency, ICANN compliance, and the awareness of variables relevant to DNS abuse trends.
ICANN org, SubProPrerequisitePartiallyPICs have been discussed by WT2 under the topic Global Public Interest (see section 2.3.2. of the Initial Report). There appears to be general consistency between the first part of the CCT-RT recommendation and SubPro recommendations 2.3.2.c.2 and 2.3.2.c.3.

Jeff Note: Since this was drafted we have done a lot more with our discussion with PICs. One of the items involves whether to still call them "PICs", but we have been addressing issues of ensuring that that is more transparency around the requirements, including opportunity to comment, a definitive process to go through if there are proposed changes, the rationale for the commitments as well as indicating clearly if there is an end date to the commitments and why.

[The suggested improvements should not be limited to only at the time of application submission (e.g., to resolve issues identified later in the process.

Can include guidance to ICANN Org on the operational elements (e.g., searchable online database).]		If the WG supports the CCT-RT recommendation, the WG may want to further discuss whether preliminary recommendations should affirm the recommendation that PICs should state their intended goal. The WG may also want to discuss whether SubPro recommendations should more explicitly align with language: "[PICs must] be submitted during the application process such that there is sufficient opportunity for community review and time to meet the deadlines for community and limited public interest objections." The WG may also want to consider if any additional recommendations are needed regarding publication and accessibility of voluntary PICs. The WG may want to consider if preliminary recommendation 2.3.2.c.4 on modification of PICs is consistent with this CCT-RT recommendation.

Possible next step: Once draft recommendations on all topics related to PICs are drafted, conduct additional review on alignment between SubPro recs and CCT-RT recs to ensure all elements are addressed. 		In 2.3.2: Global Public InterestNote the recommendation and pass the recommendation through to the noted community group, noting that ICANN org’s role is to implement the adopted recommendations resulting from the Sub Pro PDP WG’s work. To the extent that policies are adopted consistent with the recommendations, ICANN org will update the Applicant Guide Book (AGB) accordingly.Passing throughNone
10
29Set objectives/metrics for applications from the Global South
SubPro / GNSOPrerequisitePartiallyThis issue has been discussed by WT1 in the context of topic Applicant Support (see section 2.5.4 of the Initial Report). Question 2.5.4.e.2 in the Initial Report requests community input on objectives/metrics for the ASP, but none have yet been identified.Based on input received through public comment, the Working Group may want to develop recommendations on objectives/metrics for the Applicant Support Program, with a focus on the Global South.

[Some metrics suggested: interest, number who apply, number approved, number of service providers offering their services, etc. Review WT1 notes/Initial Report.

GSE is working on a definition for "underserved" that may be leveraged by ICANN broadly.

Suggestion to review http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_IT_Report_2015.pdf where 3/4 of the word's population has access to 1/5 of the income; suggestion to use the 1/5 number for percentage of applications]

Possible next steps: create list of data points to be collected based on previous discussions; consider recommendation that ICANN Org seek advice from experts in the field to further develop appropriate framework for analysis of metrics.		In 2.5.4: Applicant SupportNote the recommendation and pass the recommendation through to the noted community groups for their consideration. Given the interdependency between this recommendation and recommendation 30, as both recommendations rely upon the same undefined term “Global South”, the Board notes that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, should they choose to do so, defining the term “Global South” in coordination with ICANN org, its engagement teams, and geographic regions definitions to create a workable definition, or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org.Passing throughThe Board is suggesting that the PDP could consider defining "Global South"
11
30Expand and improve outreach into the Global South.ICANN organizationWhile SubPro was not initially the target of this recommendation, the PDP is mentioned in the Board Resolution in relation to this rec. Possible next step: Once draft recommendations are drafted on related topics, conduct additional review on alignment between SubPro recs and CCT-RT recs on this topic. Accept the recommendation. The Board accepts the recommendation and directs ICANN org to provide the Board with a report on related engagement, noting that if the community wishes to have more resources dedicated to this activity, this should be addressed in the next budget cycle. Given the interdependency between this recommendation and recommendation 29, as both recommendations rely upon the undefined term “Global South”, the Board notes that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take on, should they choose to do so, defining the term “Global South” for this purpose in coordination with ICANN org, its engagement teams, and geographic regions definitions to create a workable definition, or agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org.AcceptedThe recommendation is not directed at SubPro, but the PDP is referenced. No additional action is envisioned, beyond that captured in recommendation 29 (i.e., definition of "Global South"
12
31The ICANN organization to coordinate the pro bono assistance program.ICANN organizationWhile SubPro was not initially the target of this recommendation, the PDP is mentioned in the Board Resolution in relation to this rec.Accept contingent on the recommendation from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG that the pro bono assistance program continue. AcceptedThe recommendation is not directed at SubPro, but the PDP is referenced. No additional action is envisioned.
13
32Revisit the Applicant Financial Support Program.
SubProPrerequisiteYesThis topic has been discussed extensively in WT1 (see section 2.5.4 of the Initial Report). Preliminary recommendations, options, and questions for community input are included in section 2.5.4 of the Initial Report.Recommendations will be finalized for the Final Report. Note that the CCT-RT recommendation specifically focuses on reducing the costs of the application process and increasing participation in the program. As the WG finalizes recommendations, it may want to revisit the CCT-RT recommendations to ensure that there is alignment. The CCT-RT recommendation also mentions "efforts to reduce the application fee for all applicants." The Working Group may want to consider this element of the CCT-RT recommendation as it finalizes recommendations on Application Fees.In 2.5.4: Applicant SupportNote the recommendation and pass the recommendation through to the noted community group for their consideration. The Board notes that this topic is being discussed in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG and expectation is for a high-level program/guidance to be provided as a result of this work.Passing throughNone
14
33As required by the October 2016 Bylaws, GAC consensus advice to the Board regarding gTLDs should also be clearly enunciated, actionable and accompanied by a rationale, permitting the Board to determine how to apply that advice. ICANN should provide a template to the GAC for advice related to specific TLDs, in order to provide a structure that includes all of these elements. In addition to providing a template, the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) should clarify the process and timelines by which GAC advice is expected for individual TLDs.
SubPro, GAC, ICANN orgPrerequisitePartiallyThe options presented in the Initial Report section on Objections (2.8.1) echo some of the themes in this recommendation, for example that GAC Advice should be clear and should include a rationale and that timelines should be clearly spelled out. The option stating "The applicant should have an opportunity to engage in direct dialogue in response to such warning. . ." appears to be consistent with the details of the CCT-RT recommendation that calls for a "means to challenge assertions of fact by GAC members."As the WG finalizes the recommendations, it may want to consider whether it may want to further harmonize recommendations, for example by recommending establishment of clear process and timelines by which GAC Advice is expected for individual TLDs (currently SubPro draft language only reference timelines for Early Warnings). The Working Group may want to review the details of the CCT-RT recommendation, which state: "While the details should be left to the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, the CCT believe there should be a mechanism created to specifically allow objections by individual members of the GAC and means to challenge assertions of fact by GAC members. Finally, some sort of appeals mechanism is imperative." The WG may want to consider if the preliminary recommendation to establish a substantive appeal mechanism specific to the New gTLD Program addresses part of the CCT-RT recommendation. [Jeff: I believe that the substantive appeal does address this last part]

Possible next step: Once draft recommendations are drafted on related topics, conduct additional review on alignment between SubPro recs and CCT-RT recs on this topic and ensure that all elements are addressed/taken into account. 		In 2.8.1: ObjectionsNote the recommendation and pass through to the noted community groups for their consideration. The Board notes that the Board-GAC Working Group could also serve as a valuable contributor to this work as that is an avenue for the Board and GAC to work together on receiving/acting on advice. Outputs of that work could inform the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on how the GAC should be able to provide advice on individual gTLDs. The Board notes that the outcomes of that work could be improved if the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG and the GAC are able to work together on templates, timelines, etc.Passing throughCoordinate with the Board-GAC Working Group to determine if they input for the PDP to consider.
15
34A thorough review of the procedures and objectives for community based applications should be carried out and improvements made to address and correct the concerns raised before a new gTLD application process is launched. Revisions or adjustments should be clearly reflected in an updated version of the 2012 AGB.
SubProPrerequisiteYesThe Initial Report discusses work completed so far on this topic (see section 2.9.1). Work Track 3 devoted a significant amount of time to deliberations on procedures and objectives. Several preliminary recommendations focus on improvements to the process.As the WG refines recommendations on this topic, it may want to consider whether to make additional recommendations regarding objectives. Note that the CCT-RT recommendations consider "a higher rate of success for such applications" to be a measure of success. In 2.9.1: Community ApplicationsNote the recommendation and pass the recommendation through to the noted community group for their consideration.Passing throughNone
16
35The Subsequent Procedures PDP should consider adopting new policies to avoid the potential for inconsistent results in string confusion objections. In particular, the PDP should consider the following possibilities:
1) Determining through the initial string similarity review process that singular and plural versions of the same gTLD string should not be delegated
2) Avoiding disparities in similar disputes by ensuring that all similar cases of plural versus singular strings are examined by the same expert panelist
3) Introducing a post dispute resolution panel review mechanism
SubProPrerequisitePartially {Jeff Note: I believe we have actually completed all of this by tackling the Plural Singular issue as well as the appeals topic]The SubPro Initial Report includes preliminary recommendations to improve the string similarity review process (see section 2.7.4). The Preliminary Recommendations include a recommendation to establish a substantive appeal mechanism specific
to the New gTLD Program (see 2.8.2).		The WG is also considering may want to consider if additional recommendations related to the String Confusion Objection are appropriate (eg, exact translations, homonyms, synonyms for verified TLDS, etc.). Several questions on this topic were put out to the community in the Initial Report. The WG may want to consider if it agrees with the CCT-RT recommendation "2) Avoiding disparities in similar disputes by ensuring that all similar cases of plural versus singular strings are examined by the same expert panelist."
The WG may want to consider whether its preliminary recommendation to establish a substantive appeal mechanism specific to the New gTLD Program addresses the CCT-RT recommendation: "3) Introducing a post dispute resolution panel review mechanism."		In 2.7.4: String Similarity AND 2.8.2: Accountability MechanismsNote the recommendation and pass the recommendation through to the noted community group for their consideration.Passing throughNone
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100