October 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
by Jamie Baxter June 4, 2019

June 4, 2019

3 2

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 October 2018
by Julie Hedlund Nov. 16, 2018

Nov. 16, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 October 2018. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-10-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the attached referenced documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items Actions: Supplemental Report: ACTION ITEM: WG members are requested to review the suggested text, particularly in Section 1.2, and send in any edits/comments by COB 08 October. ACTION ITEM: Make sure that the preamble is clear that we are soliciting feedback on not just the questions but also on the recommendations. ACTION ITEM: Section 1.5 -- incorporate changes from Jim Prendergast. ACTION ITEM: Release a preliminary draft Supplemental Report on 12 October for discussion in Barcelona; publish the final Supplemental Report the week of 29 October and close the public comment on 10 December. Notes: 1. Agenda review/SOIs: No updates. 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued: Section 1.1: Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort Changes: -- Added text on different types of auctions in Section d. Talks about the Vickey auction, and alternatives to an auction. Also added new text/clarifications in Section f. Discussion: -- Section on registrar support -- where Jim Prendergast's comments incorporated? Jim resent the email and mention the comments to that section in the discussion Section 1.2: Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auctions) Changes: -- Differentiate between private resolution and private auctions. -- Section d -- moved from Section c and added as options: First bullet point: Delineation of the concerns about private auction and enforcement could be circumvented with other methods of private resolution. Second bullet point taken from comments on the last call and from the list; third bullet point from a single WG member. -- Additions to Section f Deliberations to make it clear that we aren't just talking about private auctions. Discussion: -- Community applications have strict restrictions for application changes, which puts them at a disadvantage. If we go away from a private auctions we need to give them the same level playing field during the private resolution process. See where we can put this in -- Section 1.4? -- Problem is that basically any private resolution could de facto become a private auction. Needs to be transparency so that those who are interested know what is going on. -- Tried to integrate the private resolution option in Sections d and f -- if something is missing WG members should let us know where it should be added. -- Enforcement issue: private auction is just one way to do a private resolution. Complaints about private auctions are really complaints about private auctions. This needs to be clearer. -- Make sure that the draft reflects that certain types of private resolution don't involve a monetary element -- make sure we have everything in here without stating that it is one option or the other. Don't eliminate the options the WG is discussing. -- What would be fair ground rules for private resolution? -- A number of the comments on the Initial Report are on the notion of the parties' ability to resolve contention between themselves. Be careful that we aren't now implying that coming to a private resolution is somehow inappropriate -- we are talking about one company profiting over another. -- Concerned about negative speculators -- gTLD trolls. Those who are entering into a contention set with the intent to lose and get paid off. -- The other issue is that the winner is by definition is the highest bidder. -- Page 10: Looking for a public comment period in addition to an ICANN approval. Put in a question/reference. Section 1.3: Role of Application Comment Changes: -- Section c -- added comments on the last paragraph. Could ask a question that just says, what do you think of the recommendation? Public comment is to provide response to preliminary recommendations, so question does not have to be called out. Don't need a specific invitation to provide a comment.. Make sure that the preamble is clear that we are soliciting feedback on not just the questions but also on the recommendations. -- Section f Deliberations: Comments added and text amended. Section 1.4: Change Requests Changes: -- Second bullet in Section d -- added comment and amended the text. Section 1.5: Registrar Support for New gTLDs Changes -- From Jim Prendergast: -- Page 21: It wasn't a single group. -- Page 23: Added a bullet/additional question. Update on feedback on private auction providers: >From the Leadership: -- Only her back from one provider and they said they couldn't provide data due to confidentiality. -- Question: should we delay the publication of the Supplemental Report until after ICANN63? Also, should we incorporate feedback from the Initial Report. -- Co-Chairs noted that if we extended the Initial Report public comment period it would be more difficult if not impossible to incorporate feedback into the Supplemental Report. If we delay it could throw off the schedule by several months. Leadership team also discussed that the purpose of the Public Comment period is to get feedback. Also can have the private auction providers to meet with the WG to discuss their feedback. Because we don't know if we will get more data not sure we can justify delaying. Discussion: -- The feedback we did get from the previous report: we got comments specifically on private auctions and think we should address them. Also take advantage of time with the Board in Barcelona. Important for the process even if it takes another few weeks. Also, taking advantage of face-to-face meetings in Barcelona. -- The issues on auctions are not as high on the ALAC's list as others; feeling is that this is a long process that we are in and we have a long way to go. If we delay by a few weeks it may delay the process by a few months, but we'll end up with a better process. -- Council Liaison: Appreciate that people want the best product possible. On auctions we had discussions in Panama and since then. If we can meet the deadline on 12 October that is a good thing to do. Be very respectful that these PDPs cannot go on forever. Need to try to keep to the timeline. -- Do think that we need to be mindful that when this goes to the Council for review that the proper processes were followed. -- The biggest issue here is that there are no actual preliminary recommendations and the WG needs to arrive at some. Otherwise public comment will be very scattered. -- What about carving out auctions from this report and do another supplemental just on auctions. -- Release a preliminary draft for discussion at ICANN63 and then release the final on 29th of October with the understanding that any extension would be a most for a week so that comments are back in December and not into January. Without an extension it would close on 10 December. ACTION ITEM: WG members are requested to review the suggested text, particularly in Section 1.2, and send in any edits/comments by COB 08 October. ACTION ITEM: Make sure that the preamble is clear that we are soliciting feedback on not just the questions but also on the recommendations. ACTION ITEM: Section 1.5 -- incorporate changes from Jim Prendergast. ACTION ITEM: Release a preliminary draft Supplemental Report on 12 October for discussion in Barcelona; publish the final Supplemental Report on 29 October and close the public comment on 10 December. 3. Planning for ICANN63: -- Sessions on Saturday 20 October for WT1-4 and WT5 will be in the morning and afternoon will be WT1-4. Third session is breakout rooms for discussion of Initial Report comments. 4. AOB >From the chat: Jim Prendergast: just resent langauge for Registar Support. had wrong address Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Thx Jim just saw it flash past on my screen so rec'd but not read Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Noted Jamie... edmon 2: do.we anticipate change of applied for string as a way for conflict resolution? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Apologies for joining late. Listened to the first few minutes of the data protection/privacy webinar and decided to move here. Liz Williams: @Jamie B...and when you come up with language make sure you include an end-point for any negotiations with a "drop dead" external timeline. See other comments I've made elsewhere about flattening the application evaluation process to ensure that different types of applicants are not disadvantaged. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Jamie re lack of consideration of special aspects of Community applications - where, for example, several applications for same string qualify for CPE, what happens? Jon Nevett: I'd love to hear an argument of why private auctions are not ok, but paying other applicants to withdraw are ok. To me, the have to be treated the same, as aprivate auctions are just one mechanism for a buyer to pay other applicants to withdraw Jon Nevett: the draft seems still stuck on focusing on private auctions Vanda Scartezini: Jon, guess the general objection is financial. for the auction they pay a fee to ICANN. Liz Williams: @ Jon .... the question is not why private auctions aren't OK...the question is the reverse. What array of options do applicants have to resolve contention? All options should be on the table. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): As I noted in my written comments, I agree with Jon's views w/r/t private auctions & private resolution and would also like to hear the answer to the question he's posed here. Michael Casadevall: @Jon: I feel like we need a mechanism where any devitation from the process (aka any private resolution) if we still allow it need approval from ICANN and/or community Jim Prendergast: To Jeffs point - lots of talk of it in Panama breakouts Anne Aikman-Scalese: I agree with Jim and others that the document should not go out until the options presented by the WG have been stated in the Supplemental Report. The views of the WG are the views on which we are seeking public comment. It's not that the WG members should be submitting public comment. Carlton Samuels: @Edmon: Interesting question. I know of a case in the last round where that action was taken as a means to resolve a conflict but it was never accepted Liz Williams: @jeff...thanks for that and I appreciate the point you've made. This is not about public interest. It is about applicant interest...and we need to do more work about understanding the motivations to resolve contention. Carlton Samuels: Question on private resolution: Would an action to resolve that did not include a priori transfer of money be acceptable? Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: I would favor an open public discussion of private string resolution at the ICANN meeting - dedicated 30 minute session for that alone. Liz Williams: Maybe the way to resolve discussion around private auctions and/or last resort ICANN auctions is to really think about auction proceeds... Michael Casadevall: Anne: +1 Anne Aikman-Scalese: Sarah's option is not there, is it? Jon Nevett: it's not an enforcement issue Jeff Michael Casadevall: just a heads up, I'm really feeling kinda ill. I may drop off the call but I'll see if I can solder on. Jeff Neuman: Sarah's option is in 1.1 on Auctions in general Greg Shatan: Favoring a last resort auction where ICANN gets the money would be seen as more troublesome by many. Jeff Neuman: As it is not just related to Private auctions, but the use of all auctions in general Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Indeed Steve Jon Nevett: "○ Implementation Guidance under discussion: The Applicant Guidebook and program Terms & Conditions should be amended to state that resolution of string contention via private auction is disallowed." Jon Nevett: draft still needs work Anne Aikman-Scalese: Sarah said her proposed language is coming in today or tomorrow I think. sarah l: the icann board, in its comments to the initial report, public auctions might not be reconcilable with ICANNs commitments and core values, we might need to ask ICANN if private resolutions may cause the same concerns Jeff Neuman: @Jon - That is an option that is under discussion Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Yes it makes sense to also add as an option (thanks Sarah in advance of your specific text :-) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): how to distinguish a private resolution from the situation where one of the parties desided to quit under load of new info? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *decided Carlton Samuels: So the entire discussion on 'private resolution' is predicated on knowledge of the transaction before the fact? Are we sure the community would have sight of this to make any enforcement worthwhile? Steve Chan: @Jon, see starting at the 3rd bullet under section (e) Steve Chan: We attempted to note that private auction was only one method of private resolution. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Yes that was requested last meeting Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Jon that would be appreciated (sooner the better ;-) Donna Austin, Neustar & Council Liaison: The concern is not the mechanism, the concern is applicants profiting from private auctions and applying specifically for that purpose. Jon Nevett: no one suggesting that we eliminate options Jeff Neuman: Thanks JOn edmon 2: towards competition, choice and consumer trust? should still be what guide us?... Carlton Samuels: @Donna: I understand that. My question is if private resolutions are to be embraced, what is the baseline for clarity and fairness without a priori knowledge? And assuming a priori knowledge, can they be classed as "private" thereafter? Jon Nevett: Donna +1 and addressing the concern that profiting would result in speculative applications Jeff Neuman: Susan, you are coming in and oyut Kristine Dorrain: +1 Jon Kristine Dorrain: I think we also need to remember that sometimes the cure is worse than the poison. In looking for a way to stop a few speculators, are we just tying our hands for legitmate purposes? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): All good at this time Jeff Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): alleged speculators Liz Williams: I have trouble with the "speculator" thing...how is it speculation if one goes into a process not knowing who would bid for what? It might be "specualation" if one only waited to resolve contention without, in good faith, trying other methods. One always wishes for a contention set of 0. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): So people what is your suggestion(s) for better text in this report to reflect these matters and seek effective public comments We can make these changes with agreed proposed text (or guidleines to text) Jeff Neuman: Thanks Cheryl....that is the key question Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: First Paragraph on Page 10, an application that is changed should be subject to not only ICANN approval, but also to a public comment period. sarah l: folks just checking the draft says a contended applicant can’t jump out of one contention set into another it the applicant is allowed to change the string. we talked about it at the last meeting

3 3

Supplemental Initial Report - Published for Public Comment
by Steve Chan Oct. 31, 2018

Oct. 31, 2018

Dear WG Members, Many of you will already be aware, but please note that the Supplemental Initial Report has been published for public comment on 30 October 2018: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-supp-i… Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

2 1

FW: [Ext] FW: Invitation to the Board Chair for the ME Space session
by Steve Chan Oct. 25, 2018

Oct. 25, 2018

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find a statement from the Middle East Space on the Applicant Support Program for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. They have requested that the WG consider these comments as deliberations on the subject continue. Best, Steve From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 12:20 AM To: Christa Taylor <christa(a)dottba.com> Cc: Baher Esmat <baher.esmat(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Invitation to the Board Chair for the ME Space session Dear Christa, On behalf of the ME Space, I would like to transmit you the ICANN 63 ME Space statement on the ne gTLD Applicant Support for subsequent rounds. Please distribute it to your Work Track members for your consideration. Thank you Christa Best regards

1 0

Updated Supplemental Report
by Steve Chan Oct. 24, 2018

Oct. 24, 2018

Dear WG Members, With thanks to the WG Members and the other community members that participated during the WG’s face-to-face sessions, as well as those who provided comments on the mailing list, staff has accepted all red-lined changes made previous to the face-to-face session and sought to integrate suggested changes since then. In addition, please find a clean version of the latest draft in the context of the complete Supplemental Report. There is a minor difference in that version, where it includes the numbering scheme (for preliminary recommendations, options, and questions) utilized for the Initial Report. Finally, prior to publication (targeted for next week), staff will produce a table of the preliminary recommendations, options, and questions to aid the community in responding to this Supplemental Report in public comment. If you have any questions, please let us know at your earliest convenience. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
by Jim Prendergast Oct. 23, 2018

Oct. 23, 2018

Jeff and Cheryl - in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report. Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members...... With the Following ...... While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic: ICANN Board - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on "gaming" or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values. IPC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions. ALAC - full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw). RySG - Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis. The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward. Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place. Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; * During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of 'losing' in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant's application strategy * Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants * All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented * The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined. We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient. The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim(a)galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren

6 8

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 20 October 2018 (ICANN63)
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 22, 2018

Oct. 22, 2018

Dear Working Group members, Please see attached the notes from the three Full WG sessions at ICANN63 on 20 October 2018. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-10-20+ICANN63+Barcelona+-+Ne…. Please also see the attached referenced slides and documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period.
by Vanda Scartezini Oct. 22, 2018

Oct. 22, 2018

Much better in my opinion Sarah. thanks Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Langstone, Sarah via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Sarah' 'Langstone <slangstone(a)Verisign.com> Date: Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 18:12 To: "jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com" <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, "jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM" <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Thanks Jim Just one small clarification if I may – the Initial Report did ask for feedback in the following question: 2.7.4.e.2: Do you think rules should be established to disincentivize “gaming” or abuse of private auctions? Why or why not? If you support such rules, do you have suggestions about how these rules should be structured or implemented? A suggested edit to your text would be to replace the opening of the first sentence with: “The recently closed comment period on the Initial Report sought feedback on whether rules should be established to incentivize “gaming” or abuse of private auctions…..” While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Verisign Inc This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:51 PM To: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Thanks Jim. I think this looks good. Any objections from member of the Working Group on including this language which reflects discussions that took place yesterday. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 4:54 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Suggested language for Supplemental interim report related to feedback on auctions from the recently closed comment period. Jeff and Cheryl – in the spirit of not only identifying problems but also providing solutions, see below proposed language that reflects my concerns as expressed during the last plenary call and earlier in the meeting about including feedback on auctions from the Initial Report. Replace the second to last paragraph of section 1.2b which starts with: Private resolutions, including private auctions, have been noted as a particular area of concern by a number of community members…… With the Following …… While not specifically asking for feedback on private resolutions (including private auctions) during the recently closed comment period on the Initial Report, the Working Group did receive feedback by a number of community members, as well as the ICANN Board. The group has not had a chance to deliberate on this feedback as of yet but provides appropriate excerpts below for the benefit of the community as they consider this topic: ICANN Board – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on “gaming” or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values. IPC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… The IPC believes it would be beneficial to study abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions. ALAC – full comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… At this point, the community does not know enough about abuse that may have occurred in the 2012 round of auctions, both ICANN and private ones. Even the legality of private auctions is in question. A study should be completed to resolve these issues. Alternatively, ICANN should explore other contention resolution mechanisms outside of auctions that may serve as more equitable (e.g., like a draw). RySG – Full Comment at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-… The Registry Stakeholder Group believes that insufficient discussion and analysis has yet taken place in the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG on the important topic of considerations for resolution of contention sets. These include auctions of last resort, private auctions and other alternatives although a lottery solution seems to have been rejected, but without sufficient explanation as to the basis. The SubPro WG has never considered the legality of private auctions. Some members of the RySG think SubPro WG should consider the legality of such auctions as part of its work going forward. Without significant completion of the work from the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds it is difficult to assess the opportunities and risks of successful last resort auctions. While the auctions of last resort have worked as a process, there may need to be additional transparency processes put in place. Known issues that have been discussed in the Sub Pro PD WG include; • During the 2012 new gTLD application round, the private auction process was not created until after applications were submitted. However, in subsequent procedures, applicants will be aware of the potential financial benefit of ‘losing’ in auction and it may become a commonplace component of an applicant’s application strategy • Concerns that private auctions are not in the public interest because the proceeds are shared by auction participants • All auctions favor well-funded applicants and communities and minority interests are underrepresented • The legality of Private Auctions have not yet been considered or determined. We are mindful also that private auctions have permitted competitors to split among themselves hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been put to use for the public benefit if such auctions were held by ICANN as auctions of last resort. While acknowledging concerns about private auctions, the Initial Report contains one short paragraph, addressing none of these concerns in detail and providing no substantive advice or recommendations. In light of the magnitude of the issues raised by private auctions an updated and complete initial report should be considered as any final report that does not address the many issues surrounding private auctions should be considered deficient. The RySG observes that several CC2 comments have been filed, but we do not believe sufficient investigation or deliberations on these comments, or the issues they raise, have occurred, nor has the Sub-Pro PDP WG, to our knowledge, obtained sufficient data upon which appropriate deliberations could take place. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim(a)galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Sub Group Break Outs
by Steve Chan Oct. 20, 2018

Oct. 20, 2018

Apologies and with thanks to Kristine Dorrain for flagging, Sub Groups B and C will be going to different physical rooms as well. Sub Group B will go to 121 and Sub Group C will go to 129. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 3:19 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Sub Group Break Outs Dear WG Members, For the 17:00-18:30 session, we will be breaking up into Sub Groups A, B, and C, which is to serve as a kickoff of sorts for these groups. Here, I want to share some working documents that the Sub Groups will be reviewing, as well as the respective Adobe Connect rooms. Sub Group A: Will discuss Applications Assessed in Rounds and will stay in the main room Sub Group B: Will discuss Application Fees and time permitting Variable Fees. They will use https://participate.icann.org/sc-policy/ Sub Group C: Will discuss the Base Registry Agreement. They will use https://participate.icann.org/emilybarabas/ Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Sub Group Break Outs
by Steve Chan Oct. 20, 2018

Oct. 20, 2018

Dear WG Members, For the 17:00-18:30 session, we will be breaking up into Sub Groups A, B, and C, which is to serve as a kickoff of sorts for these groups. Here, I want to share some working documents that the Sub Groups will be reviewing, as well as the respective Adobe Connect rooms. Sub Group A: Will discuss Applications Assessed in Rounds and will stay in the main room Sub Group B: Will discuss Application Fees and time permitting Variable Fees. They will use https://participate.icann.org/sc-policy/ Sub Group C: Will discuss the Base Registry Agreement. They will use https://participate.icann.org/emilybarabas/ Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0