October 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] EBERO / SLAM Data Status and next steps
by Steve Chan Jan. 30, 2020

Jan. 30, 2020

Dear All, There did not appear to be any comments, questions, or objections to how the EBERO/SLAM data topic was characterized by Jeff, including what will be sought from ICANN Org’s GDD team. The information below will be sent to GDD for their review and resolution. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 8:14 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] EBERO / SLAM Data Status and next steps All, On 23 August 2019, high-level statistics were shared from ICANN org’s SLA Monitoring program (attached). These statistics provided the monthly number of 1) DNS failures 2) RDDS failures and 3) DNS and RDDS failures that reached the EBERO threshold. On 26 August 2019, Donna Austin shared a RySG document which included data previously shared by ICANN org at the Madrid DNS Symposium / GDD Summit (attached). This data provided more detail on group 3 above in particular, including elements like: The cause for why the EBERO threshold was reached (i.e., DNS/DNSSEC or RDDS) A further, more specific breakdown within each of the two categories that indicate why the EBERO threshold was reached (e.g., IPv6 transport error, broken chain of trust in DNSSEC, etc.) Within our Working Group there has been some discussion about what impact this data may have. For example, we discussed whether past failures should have any impact on future application evaluations or RSP pre-approval for future rounds? The Working Group, however, is trending towards agreeing that evaluation and thus RSP pre-approval (which is likely to leverage the same or substantially the same evaluation criteria) should be forward looking and not be impacted by past performance. The Working Group is also trending towards requiring the pre-approval prior to each evaluation round and that the approval will be good for the duration of the then-current round. A second area in which this data could have an impact is whether or not existing Registry Service Providers should be grandfathered into any future pre-approval processes? Based on the Working Group’s deliberations and public comment received, the answer appears to be no. Most of the comments seem to point to requiring all RSPs (whether new or existing) to go through the same processes in future rounds. Therefore, based on where the Working Group is heading, the Co-Chairs do no believe that we are in need of additional historical data for purposes of finalizing its work on the RSP Pre-approval program. We recognize that registry service provider performance has been a topic of discussion for matters other than the pre-approval program. We understand that there has been discussion about whether the relatively high number of registry services failures indicates that RSP might need to improve how they operate to ensure the security and stability of the DNS. While this WG is forward looking and not intending to impose new commitments for existing RSPs, lessons may be learned to improve the evaluation process for future applicants/RSPs. Based on the above, the WG believes it does need more context from GDD to understand the data it has been provided, since not all SLA failures are equally harmful. Therefore in looking at the failures, for example, the WG needs clarity on whether they refer to service availability or Round Trip Time (RTT). The WG also wants to try and examine if there was any harm caused by the downtime, which is benefitted in part by understanding the timing of the failure (e.g., prior to Sunrise, during Sunrise, before General Availability, after GA). For the failures that did NOT reach the EBERO threshold, the WG would like summary data of which of the SLRs was missed. For the failures that DID reach the EBERO threshold, a detailed breakdown (e.g., similar specificity that was shared at the Madrid DNS Symposium / GDD Summit), which includes the timing of the failure. This information may help identify weaknesses in the evaluation criteria, registry system testing, and/or contractual requirements captured in the Registry Agreement. The leadership intends to send the request for additional context next week, but we would like to know if there are any comments from the Working Group. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Best regards, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr SubPro PDP Co-Chairs The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com

3 4

CPE: Supplementary Guidelines 4-B: Opposition
by Jeff Neuman Nov. 14, 2019

Nov. 14, 2019

This one we discussed on the call extensively and I think we already discussed making sure that the there be a balance of support and opposition. If an Applicant demonstrates support from the community and earns full credit on Support, then the opposition MUST be substantial in order get points taken off. One letter from one individual or group should not necessarily be enough to lose a point (unless that group is substantial in terms of representing the community). Here is what the FTI Group states on Opposition. Sub-Criterion 4-B: Opposition To receive two points for Opposition, an application must have no opposition of relevance.197 To receive one point, an application may have relevant opposition from no more than one group of non-negligible size.198 Nine CPE reports recorded one point for Opposition.199 In each instance, the CPE Provider determined that the underlying applications received relevant opposition from no more than one group of non-negligible size. Opposition was deemed relevant on several grounds: (i) opposition was from a community not identified in the application but had an association to the applied-for string;200 (ii) the application was subject to a legal rights objection (LRO);201 or (iii) opposition was not made for any reason forbidden by the Applicant Guidebook, such as competition or obstruction.202 Seventeen CPE reports recorded the full two points for Opposition.203 The CPE Provider determined that the applications corresponding to 17 CPE reports did not have any letters of relevant opposition.204 Ultimately, FTI observed that the CPE Provider engaged in a consistent evaluation process that strictly adhered to the criteria and requirements set forth in the Applicant Guidebook and CPE Guidelines. FTI observed no instances where the CPE Provider's evaluation process deviated from the applicable guidelines pertaining to the Community Endorsement criterion. Based on FTI's investigation, FTI concludes that the CPE Provider consistently applied the Community Endorsement criterion in all CPEs. While the CPE Provider awarded different scores to different applications, the scoring decisions were based on the same rationale, namely a failure to satisfy the requirements that are set forth in the Applicant Guidebook and CPE Guidelines. 197 Id. at Pg. 4-17. 198 Id. 199 MERCK (KGaA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-980- 7217-en.pdf); MERCK (RH) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1- 1702-73085-en.pdf); SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-1830-1672-en…) GAY CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699-en.…) GAY 2 CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-rr-1-1713-23699-…) LLP CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.p…) LLC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.p…) INC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.p…) and MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046-…) No CPE reports recorded zero points for Opposition. 200 LLP CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llp/llp-cpe-1-880-35508-en.p…) LLC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/llc/llc-cpe-1-880-17627-en.p…) and INC CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/inc/inc-cpe-1-880-35979-en.p…) 201 MERCK (KGaA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merck-cpe-1-980- 7217-en.pdf); and MERCK (RH) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/merck/merckcpe-1-1702-73085-…) 202 GAY CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-1-1713-23699-en.…) GAY 2 CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gay/gay-cpe-rr-1-1713-23699-…) SHOP (Commercial Connect) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1- 1830-1672-en.pdf); and MUSIC (.music LLC) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/music-cpe-1-959-51046-…) 203 ART (eflux) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe-1-1675-51302- en.pdf); MUSIC (DotMusic Ltd.) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/music/musiccpe-1-1115-14110-…) ECO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/eco/eco-cpe-1- 912-59314-en.pdf); HOTEL CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/hotel/hotel-cpe-1- 1032-95136-en.pdf); OSAKA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/osaka/osaka-cpe1-901-9391-en…) SPA CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/spa/spa-cpe-1-1309- 81322-en.pdf); RADIO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/radio/radio-cpe-1-1083- 39123-en.pdf). TENNIS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/tennis/tennis-cpe-1- 1723-69677-en.pdf); MLS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/mls/mls-cpe-1-1888- 47714-en.pdf); CPA (USA) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1911- 56672-en.pdf); CPA (AU) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/cpa/cpa-cpe-1-1744- 1971-en.pdf); GMBH CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/gmbh/gmbh-cpe-1-1273- 63351-en.pdf); IMMO CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/immo/immo-cpe-1-1000- 62742-en.pdf); SHOP (GMO) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1- 890-52063-en.pdf); KIDS CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/kids/kids-cpe-1-1309- 46695-en.pdf); TAXI CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/taxi/taxi-cpe-1-1025- 18840-en.pdf); and ART (Dadotart) CPE Report (https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/art/art-cpe1-1097-20833-en.p…) 204 Id. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Jamie Baxter <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 12:41 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; 'Emily Barabas' <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines Good afternoon Working Group members On the last call regarding Community Applications, everyone was asked to review the EIU’s CPE Guidelines to see if there are any items that need further scrutiny before being added into the AGB for subsequent procedures. My apologies for the length of this response, but hopefully these notes help provide insight on how the AGB language was interpreted from a Community Applicant perspective, and what things continue to need further clarification before the next AGB is published. 1-A Delineation Page 4: “Delineation” The non-exhaustive list the EIU added into the CPE guidelines that denotes elements of straight-forward member definitions contains a clear bias towards professional and trade communities. The AGB did not carry this kind of bias, and it would be a concern if the next AGB projected this kind of bias around delineation, especially since many linguistic and cultural communities are straight-forward in the eyes of their members but do not use a membership card system. Can review be done to determine what other forms of delineation were accepted in CPE scoring from all community applications in the 2012 round? And can those examples be included in the examples already noted by the EIU? 2-A Nexus “Identify” The AGB very clearly states that “”identify” means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members,” providing two distinct paths to establish if an applied for string identifies the community. These paths are not interconnected or contingent on one another in the AGB, but instead suggest separate routes to establishing nexus. My interpretation of this AGB language is that an applicant can select a string that is a known identifier of the community, or a string that identifies the specific members of that community. Additionally, no rule is placed on the “known identifier of the community” as needing to be the only identifier of that community. The AGB additionally provides two examples to help illustrate the definition of “identity” for each of the possible paths. 1. As an example, a string could qualify for a score of 2 if it is a noun that the typical community member would naturally be called in the context. (AGB, Pg 197) 2. If the string appears excessively broad (such as, for example, a globally well-known but local tennis club applying for “.TENNIS”) then it would not qualify for a 2. (AGB, Pg 197) What the AGB does not do with these examples is suggest that both paths must be successfully maneuvered in order to achieve 2 points. The definition of “identify” in the AGB suggests the applicant had the choice to design their application around a name of the community (TENNIS community), or the member attributes in the community (TENNIS players, TENNIS coaches, etc). This is clearly noted in example 1 where 2 points were achieved when it’s confirmed the string identifies the actual community members. The second example denying 2 points for .TENNIS however does not further elaborate on how 2 points could have been achieved in the case of describing the TENNIS community. The second example could suggest that if an internationally recognized tennis club applied for .TENNIS instead of a local tennis club, for use among those in the wider TENNIS community (broadcasters, networks, physical therapists, vendors, fans, etc – all tertiary parts of the community that also have other identifiers), then it could have been successful on the path of “closely describes the community.” When the average person thinks of the TENNIS community they could reasonably include the list above, yet these participants in the TENNIS community may not identify naturally with the word TENNIS (i.e. a tennis broadcaster that also covers football). Although the EIU’s CPE guidelines are silent on establishing further clarity around the AGB language related to the two paths to “identify,” the practice of the EIU did not align with the flexibility of the AGB. The EIU appears to have conflated the two distinct paths as one and made them both requirements under the definition of “identity,” or at least imposed the requirement that the string be a term the community members naturally call themselves. This may have happened because the two examples outlined above run sequentially in the AGB, causing confusion without distinction. Given the unfortunate implementation route taken by the EIU, it should be more clear in the AGB what is meant by “identify means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members.” I believe it offers two separate paths to success for community applicants, one based on a widely used and identifiable name of the community (known by those inside & outside the community) and the other based on the identity of the actual members in the community. 4-B Opposition “Relevance” As discussed on the last call, guidance for “relevance” in 4-B must include a balance of opposition in relation to documented support, and not just an isolated determination of whether the opposing entity is part of the community explicitly or implicitly addressed. One misaligned community member/entity should not have the power to impact CPE scores of a largely aligned community, yet that was the EIU’s interpretation and practice in the 2012 round. To illustrate this point, if an applicant has hundreds of organizations from around the world supporting an application, and those endorsements represent the voices of tens of thousands of other local and regional organizations, then an expression of opposition from one single, small and even locally based organization from within the defined community among the thousands globally expressing support should not be able to put 1 of the 2 CPE points for this criteria in jeopardy. Cheers Jamie Jamie Baxter dotgay LLC jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com> www.dotgay.com<http://www.dotgay.com/> A Certified LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE) Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com<http://www.facebook.dotgay.com/> and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay<http://www.twitter.com/dotgay> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 2:54 PM To: Emily Barabas; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluations Review of Supplementary Guidelines All, I would hope that everyone reads all of the notes sent out on each of the meetings carefully, but just in case, I want to draw your attention to one of the biggest action items that arose as a result of our call this morning (Wednesday night for those in the US). In addition, I would like to pose a question for consideration by the Working Group. 1. “ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf” One of the universal criticisms about the CPE process was that there were additional rules and guidelines that were adopted by the CPE Evaluators (EIU) after all of the applications were submitted. The Working Group will most likely be recommending that all rules be set forth in the Applicant Guidebook or at the very latest prior to the Application Window opening up. That message has been delivered loud and clear. Something that can help, however, would be if the Working Group could review the CPE Guidelines that were developed by EIU (at the link above) to see if those Guidelines make sense and whether those Guidelines or something similar to those Guidelines could be formally adopted as part of our recommendations. Putting aside the fact that these came after applications were submitted, many of the Guidelines make sense. If we formally approve them, then this will go a long way to helping potential applicants understand how CPE evaluations will work. 1. Clarifying Questions and CPE: A second item which looks likely to be a recommendation will be that CPE Evaluators should utilize the CQ process (Clarification Questions process) to seek clarifications (but not new material) from the applicant on items where it has questions or issues. However, would it also be advisable for the CPE Evaluators to be able to send CQs to those that oppose a community application (and that have submitted letters of opposition)? In other words, CPE Evaluators can ask those that oppose the application questions about themselves and how representative they are. They can drill down on details about what it is that they oppose, etc. Those on the call thought this may be a good idea to help weed out frivolous letters of opposition or also emphasize the opposition of real entities, persons and communities. We believe these should be non-controversial, but would like to input other than that which we got on the call. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:16 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 10 October 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 10 October 2019. 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/2019-10-10+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. On the call, it was suggested that guidelines used by CPE evaluators in the 2012 round should be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook in subsequent procedures to improve predictability. Please see the notes below for details. As a follow up to the action item below, WG members are encouraged to review the 2012 CPE guidelines (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf) and raise on the mailing list if there are elements of the guidelines that they believe should not be incorporated into the AGB. Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: Action Item: ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf Notes: 1. Welcome and Update to Statements of Interest * No SOI updates * Following up on Monday’s call, there is a revised chart available on appeals. Please add questions and comments to the draft for discussion on the email list. The chart is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… 2.a. Community Applications * Policy Goals are high-level and non-controversial. High-Level agreements so far: The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process must be more transparent and predictable; All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * CCT-RT Recommendation 34 also suggests making improvements to address concerns raised about community applications before going forward with subsequent procedures. * Guidelines developed by the evaluators have not been discussed in depth by this group, other than the fact that they were made available late in the process. Key point raised in the public comments -- information contained in the guidelines needs to be available to applicants before applications are submitted. * Would it make sense to put some of the guidelines developed by the evaluators into the Applicant Guidebook? * Were there things in the guidelines, other than those detailed in the public comments, which were problematic? * ACTION ITEM: WG members will go through the guidelines and flag anything they think should not be incorporated into the AGB for subsequent procedures. See guidelines at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf * By including guidelines in the AGB, there would be greater predictability for applicants and also greater clarity for future evaluators. * As a community applicant, there was a lot left open for interpretation in the 2012 AGB. As a result, an applicant’s interpretation of the guidebook may have been different from what the evaluators took away when they developed their guidelines. This resulted in a discrepancy that should not exist in subsequent procedures. * Review of suggestions in the public comments on improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process. * Review of comments on the definition of community. * One WG member disagrees with the way the EIU further restricted the definition of community in its guidelines, and suggests that this is not incorporated into the AGB going forward. Specifically, the EIU prioritized those that had a structured system to the community -- institutionalized or industry-related organizations would therefore be higher priority. * Suggestion - what if ICANN community members served as CPE panelists? They might better understand the definition of community from the ICANN perspective. ALAC advised in their public comments that members of grassroots organizations should serve as panelists. * Response - Different members of the ICANN community might understand the definition differently. ICANN never provided a clear definition. ICANN was relying on the scoring to delineate who should get priority rather than having a specific definition. * In selecting an entity to do the evaluations, ICANN was looking for expertise in doing this type of evaluation with independence, but as a result the evaluators may not have as much perspective on what ICANN was trying to achieve. Members of the ICANN community come in with their own biases. Could community members perhaps have some kind of advisory role instead? * The choice of evaluators may have impacted the way they approached the evaluation process. EIU has an economic focus. * Further review of suggestions for improving transparency and predictability of the CPE process in relation to the preliminary recommendation that the CPE process must be more transparent and predictable. * Conflict of interest provisions discussed previously should be applicable to all panelists, including those conducting CPE. This will address public comments that raised concerns about conflict of interest. * Comment - it is very important that one “naysayer” does not prevent an application from moving forward. There needs to be substantial opposition. * Suggestion for an additional WG Recommendation: If there was research relied on for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided. This is based on comments from Jaime Baxter, ALAC, and NCSG. * Some have commented that the costs of the process should be lower and that the process should be quicker. Suggestion for an implementation note stating ICANN staff should examine ways to make the process more efficient in terms of cost and timing. It may be difficult to be more detailed since ICANN Org is in the best position to evaluate how to increase efficiencies. * Comment - At this stage, ICANN Org should be better able to scope the task with a service provider and set clear expectations. The service provider should be responsible for remaining within budget. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: CPE evaluations should be completed in a shorter period of time. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: All evaluation procedures should be developed BEFORE the application process opens and made easily and readily available. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: The CPE process should include a process for evaluators to ask clarifying questions and where appropriate engage in a dialogue with the applicant [and providers of letters of opposition?] during the CPE process. ICANN org raised concerns about potential lobbying and lack of transparency that could result from this type of engagement. Perhaps panelists could ask clarifying questions in written format --- all materials would be publicly available. The opportunity would be equally available to all parties to ensure that the process is fair. * Preliminary Recommendation about dialogue between evaluators and relevant parties will be revised and included as a draft recommendation for the WG to consider further. * One WG member stated that community applicants can’t change their application, and that the opportunity for dialogue won’t change the application. It simply provides an opportunity for the applicant to illustrate key points so that the evaluators understand the application. There is little room for lobbying from this perspective. * Response -- by putting everything in writing, there is still this opportunity to clarify, and there is greater transparency. * Additional question - should the panelists be able to send clarification questions to those filing opposition letters? One member expressed support for this proposal. It may help to bring greater clarity to understanding the legitimacy of the opposition. It’s important to be clear that this is not about community-based objections but about opposition to community-based applications. * Review of public comments on preliminary recommendation: Less restrictive word count for communities to engage in clarifying and providing information. ALAC expressed opposition to this recommendation. * It may be helpful to do some additional research on the existing word count restrictions, but there did not seem to be much support for increasing limits on word count. * Review of ALAC comment on providing access to experts to assist communities, particularly those from underserved regions in preparing applications in order to level the playing field. Suggestion to link this comment to the topic Applicant Support. * Review of comments on potentially providing alternative benefits if an applicant scored below the threshold. * Review of suggested changes to evaluation criteria or weight/scoring of criteria -- in particular, discussion of the comment that if opposition is expressed, it must be examined in the big picture and weighed against the volume of support. There should be a balance. * Discussion of suggestion in the public comments that there should be addition criteria around benefit to registrants -- perhaps there could be a form of “extra credit” granted to applicants that help or solve a problem inside a community. This could come in the form of bonus points. It might address some of the public comments from the Council of Europe, as well. * Clarification - this is already a requirement of the application, however it was not translated into the scoring criteria. It was incorporated into the contract as a commitment to the community. It would make sense for this to part of the scoring criteria. * Review of comments on whether there should continue to be preferential treatment for community applications -- there is general support for this concept. NCSG expressed concern about the definition of community. Registrars would like to eliminate the concept of community. * Review of comments on the Council of Europe report. * Review of comments in response to the question - to what extent should evaluators be able to deviate from pre-published guidance and guidelines? * Additional comment raised by a WG member -- any requirements about letters of support should be clear and transparent up front. * Review of additional considerations on selection of panelists and program goals raised by the Council of Europe. * Note that ICANN is currently examining the concept of Global Public Interest which may be responsive to the Council of Europe’s comments on this topic. 3. AOB * None. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com> [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima…]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

4 3

Donna Austin Proposal and Paul McGrady Question re: Sealed Bid Auction
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 29, 2019

Oct. 29, 2019

At the end of the call that just wrapped up we had a good discussion on a potential compromise regarding auctions that I want to continue the conversation in this thread before we lost momentum. WARNING: THIS E-MAIL MAY RESULT IN YOUR HEAD SPINNING FROM THE POTENTIAL PERMUTATIONS. If I understood correctly, the proposal was that we consider the following: What if at some point prior to reveal day, ICANN were to notify all of the parties that are in a contention set that they were in a contention set. Perhaps even telling them how many other applicants they were in a contention set with. But there would be no disclosure of WHO was in the contention set. Then each applicant would be given a period of time (Which would end PRIOR to reveal day), to either withdraw their application or submit a sealed bid. ICANN would then process only the application that submitted the highest bid. If the application with the highest bid gets through the entire evaluation/objection processes and to the contracting stage, it would then be responsible for the payment of an amount equal to the second highest bid. If that applicant did not make it through the evaluation/objection processes for whatever reason, ICANN would then start processing the application of the second highest bidder and if that bidder were successful, it would at contract stage pay ICANN the price of the third highest bidder, etc. Here are the potential issues/questions [and some of my initial thoughts]: 1. If there are one or more Community Applications, that/those application(s) would need to be processed first through CPE before looking at the auction bids. 2. What happens on Reveal Day? Are all of the applications (that have not been withdrawn) posted regardless of whether they are first in the queue or not? [I would say yes so that they next steps can be completed]. 3. If they are all revealed, would the order of where the bids came in (but not the amounts) be posted? I would say again yes. 4. Would comments from the public be solicited on all applications regardless of where they placed in the queue? I would say yes because to do it otherwise would mean opening up separate public comment periods depending on whether there is a need to go to the second bidder, and that would be impossible to monitor. 5. How does String Similarity Evaluation fit in here? * For exact matches and plural/singular (if that rule is adopted), it will be clear who is in a contention set. * But, what if String Similarity Evaluation determines that others should be in the Contention Set? * Although String Similarity Evaluation is after reveal day, if the panel decides that another string should be added to an existing contention set, or it results in the creation of a new contention set, the following should happen: i. If it creates a new contention set, the all of the applicants in the new contention set would be asked to submit bids. Yes, they would know who they were in a contention set with, but that is just something I think we need to live with. ii. If new applications were added to an existing contention set, then the new applicants would be asked to submit a sealed bid. Yes, they would know who was in their contention set and if the applications are poste in the order in which they bid, they would know who they would have to outbid, BUT, they would not know how much the others bid. This too in unavoidable. 1. Would objections need to be filed during the objection period? * This is a much more difficult question. My proposal would be that objections on the highest bidder’s application would certainly need to be filed within the objection period. * With respect to objections on the other applications, I believe there should be something akin to the filing of “an intent to file an objection” with respect to other applications. But the actual Objection filing would not need to be made unless the first application did not succeed. If ICANN needs to go to the second bidder, the party(ies) that indicated an intent to file an objection would be given 30 days to file that objection at that time. If the first applicant proceeds to contracting, then there would be no need to hear any objections on the second, third, etc. applications. 2. Is #5 above the same if there are one or more Community Applications? * I would say that all Community Applications for a string would be treated as if they were first in the queue for the purposes of #5. So, objections on the community applications would need to be filed during the original objection period, but “intent to file objections” would need to be filed (if any) on the others. * If more than one Community Application passes CPE for a string, then the highest Community bidder would be processed through the rest of the process first. If for whatever reason they do not succeed, then it would go to the 2nd Community Applicant that passed CPE, etc. * Then, the objections (if any) on the non-Community Applications would only be heard if the Community Applications do not pass CPE. 3. What if a String Confusion Objection results in the creation of a new contention set or adds to an existing contention set? * I think this would be treated similarly to the String Similarity Evaluation results. * What this means is that after all String Confusion Objections are filed within the Objection Period, ICANN would need to determine whether there would be a possibility if the outcome could result in the creation of a new contention set or add to an existing contention set. If that possibility exists, then ICANN would need to hold off on proceeding with the potentially impacted strings until after the results of the String Confusion Objection are in (as well as any appeals of those decisions). 4. How do Appeals/Accountability Mechanisms work with this? * All appeals/Accountability Mechanisms of the first application in the queue must be exhausted. If the first application in the queue for whatever reason loses an appeal and that results in the failure of the application (for whatever reason), then and only then would the second in line be processed. 5. How does the Applicant Support Program figure into this? * If we decide that Applicants who are given support get a multiplier on their auction bid (But not Priority), that would get figured in at the appropriate time in determining their order in the queue. * If we decide that Applicants who are given support do not get a multiplier on their auction bid, then this would have no impact on the proposal. If you made it this far, I am not only amazed, but also proud 😊 Great job! Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D58519.1C04C950] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

10 11

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluation - EIU Guidelines
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 28, 2019

Oct. 28, 2019

Regarding the "considerable size" standard in the CPE evaluation, Alexander has raised an interesting point. I meant the non-citizen Kurd population of northern Syria rather than all worldwide Kurd populations when talking about a community with shared challenges. If we are to establish appeal processes and standards, "considerable" might require further definition. Would the estimated 400,000 non-citizen Kurds in Syria constitute a community of "considerable size" in comparison to the entire population of Kurds on the planet in all countries? Or do the Syrian Kurds fail the "Extension" test? Would it depend on exactly what TLD name they were seeking for the CPE Community? So could the Syrian Kurds get CPE for (dot)syriankurds or (dot)non-citizenkurds? And what if the Syrian government objected? Maybe no one likes this example, but the point is that the attached EIU Guidelines for scoring just say: "Is the community of considerable size?" What does the word, "considerable", mean to panelists who are subject to being overturned on appeal and who have no precedents to follow? Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 4:06 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com) <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: Community Priority Evaluation - EIU Guidelines Jeff and Cheryl, Regarding the EIU guidelines and possible adoption of a recommendation by the WG to continue with those in the next round, I have a couple of notes: 1. p. 4 - The Guidelines say re "Pre-existing" means that the community has to have existed since 2007 - assume we would need to change this date. 2. p.3 and 4 - There is language about awarding points based on the idea that the applicant entity was formed to "administer the community". Does this requirement make sense when we are trying to encourage Community TLDs for purposes of Applicant Freedom of Expression? It would seem more appropriate to talk about an entity that is formed for the purpose of administering the TLD for a clearly-delineated community. Is there an assumption here that all communities are somehow "administered"? And was that the assumption in the 2012 AGB? Maybe Jamie or others will have more background on this standard? 3. p. 5 - Re 1-B Extension - it is a bit confusing that the 1 point category is defined as "not meeting the 2 point category" Is the only difference here the fact that 2 points emphasizes "considerable size AND longevity" whereas 1 point could mean "either considerable size OR longevity" or could the entity be of less than considerable "size" but have lots of longevity - maybe like the Kurds? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D58D9E.B6FFBC20] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image004.jpg@01D58D9E.B6FFBC20] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.

2 1

Appeals Standard of Review
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 28, 2019

Oct. 28, 2019

All, One of the remaining topics for Appeals is to determine what the standard of review should be. The choices discussed are "De Novo" or "Clearly Erroneous." 1. Under a "De Novo" standard of review, the appeals panel is essentially deciding the issues without reference to any of the conclusions or assumptions made by the evaluator/dispute panel. It can refer to the evaluator/dispute panel to determine the facts, but it need not defer to any of the findings or conclusions. It would be as if the appeals panel is hearing the facts for the first time. 1. Under a "Clearly Erroneous" standard of review, the appeals panel must accept the evaluator's or dispute panel's findings of fact unless the appeals panel is definitely and firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. In other words, it is not enough that the appeals panel may have weighed the evidence and reached a different conclusion; the evaluator's/dispute panel's decision will only be reversed if it is implausible in light of all the evidence. In theory it could be possible to have different standards of review depending on what is the issue being appealed. For example, for Conflicts of Interest determinations, we could state that such an appeal would be on a De Novo standard, but for all other appeals, Clearly Erroneous. As a reminder, here are the different types of appeals: 1. Evaluations * Background Screening * String Similarity * DNS Stability * Geographic Names * Technical / Operational Evaluation * Financial Evaluation * Registry Services * Applicant Support * Community Priority Evaluation 1. Objections * String Confusion * Legal Rights Objection * Limited Public Interest * Community Objection * Conflict of Interest of Panelists. My personal recommendation is that all appeals except for the Conflict of Interest appeals have a "Clearly Erroneous" standard. Conflict of Interests should be reviewed under a De Novo Standard. To review anything else De Novo would be incredibly time consuming, costly, and could substantially delay applications. ICANN should have a thorough screening process to pick its evaluators/panelists and deference to their determinations should be given. But determinations of Conflict of Interest seem to me to be appropriate for a De Novo standard because the original determination could be made by the party against whom the assertion of a conflict is made. Thoughts? Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D5833A.5E4EC4E0] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

7 10

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Appeals Standard of Review
by Jamie Baxter Oct. 27, 2019

Oct. 27, 2019

2 1

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 24 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 25, 2019

Oct. 25, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 24 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/pYoCBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal
by Alexander Schubert Oct. 25, 2019

Oct. 25, 2019

Dear Anne,I know that you stated an "unusual "example" - in which maybe a potential objector would be forced to submit different objections In reality in almost all cases of contention you faced the typical "Donuts"-type of application: A VC money fueled applicant proposes to ICANN to run a standard ".com-style" generic keyword based string as new gTLD. And as long as the basic circumstances and modi of suggested gTLD operation are basically identical - so should be the objection. Obviously it would be the task of the objection provider to investigate the feasibility of a consolidation in each specific case. If the provider deems it necessary to split the objections up: they would notify ICANN and the objecting party.Just if you are the City of Shanghai and there are 5 cookie cutter standard submissions for .shanghai which cleverly manage to skirt the necessity for a letter of non-objection from the relevant government: your 5 community objections will all be identical. And as we know objection costs may run up to $ 500k - times 5 equals $ 2.5 Million. Even for a city like Shanghai a real burden and risk.Which brings me to the culprit of low application fee floors:I still don't understand how we can lower the application fee floor to something irresponsible like US $25k - which then might incur potentially a US $500k objection risk to an otherwise uninvolved entity (e.g. city community). The whole notion of "cost based" application fees is indefensible if we look at the implications - yet this mantra seems to be "untouchable". In my view we need at least a minimum entrance hurdle. You can hardly buy a used three letter .com domain for US $25k - but ICANN gifts you the operation of a piece of DNS infrastructure for that amount? Just doesn't make sense. A healthy 6 figure application fee floor would be the bare minimum. We might discuss to award a portion of that amount to transaction fees over the years - say if you owe ICANN transaction fees beyond the annual minimum amount: each year you could draw e.g. US $25k from the application fee amount that exceeded the cost base. Example: we charge US $150k application fee. Once the round is fully digested ICANN tallies up and determines that the real "cost base" was US $50k. Then for 4 years (equaling US $100k) you could draw $25k transaction fee reduction from the "overpaid balance" (only valid for transaction fees that exceed the annual minimum transaction fee amount). That would in the end leave those who really "run" their string successfully ending up with "cost based" conditions after 4 years - but still establishes an initial entrance hurdle. No entrance hurdle will equal high volumes of speculative, purely defensive (brands) and unsustainable applications - resulting in an unmanageable DNS and pure chaos - not to mention further "watering down" the already struggling existing DNS-ecosystem. A big difference to 2012 is: by 2021 "full service agencies" will provide "flat fee all inclusive turnkey registry solutions". All a wannabe registry owner needs to do is blurting out a string (.anything) - and pay up the application fees plus a handling fee. EVERYTHING ELSE would be handled by the agency - including application creation and submission, contracting, testing and onboarding at their own white label registrar. Combined with a low application fee floor this would invite chaos. Tnx,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: 10/25/19 01:21 (GMT+02:00) To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal  Alexander, · You say “They should be able to object to a GROUP of applicants if the circumstances are similar or identical.” I’m not sure where the WG ended up on this one – was there a consensus that Objections to the same string could be consolidated even where applicants and purpose of the TLD are different? · I expressly included four very different purposes for the four different .sam applications in my hypothetical. These different purposes make possible objection grounds very different indeed: .sam – CPE for the (hypothetical) Society for Aviation Maintenance .sam – domains for those interested in the Samurai arts .sam – free speech domains for criticism/support of “Uncle Sam” – (USG) .sam – for retail sales (clearly a candidate for LRO by Sam’s Club) The above should show why (1) Not all contention sets are appropriately consolidated for Objection purposes and (2) why it makes more sense to trigger the Objection filing deadline when a prospective winner is identified with reference to (a) passing or failing CPE, if applicable or (b) identified as having highest sealed bid From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:09 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal [EXTERNAL] Hi, Regarding “objections” and their timing let’s look at the facts (we are discussing contention sets – so contention is assumed): · We have at least 2 applications in contention: likely for the identical string (though string similarity could play a factor here, too: but super seldom). · Likely both applications are similar: Some VC money funded applicant wants to run the TLD by “making domains available” through the registrar channel (outside of Spec 13 applications the pre · Now we are discussing “objections”; in all likelihood an objector would object to the notion, that some VC money funded applicant “makes domain available” through the registrar channel! Likely IRRESPECTABLY of the identity of the applicant. (exceptions might exist of course). Example would be: Two applicants want to run “.twitter” – for bird fetishists! TWITTER doesn’t like it and objects. Or two U.S. based applicants want to run “.mecca” – kind of as “.guru” surrogate: ski.mecca, diving.mecca! The KSA would object. No it doesn’t matter to the KSA or TWITTER who wants to run .twitter or .mecca: They will simply don’t like it. Do we force them to object one applicant, then the next one gets evaluated and they need to object again? They should be able to object to a GROUP of applicants if the circumstances are similar or identical. · So I suggest: Once an objection is being filed – that triggers the initial evaluation for ALL contention set members. And all those who pass will be subject to the objection (if the objecting party wants so). The percentage of objected strings was fairly low – so you must have a bad luck (or bad taste rather) if that happens to you. Any contention set resolution can only start once we are past the stadium where objections could be filed. Contention set resolution: 1. In case of the ICANN Vickery “Instant Contention Set Resolution”: Any ONE applicant can trigger that; and it would result in a speedy, instant resolution. The winner would THEN be evaluated – if that fails the 2nd winner would be awarded. No evaluation failed in the 2012 round – so it’s very unlikely. After successful passing the initial evaluation the winner has to pay (just like in the former “ICANN auction of last resort); and is then on their own (has a 18 month time to contract, then a 24 month to enter the root). I don’t see that they should be able to drag it out for 3.5 years BEFORE they pay up. That would be a SIGNIFICANT change to the 2012 round. So the winner needs to pay directly after winning – not after delegation of the string. 2. In case ALL applicants signal ICANN that they want to explore a private contention set resolution then all applicants need to be evaluated BEFORE that can happen. The result of private contention set resolution in the 2012 round was in 100% of all cases the withdrawal of applications of the losers. The “winner” had to give them “something” (usually cash; or another application; or shares, or whatnot). This only works if the winner owns an “asset”: an application that survived the initial evaluation. So in case of an objection or the request of the entire contention set to be granted time to explore private contention set resolution: ALL applications of that set need to be evaluated. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 11:58 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal There cannot be a 'winner' if there is still unlimited potential for anyone to object on any basis. That probably would be unreasonable to take on such risk. But if objections at least had to be lodged in some form, even if not fully briefed with evidence, then at least everyone could make some risk assessment in resolving the contention set. I think that would encourage lots of silly lodged objections though. And I am still not convinced this is a big enough problem warranting such a substantial change to the previously agreed, dseigned and implemented, and highly complicated and integrated processes to resolve contention and objections in a timely and reasonably foreseeable manner. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.law

2 1

FW: String Contention Proposal
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 24, 2019

Oct. 24, 2019

________________________________ Regarding Tuesday’s call (Monday night in the US), I am offering the following hypothetical based on Donna’s suggestion to collect sealed bids prior to a reveal of the contention set. String Contention Proposal to Avoid Speculation in TLDs 4 applications for .sam string – contention set and parties not revealed on application date. Per Donna's suggestion, parties are all 4 notified of string contention and asked to submit sealed bids. Sealed bids received. (Some may drop out.) Application 1 is a Community Application for .sam for the "Society for Aviation Maintenance". All worldwide aviation maintenance unions back this application. Public comment is sought. At this point, the other applicants know there is a CPE application but their bids are already in. Should private resolution be permitted at this point or not? A. CPE Pass leads to Appeal. If sustained, Application 1 wins. If overturned, move to highest bidder and seek public comment on that application. (It's still possible for this application to be the highest bidder even if it fails CPE.) B. CPE Fail leads to Appeal. If overturned, Application 1 wins. If CPE Fail is sustained, move to highest bidder and seek public comment on that application. Application 2 for .sam Purpose: Dedicated to domains for those interested in the Samurai arts. Application 3 for .sam Purpose: Free speech on the pros and cons of Uncle Sam (USG) Application 4 for .sam Purpose: Retail sales. Assume CPE for Application 1 fails and that Application 4 submitted the highest sealed bid. Solicit public comment on Application 4 and the Objection deadline is triggered. Sam's Club files Legal Rights Objection against the Application 4 winner. A.LRO Success leads to Appeal. If successful LRO upheld on appeal, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline. If LRO success is overturned, Application 4 wins .sam. B. LRO Failure leads to Appeal. If failed LRO upheld on appeal, Application 4 wins .sam. If failed LRO is overturned, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

4 13

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 24 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 24, 2019

Oct. 24, 2019

Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 24 October 2019. 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/2019-10-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: No actions captured. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. DNS Abuse: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nIorSwzwom_yXvzWwo9pElsnFfK7bwcuYQq_Hur… -- New type of document, stems from discussions we’ve had and the CCT-RT recommendations. -- CCT-RT came out with its final report several months ago. The ICANN Board has accepted some of the recommendations and some are pending. -- One that has been accepted is related to DNS abuse. -- Others are pending, but they still seem like ones we should be taking a look at. Applicable recommendations: 13, 14, 15, 17, and 25 Although many of the recommendations above are still pending review by the ICANN Board, the SubPro Working Group recognizes that there is a good deal of overlap between topics for which we have been developing policies and the recommendations by the CCT-RT. The recommendations touch various topics within our Charter, such as registrant protections, public interest, and the Base Registry Agreement (RA). The Working Group also recognizes that there is currently extensive interest within the ICANN Community on the topic of DNS Abuse, and that DNS Abuse is not unique amongst new gTLDs nor would addressing DNS Abuse in this Working Group solve any of the real or perceived issues existing in the TLDs that have already been delegated. -- Question: What precipitated this sudden addition of DNS Abuse to the agenda? Was there outreach from ICANN Board or Staff on it? Was on previously part of the work plan. Answer: There were a number of comments that talk about not wanting to do another round until DNS abuse issues are solved. Also related CCT-RT recommendations. Charter mentions keeping tabs with the CCT-RT. So, Co-Chairs decided the WG should consider DNS Abuse issues relating to the work of the WG and the CCT-RT recommendations. Comments from the WG on the document: -- Recommendation 13 not directed at SubPro. -- Recommendation 14: Financial incentives are outside of the picket fence. A PDP that is forward looking doesn’t have to be within the picket fence. Concerning “proactive” -- not possible to identify a crime before it’s committed. This means to take certain measures before it is reported to you as a problem. Recommendation 15: -- 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. COMMENT: there is no way for a registry (with exclusion of Brands) or a registrar to ensure nothing happens with the good registrant who turned rogue, or whose credentials were stolen and used for bad activities. -- And “with a higher threshold at which registrars and registries are presumed to be in default of their agreements.” COMMENT: this opens gates to blackmailing registries or registrars on purpose , extorting money for not using domains registered for this very purpose to cancel the RA, RAA (via , as example inclusion of records from those in some bad activity and sending a complaints the same time to ICANN). Such actions will endanger security and stability of the internet. Without a proof that a particular Registry or a Registrar participated in DNS abuse on purpose , it is a punishment without a crime. Recommendation 17: -- Absolute metrics for information security, including DNS abuse, not available from Computer Science, preventing establishing hard numbers -- Feasible for registrar, registry and registry service provider, but not downwards from registrar (reseller, reseller of reseller etc.) Recommendation 25: -- looks something targeted at the perceived backdooring of ideas in PICs, not at DNS abuse. Discussion: -- according to the details of the CCT-RT report, they ARE talking about activities that precede a potentially abusive registration. -- such as perhaps the registration of a few thousand names at low cost in singe transactions I assume that is a prequi; to a *possible* suspicion of doubtful activity to follow but may be perfectly innocent as well… Current State of SubPro Work: -- Covered some aspects of abuse: 1. Mandatory Pics including Specification 11 3(b) 2. Incentives for Registries to adopt anti-abuse measures 3. From CCT-RT, Recommendation 25 seems to have support from this Working Group The Community is already addressing a number of aspects of DNS Abuse (See Section III below). Any new recommendations we make would impact only new TLDs on a going forward basis. Proposed Recommendation. Given the work already going on within the community, other than the topics that we are already covering relating to DNS Abuse in Subsequent Procedures, we encourage the community to continue to work on all issues pertaining to DNS Abuse which can ultimately apply to all TLDs, not just future ones. OTHER CURRENT DNS ABUSE RELATED ACTIVITIES WITHIN ICANN COMMUNITY Existing Policy Work: --2010: Report from the Registration Abuse WG -- differentiated between “registration abuse” and “use abuse.” It found that “Registration Abuse” involved issues akin to those that have already been included in the Registry and Registrar Agreements. Registration Abuses, it found, were within ICANN’s jurisdiction and therefore were appropriate for future policy development. “Use Abuse”, however, it found, was not a topic within ICANN’s jurisdiction and therefore was not appropriate for future policy development. Use Abuse included things like intellectual property infringement, defamation, spam (when it does not serve as a delivery mechanism for the other forms of DNS Abuse), etc. Domain Abuse Activity Reporting -- ICANN's Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) project is a system for studying and reporting on domain name registration and security threat (domain abuse) behavior across top-level domain (TLD) registries. -- Re: “The data is currently being pushed to registries using the ICANN SLAM system.” COMMENT: There are no domain names in this data, only some digits, the data does not contain any kind of proof that the data is not fake (some DAAR sources are crowdsourced and have benefits and weak points of such method (multiple persons (or virtual persons, i.e. accounts directed by the same entity) may report some domain to be fraudulent because of being paid or directed to do so)). Number of false alarms could be requested from ICANN compliance (ICANN audit, where the suggested bad strings were sent to Registries, and not all of such strings were found to be bad)) -- Re: Spam COMMENT: spam is out of scope of ICANN, not all spam has dangerous payload Contractual Compliance Registry Operator Audit<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-registry…> COMMENT FROM MAXIM: “The final Audit Report lacks information about ratio of the domains reported by DAAR to the amount of domains , which were found to be actual abuse cases” Public Comments on the Initial Report Addressing DNS Abuse Discussion: -- Don't we already have disparity between legacy gTLDs and new gtlds? -- Some WG support for the proposed recommendation: Given the work already going on within the community, other than the topics that we are already covering relating to DNS Abuse in Subsequent Procedures, we encourage the community to continue to work on all issues pertaining to DNS Abuse which can ultimately apply to all TLDs, not just future ones. -- QUESTION: SHOULD WE BE RECOMMENDING AN EXPEDITED PDP ON DNS ABUSE? Are we going to get held up if we don't? QUESTION  -- Answer: That’s for the community to decide. The WG would not recommend it. -- Given that the Board has not accepted the recommendations from the CCT RT it seems premature for any discussions about a PDP or EPDP. -- If the Board will not move forward on a next round until this is addressed, we should likely figure out how to expedite. (There is some existing GAC ADvice on this which they would have to override to authorize a next round I think.) -- If we can't move forward before addressing that, we could as well suspend new registrations in all gTLDs.  -- If our recommendation is that this needs to be handled elsewhere in the community aren’t we sending a mixed message? We could say that these are the aspects that made sense and we’ve addressed them. For the other items it’s for the community to figure out how to handle that. b. Registrar Support for New gTLDs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14HxLzQMXs90hAkpRStPAwHDC4CxaYXWqxZ-psTm… page 8 (time permitting) New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence: Option: ICANN selects a "last-resort" wholesale registrar to provide resellers with the ability to sell TLDs that lack market interest and/or have their target markets in regions or verticals lacking ICANN-Accredited registrars. Only registries allowing Post Payment terms are eligible. -- RySG: Some agreement/some disagreement -- IPC: Divergence/New Idea. -- BC: Divergence/New Idea. -- RrSG: Divergence. Additional comments on potential challenges for compliance oversight for this proposal. -- question e.5: Does ICANN forcing registrars to carry TLDs or designating registrars as "registrars of last resort" pose challenges to compliance oversight of these entities? Should registrars be liable for compliance actions for TLDs for which they did not want to carry but were forced to? By handpicking a few selected registrars as "last resort" does this create the possibility for compliance to go easy on them because ICANN needs them to play a specific role in the marketplace? Discussion: -- Seems that we are not going to get general agreement on this option. Option: ICANN Org provides a “clearinghouse” for registries and registrars that operating in different currencies. -- RySG: Some agree and some don’t agree. -- RySG: Did not agree. Option: Allow an increase to the number of names that can be registered without the use of an ICANN-Accredited Registrar and allow these names to be registered for purposes other than the promotion or operation of the TLD. -- RySG: Agreement. Option: AGB encourages potential applicants to communicate with ICANN accredited registrars before applying, so that they fully understand potential issues that might be encountered. -- RySG: Agreement. -- RrSG: Divergence/New Idea. Option: Registry contract bundles the capacity of becoming an Accredited Registrar. -- RySG: Agreement/New Idea -- RrSG: Divergence. Any other proposals that could assist TLD Registries that have difficulty attracting ICANN Accredited Registrars? -- RySG: No new additional proposals but recommends a balance between innovation and attractiveness for sales channels. How do you identify whether a TLD with low market performance has low performance due to lack of demand or lack of sales channels? -- RySG: Some members believe this is beyond the scope of this WG and the remit of ICANN. Some members disagree. Some members have concerns that there is not a cost-effective way to establish the connection postulated in this question. -- At minimum ICANN should clearly warn applicants that delegating a gTLD doesn't guarantee registrations - and that they WILL need to build a sales channel. -- Need to understand what’s the harm to a TLD if it’s not being supported by registrars. -- We aren’t introducing new registrars, we’re introducing new registries. -- So innovate on the Registrar side as well. There are some registars like EnCirca who specialize in non standard niche TLDs Exactly - is that ICANNs role. -- Many new TLDs were stunned when they found out that many registrars would not carry them, even when similarly situated TLDs were carried. -- Regards planning, applicants thought every 2009 RAA registrar would be able to carry them, but in the end, 2013 RAA was required.

1 0