February 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 04 February 2019
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 4, 2019

Feb. 4, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 04 February 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/2019-02-04+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBC…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates 2. Update on the Application Status document: -- Received application status from ICANN Org, Jeff added additional context. -- Some (in orange) are closed but application not withdrawn. -- Others not approved, or delegated, but application note withdrawn. -- This is not related to the last round, but for the purpose of the discussion of what it means to have a round that is closed and what point can you start another round. -- Any applications that aren't delegated or not withdrawn -- show as still officially in the system. Not considered "open". -- Sub Group B is talking about the issue of refunds and fees for future rounds, this discussion is pertinent. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: @Jeff I don't think the ICANN systems considers .eco "Open". as you stated. It says "Will NOT proceed" under the ICANN status. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: I think we would have to seek public comment on the definition of when a round closes. COMMENT 3. Review of Supplemental Initial Report Public Comments – see the document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBC… Introduction: -- 5 issues that WorkTracks 1-4 had sent out in a Supplemental Issue Report. -- Question: What will we do with the document? Triaging? Discussion? Answer: This is the triaging. We'll take notes of anything substantive. Review the comments, make sure we understand them, if there are clarifying questions. Making sure that if there are new ideas that the full WG could start thinking about these questions. General Comments: Line 4, ICANN Board -- started discussion on these issues. Concern related to whether the WG has talked about new things that could lead to abuses. Whether new recommendations could lead to abuses, such as with auctions of last resort and private resolutions. Also, alterations to the change request mechanism. Concerned about adding functions that would exceed ICANN's scope or mission. -- Question: The second paragraph and very last sentence -- relates to items we've tagged as new ideas? What happens to those items? Answer: We flagged the issue and had an initial conversation with the full WG. On recommendations, if we don't reach consensus on a recommendation, then we default to the 2012 policy. Or we can let the Board make the call. Line 5, RySG -- Points out that their comments generally reflect multiple view points. >From the chat: avri doria: so the idea is not new but is one that was heard discussed in the past - how do we avoid finding ourselves in another one of these long intervalas between procedures.. also we were not loooking for answers anytime sooner than the final report. Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT @ Jeff - agree with your summary but I'm not sure that this reasoning applies to items which are labelled "New Idea". It seems to fit more in the category of items that could need ongoing policy work as indicated by the Board comment. COMMENT 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort General Comments: Line 4, RrSG -- Agreement (supports alternatives to ICANN auctions listed in c.2) Line 5, ICANN Board -- General Comment Line 6, GAC -- Divergence (opposes auctions of last resort between commercial and non-commercial); disincentivize for commercial (private auctions more generally). Line 7, ALAC -- Divergence (opposes auctions as mechanism of last resort) New Idea (supports Vickrey auction) Line 8, Business Constituency -- Concerns (auction difficulties for less well-financed participants) New Idea (supports Vickrey auctions) Line 9, ICANN Org -- Concerns (with changes to Terms and Conditions) 2.1.c.1: Line 11, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement Line 12, Neustar -- Agreement Line 13, RySG -- Agreement (with qualifications), New Idea -- Good insights in call on 22 January with Monte Kahn. Line 14, IPC -- Agreement (with qualifications) New Idea Line 15, ICANN Org -- Concerns (requests for clarification) Line 16, ALAC -- Divergence: The ALAC strongly opposes the retention of the regular highest-bid auction process which was used in the 2012 round (“regular auctions”) as the mechanism of last resort for resolution of contention sets within the Program. 2.1.c.2: Line 18, ALAC -- Agreement Line 19, IPC -- Agreement Line 20, Neustar -- Agreement (with qualifications) Line 21, RySG -- Agreement (with qualifications) Concerns New Idea Line 22, ICANN Org -- Concerns (requests for clarification) Line 23, BRG -- Divergence (supports current process as mechanism of last resort) 2.1.d.1: Line 25, ALAC -- Agreement New Idea Line 26, IPC -- Agreement New Idea (use of sealed bid auctions in limited circumstances) Line 27, RySG -- Divergence (auctions/resolutions should take place after applications pass review) Agreement (support for Vickery Auction) Line 28, Neustar -- Agreement (support consideration) Divergence (but not requirement for applicants to submit a bid upon application) Line 29, BRG -- Divergence (supports current process as mechanism of last resort) 2.1.d.2.1: Line 31, IPC -- Concerns (predictabilty of mechanism/subjective criteria/freedom of expression) Line 32, ALAC -- Concerns Line 33, RySG -- Divergence (strongly objects to content-based evaluation) Line 34, BRG -- Divergence (support current process as mechanism of last resort) Line 35, Neustar - Divergence (does not support as a viable option) 2.1.d.2.2: Line 37, Neustar -- Agreement (if not mandatory). Line 38, IPC -- Agreement (if not mandatory) Line 39, RySG -- Agreement (with qualifications) Divergence (concerns about flipping/limits business choices) Line 40, BRG -- Divergence (support current process as mechanism of last resort) Line 41, ALAC -- Divergence (no ability to apply meritorious comparative evaluation/licensing requirement for ICANN) 2.1.d.2.3: Line 43, BRG -- Divergence (supports current process as a mechanism of last resort) Line 44, ALAC -- Divergence (would favour larger entities with multiple applications and affect applicants' strategies) Line 45, RySG -- Divergence (can't guarantee fewer applications/prejudicial to applicants for more than one TLD) Line 46, IPC -- Divergence (impossible to define and police) Line 47, Neustar -- Divergence 2.1.e.1: Line 49, ALAC -- New Idea (supports Vickrey auction re: Option 2.1.d.1) Line 50, RySG -- New Idea (some support "sealed bid" but as "last resort"/some support Vickery Auction with mulipliers) Line 51, BRG -- Divergence (support current process as mechanism of last resort) Line 52, IPC -- Divergence (disagree that auctions of last resort are unfair) Line 53, Neustar -- Divergence (disagree that auctions of last resort are unfair) Line 54, NCSG -- Divergence (disagree that auctions of last resort are unfair) 2.1.e.2: Line 56, ALAC -- Agreement (support for a muliplier feature, but on the Vickrey auction) Line 57, Neustar -- Agreement (with qualifications -- needs to be "means tested") Line 58, NCSG -- Agreement (with qualifications -- also for other underserved groups; concept is not new) Line 59, RySG -- Agreement (with qualifications) New Idea (suggestion for more data) Line 60, BRG -- Divergence (support current process as mechanism of last resort) Line 61, IPC -- Divergence (concerns about abuse of process) 4. AOB -- Update on the Timeline -- Draft timeline has been circulated to the Leadership team, but not to the full WG. -- Try to identify when the Sub Groups complete their work but also the full WG meetings. -- Before ICANNN64 there will be 1-2 back-to-back meetings of the full WG; Sub Groups should be complete except for Sub Group B. -- Full WG will try to make progress on reports from Sub Groups. -- Kobe: Two days with sessions -- most on Saturday and one on Wednesday. So WG and WT5 on Saturday, and WG meeting on Wednesday. >From the chat: Steve Chan: @Donna, i think there are two full WG sessions on Saturday and one on Wednesday. And as Jeff said, there will also be two WT5 sessions on Saturday. Jim Prendergast: be great if the timeline also included reconcillation with WT5 as well as Deliver to GNSO and what happens from there. Obviously dates for that is difficult but seeing the road map will help.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications
by Steve Chan Feb. 4, 2019

Feb. 4, 2019

Dear Anne, all, I will take this opportunity to attach the PDF version, as I forgot to do so in the original message. To briefly respond to your concern, if I recall correctly, the context in which this action item was identified was in the discussions around “round” closures in the future. As there are applications still pending from the 2012 round, I believe the idea was that learnings could potentially be drawn for usage in the future by examining those pending applications. So to be clear, the intention is most definitely not for this PDP WG to attempt to resolve the pending status of any 2012 applications. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 9:16 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Thanks Steve. We also note that substantive discussion may not be appropriate since the 2012 round is outside the scope of the work of Sub Pro based on our Charter. (At least that was the approach taken consistently – and rather strenuously - by Leadership in Work Track 4 throughout the process.) It seems the WG could make a policy recommendation as to treatment of unresolved strings applied for in the next round if that is what ICANN staff is looking for in terms of guidance. (This seemed to be what Trang was saying.) I don’ t think we can make policy recommendations about 2012 applications without an amendment to our Charter. But I don’t see any problem making policy recommendations that would apply to strings applied for in the next round that remain unresolved during subsequent rounds or during an FCFS process if approved. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 9:59 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably: In column E, we have highlighted in orange applications that will not proceed but have not yet been officially withdrawn by the applicant In column H, we have highlighted in grey applications where we know additional information is needed to better understand the current status. This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner. 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 [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] 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.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday 04 February 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 1, 2019

Feb. 1, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday 04 February 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Being Review of Supplemental Initial Report Public Comments – see the document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBC… -- General Comments -- 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1