January 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Hi Anne, The link to the Google doc is on the agenda posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-01-16+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Here it is also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT…. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 2:07 PM To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC Since listening to the last call I had to leave, I have been trying (without success) to find the link to the Google doc on String Contention Resolution on the Wiki. Could someone please send the link? Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 9:51 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/CAVxBw> (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 -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ________________________________ 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

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/CAVxBw> (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 -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

2 1

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 January 300 UTC
by Emily Barabas Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 16 January at 300 UTC. 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/2020-01-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest - No updates - Discussion of workplan, available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJyfcJT2rC6I7mjZL8TMmo19LVX1xOd6cXE-Llm… - Next topics are AGB, Communications, Systems, Application Fees and Variable Fees - By Friday, the leadership team will send out a draft document to review on these topics - This document focuses on recommendations and rationale as opposed to background. This is the type of document that we expect will go out for public comment. - The purpose of the review is in part to ensure that everyone agrees on the approach and format - If we continue at the same pace that we have been working, we don’t get to delivering the Final Report until after the end of summer. - This is still very much in draft form. It is not intended to be definitive. If we can cover topics more quickly, we will do so and are exploring options to speed up the work. - The budget intentionally leaves these projects off until they are formally approved by the Board and the community gives instructions to move forward. - There is a possibility of requesting extra face to face time for ICANN68. We are exploring a day zero of that policy meeting. Council liaisons will assist with taking any requests from the WG to the Council. We hope to bring this to Council during SPS. - Reminder that it is important that members have enough time to review documents in advance of calls. - If there is something like a day zero for ICANN68, important that we get this planned soon so people can plan their travel. - Any timelines we submit to Council should be realistic. 2. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT… – Continue Discussion on Goal 8. See also attached flow chart. - Today we will seek to prioritize the goals discussed on the last call. The goal is ultimately to come up with a mechanism, but if we can only come up with goals, these will become part of the policy and the IRT would use these goals to develop a mechanism. - Question about whether it is better to provide feedback by email or as comments in the working document. Suggestion – provide comments on the mailing list so that they can be discussed. It can be helpful to have the comments in both places. - Goal 8: encourage new entrants into the field. If you had this as a goal, you could potentially implement multipliers. There was some discussion about whether this should be a goal for the mechanism or a goal for the program more broadly. - One perspective – the multiplier suggestion might not work in an auction process. It could be that if this was a priority, there could be preference for certain applicants the way there was preference for communities in 2012. If there was priority, it might need to be decided in the evaluation process before contention resolution. - Reminder that the purpose of the goals exercise is to clarify which goals should be considered in deciding between possible mechanisms. - Goal 9: Increase efficiencies – the group had thought that as a byproduct of selecting one of these mechanisms, we might be able to improve efficiency in application evaluation. - It could also mean that unsuccessful applicants get bigger refunds because they know sooner in the process where they stand. - Suggestion to adjust this text to efficiency of the overall process not just application evaluation. -- "Increase efficiencies in the process from application to delegation” - Suggestion that goal 9 could be a potential benefit but is not a goal. It may be a factor to consider rather than a goal. In the original drafting, we “backed into” this goal after looking at the different models. If it is considered a goal, it might be a secondary one. - Some models could increase efficiency in some respects while creating complexity in other respects. - Goal 10: Increased creativity in the resolution of contention sets. There were public comments supporting allowing changes to applications, potentially changes to strings, changes to address concerns expressed about an application and discussion that this could have a positive effect on the program. - While many were not in favor of private auctions, most of the comments did favor some form of private resolution among applicants. - Note that some goals may be in conflict with one another. For example, number 10 may not be compatible with 2 and 4. - We have a mentality coming out of the 2012 round that the only way out of a contention set is an auction of last resort. Our default setting shouldn’t be that our primary goal is to make ICANN money. - From another perspective, the goal of auctions of last resort are not to give ICANN money. They are a predictable mechanism that has been tested and has been decided by the community to be the most fair and efficient way to resolve contention. - In the 2012 round, forming a joint venture at the stage in the process where that would need to happen to avoid contention would involve creating a new entity. The entity that was evaluated for financial, technical, and operational capabilities would not be the same one that ended up signing the agreement. That was a key reason for the rules on joint ventures. - It was noted that joint ventures would need to go out for public comment, be subject to potential objections, etc. - Suggestion to write goal #10 to be more narrowly focused. - Response, if we only focus this goal on creativity via joint ventures, isn’t that narrowing the opportunity for creative solutions we are not specifically mentioning? - You could potentially narrow the scope of 10 so that you support creativity while also staying consistent with the goals of #4. - Goal 11: Board comment: “applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications.” - Board comment raises concerns about using funds from the loss of one auction to fund another application. - Sorting and prioritizing goals – Number 1 and 10 relate to each other. If you are going to allow a period for private resolution, you are also going to be encouraging creativity. - Some support had been expressed in the comments about giving parties in contention a period of time to work things out privately. - One way to consider the goals is to sort them into high, medium and low priority. - Another is to rank the mechanisms based on how they align with each of the goals. One challenge with this approach is that some goals conflict with one another and they may not all be equally important. - Review of language provided by Donna Austin on the mailing list that seeks to combine 3 and 4: “iii) Reduce the risk of applicants or third parties engaging in unfair practices that would manipulate the outcome of a contention set resolution; or require applicants to decide the market value of the string absent relevant information.” The proposal seeks to capture concerns about things that we don’t want to be repeated from the 2012 round and also take into account that the value of a TLD is subjective and only the person or entity bidding can determine what the value will be for them. - With the Vickrey model, it’s hard for participants to consider the value of the TLD in a vacuum. Establishing what it may be worth and the number of applicants in contention might be enough for that. - Concerns that the new proposed text may be appropriate in addition to 3 and 4 but should not replace it. - Terminology would need to defined in the new proposed text, as well as the existing formulation of 3 and 4. - Perhaps if there is a specific type of activity that should not be allowed, this should be called out. - Will the goals see the “light of day”? For the moment, they are for internal use. Next steps will depend on whether the WG can come to agreement in further WG discussion. So they are internal unless and until decided by the group. - If the WG is not able to come to agreement on a mechanism, we need to determine the next step. If we can agree on goals, do we forward these goals to the IRT and say that we do not have a recommendation? - Clarification that proposed changes to number 3 is limited to removing “winner ultimately overpays for the TLD” as a goal. From one perspective, this is not consistent with what was discussed on the last call. 3. AOB - None Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 15, 2020

Jan. 15, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT… – Continue Discussion on Goal 8. See also attached flow chart. 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 January 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 15, 2020

Jan. 15, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 13 January at 1500 UTC. 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/2020-01-13+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: Actions: Goal #3: Reduce the risk of “bidding wars” in which the winner ultimately overpays for the TLD. a. Tentative, related goal for discussion: encourage applicants to bid their true value for a TLD. ACTION ITEM 1: Bracket language change -- delete text up to: “Encourage applicants to bid their true value for a TLD”. Goal #2: if there is no mutual agreement, a claim to support a community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that application. If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention ACTION ITEM 2: Proposal to change #2: If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a[N AUCTION] process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention” Goal #4: Reduce collusion, profiteering, and/or speculation, especially as it relates to financial transactions external to the program (Note, while this is not an explicit goal for the mechanisms of last resort, it has been discussed as a motivation for altering the auction mechanism). ACTION ITEM 3: Add “reduce the risk” and insert before “collusion…”. ACTION ITEM 4: Add a new goal #11: “applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Susan Payne: I am now a member of the IRP-IOT. officially this happened in November but the re-populated group is now having its first meeting this week.  2. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT… Goals: 1. resolve contention between them within a pre-established timeframe* 2. if there is no mutual agreement, a claim to support a community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that application. If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention 3. Reduce the risk of “bidding wars” in which the winner ultimately overpays for the TLD. a. Tentative, related goal for discussion: encourage applicants to bid their true value for a TLD. 1. Reduce collusion, profiteering, and/or speculation, especially as it relates to financial transactions external to the program (Note, while this is not an explicit goal for the mechanisms of last resort, it has been discussed as a motivation for altering the auction mechanism). 2. Increase transparency. 3. Resolve contention more quickly. 4. Increase predictability. 5. Encourage new entrants into the field. a. Which could include, making it easier to implement “multipliers” for certain types of applicants, such as those eligible for Applicant Support. 1. Increase efficiencies in application evaluation by way of understanding the contention set? 2. Increase creativity in the resolution of contention sets. [Underlying question - do we want to encourage private resolution of contention sets?] Note that some of the terminology may need to be further defined if the above goals are adopted. In order to ensure that recommendations align with goals, it is important for the Working Group to agree on specific objectives. Discussion: -- Need to think about prioritization. -- Item #1 is still agreed upon, so #2 is up for discussion. -- #4 re: “collusion” -- need to define it and why it isn’t a good thing. What does "collusion" mean? How does it vary from creative problem solving by enlightened companies that don't buy into the "enrich ICANN" orthodoxy? -- Clearly we have goals that are in conflict with each other, but also how we are thinking about this is in conflict. We want to resolve things and we want creativity, but we don’t always like the results (“innovation” versus “gaming”). -- We need to think through what these are, where they come from, and where ICANN gets the legitimacy to sell these. -- We should also talk about whether we deem these as quasi-public assets then does it follow that the only way out of a contention set is to enrich ICANN, or whether we can use creative problem solving. -- Statement of ICANN Board: "Request information on likelihood and types of abuse resulting from new procedures: One of our major concerns in reading the discussions in the Supplementary Final report relates to new procedures that may be open to abuse in ways that have not yet been understood. We would like to better understand the analysis that has gone into determining the likelihood, and types, of abuse that may open up with any new procedures. We believe that any new recommendations should guard against bad faith applications to the extent possible. These concerns mostly center on the issues of auctions of last resort and on private auctions. . . We also take note of the abuse that becomes possible in alterations to the change request mechanisms.”(https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-new-gtld-subsequent-pr…" -- Need to address the perception that if ICANN allowed private auctions for the next round some applicants might participate just to make money. -- When we talk about someone profit or speculate on a TLD, if you go to a private resolution then you need to have more than one party. -- Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on “gaming” or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-…  -- Like the idea of having a list of options if someone wants to go to private resolution -- expanding options. -- COMMENT: To the degree that public comment did NOT support elimination of private negotiations to resolve string contention, we aren't really in the realm of "public assets" in our policy work and we must, however, try to eliminate "gaming' without taking away private negotiations. Submitting sealed bids at the time of application seems appropriate, but if there is a Community Priority Application or if there is a Intent-To-Object is filed, then the bids should be able to be revised because the value of the TLD is different in terms of costs the applicant is facing. -- If private resolution results in $$$ changing hands instead of funding some community agreed upon ICANN function (Like Root zone governance or RIRs) It does affect everyone. We have an opportunity to bolster ICANN’s effectiveness and legitimacy. -- But no one had to apply to start with. The funds are not an ICANN entitlement. -- The program should not be a means for ICANN to profit from the program either. We have agreed that the program is intended to be cost-recovery.  -- Need to get back to the theory before we start talking about mechanisms. There seems to be varying points of view. -- The only mechanism that got support in the comments was an auction. Ultimately we ended up with auctions as the preferred mechanism for resolving contention sets. -- Question: How restrictive is the comment from the Board (see above)? Answer: This was a comment, but not meant to be an official Board position. We asked all the groups to comment. -- Don’t think current auction proceeds report is relevant to this discussion. -- Look at what we are trying to achieve. -- In that Board comment to the supplemental report they parsed out private auctions that they had concerns about. This WG had parsed out private auctions version other private resolution mechanisms. Are we lumping together all private resolutions in this discussion? Specific Goals: Goal #3: Reduce the risk of “bidding wars” in which the winner ultimately overpays for the TLD. a. Tentative, related goal for discussion: encourage applicants to bid their true value for a TLD. -- Any resolution that involves some sort of payment there is the implication that is somehow wrong -- relates to goal #3. There may have been overpayment in the previous round, but the value of the TLD is arguably what someone is willing to pay for it, which depends on all sorts of factors, including not allowing someone else to have it (that risk). -- Is there anyone that things that #3 should stay as a goal? Support to remove it as a goal; support to keep it. -- Concern with the Vickrey model -- could potentially have someone overpay since an applicant may not have enough information to make a value judgment. -- Remove the first part about overpaying and keep “Encourage applicants to bid their true value for a TLD”. That language keeps to the spirit of not up-bidding in auction to get a bigger payout as the loser -- How about we encourage "realistic value"? -- Why would an applicant not bid/pay a "true" or "realistic" value? I don't understand. Either bid/pay what you think it's worth or not. -- How do you decide what the true value is? It’s only known to the applicant. What is the consequence if someone pays what someone else thinks is excessive? ACTION: Bracket language change -- delete text up to: “Encourage applicants to bid their true value for a TLD”. Goals #1 and #2: 1. resolve contention between them within a pre-established timeframe* 2. if there is no mutual agreement, a claim to support a community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that application. If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention Goal #1: -- Re: “pre-established timeframe” -- not sure there was one in the previous round. -- Once every application in the contention set passed all of the hurdles then ICANN said that they would start auctions in X days if there was no resolution, but parties could request extensions. Applicants in a contention set were notified when an auction was scheduled - they could also request to postpone. -- Agree that this is still a goal. Goal #2: -- Comments supported auctions as a mechanism with some limitations. ACTION: Proposal to change #2: If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a[N AUCTION] process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention” Goal #4: Reduce collusion, profiteering, and/or speculation, especially as it relates to financial transactions external to the program (Note, while this is not an explicit goal for the mechanisms of last resort, it has been discussed as a motivation for altering the auction mechanism). -- Substitute “bid-rigging” for “collusion”? -- Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful agreement in order to deceive others, although not necessarily illegal, as is a conspiracy. A secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage is an example of collusion. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. -- But do we agree that "collusion" means illegal/improper practices and not "private settlement". If we don't agree that then we need a different term instead of "collusion. -- Reduce the risk of profiteering should be a separate goal from collusion and/or speculation." -- Any reference to "Exclude" or "reduce" collusion will be a problem because private resolutions are PRIVATE and this is going to open up a whole mess of issues. -- Creative applicants will find a way to resolve their contention at any point, but sealed bid cuts most of the opportunity for “unseemly cooperation”. I am not sure "horse trading" is actually a form of collusion - not if private resolution is permitted. However, we should develop policy to deter application for purposes of resale and profiting from that resale - in other words, that is bad faith. -- Not sure what “collusion” means here. It means something different to different people. -- Just want to note that Board did not use the terms 'collusion' or 'profiteering' in its comment. ACTION: Add “reduce the risk” and insert before “collusion…”. Goal #5: Increase transparency. -- That goal is there in order to stop private auctions. -- When we talk about different models of auctions we need to be clear what we mean by “transparency”. -- Question: Are we talking about transparency in negotiations or in outcomes? Answer: We were focused on outcomes. -- Is it possible for the program to impose such transparency requirements? Goal #6: Resolve contention more quickly. -- Potential dependency of timing of future rounds. -- Resolving contention more quickly will require all prior elements of the application process (i.e. evaluations, objections, etc) to also move more quickly. -- If we have predictability and transparency, resolution of contention sets arguably would be quicker. -- Could state that the period in which parties in a contention set can resolve this situation can only be extended X number of times. -- In the previous rounds most contention sets moved fairly expeditiously, so maybe we could say, “resolve contention expeditiously”. Goal #7: Increase predictability. -- This is still a goal. Goal #8: Encourage new entrants into the field. Which could include, making it easier to implement “multipliers” for certain types of applicants, such as those eligible for Applicant Support. -- Still important to encourage new entrants. -- 8a looks like an implementation detail. Regardless of policy or implementation, this WG has jurisdiction to cover both should we choose to.  -- Need to better define “new entrants” so as to not simply introduce subsidiaries of existing players. ACTION: Add a new goal #11: “applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications.” Start at Goal #8 for the next meeting. Go through the goals and then see what mechanisms fit within those goals. Then we will prioritize.

6 16

ICANN's Use of Auction Proceeds - Proposed Final Report - CCWG Auction Proceeds - Public Comment due February 14
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Jan. 14, 2020

Jan. 14, 2020

Dear new gTLD WG members, To the extent that today’s policy discussion on resolution of string contention sets involved policy issues around what ICANN will do with Auction Proceeds from ICANN-supervised auctions, please see the attached Proposed Final Report of the CCWG- Auction Proceeds which emphasizes the Objectives and purposes for which such funds can be used. Public comment is due February 14 so please do comment. Because Auction Proceeds must be used within the scope of ICANN’s mission as a matter of corporate governance, I disagree with the comment that proceeds from the next round can be using to buy knitting needles. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D5C9F5.3300AB30] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image002.jpg@01D5C9F5.3300AB30] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ ________________________________ 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.

3 3

ICANN67 Prep Week Announcement
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 14, 2020

Jan. 14, 2020

Register for ICANN67 Prep Week Webinars https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-01-14-en LOS ANGELES – 14 January 2020 – Today, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) released the schedule for ICANN67 Prep Week, which features a series of nine webinars to prepare the community ahead of the Community Forum in March. To attend any of the webinars, please register here [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.icann.org_prepweeks…> by Friday 14 February 2020 to receive joining instructions. You may also submit questions during the registration process. ICANN67 Prep Week Webinars Schedule Tuesday, 18 February 2020 16:00 UTC | ICANN Open Data Platform · Overview of the ICANN Open Data Platform and planned soft launch at ICANN67 18:00 UTC | ICANN67 Health, Safety, and Security Overview 20:00 UTC | ICANN Org Operations Planning Team Update · ICANN's FY21 Annual Operating Plan and Budget · ICANN's FY21-25 Five-Year Operating and Financial Plan Wednesday, 19 February 2020 16:00 UTC | Contractual Compliance Update · Registrar & Registry Compliance Update · Contractual Compliance Audit Update 21:00 UTC | Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Webinar · Update on GNSO projects and activities, including Policy Development Process (PDP) work, projected timelines, and current challenges Thursday, 20 February 2020 16:00 UTC | Policy Briefing · Updates on current work across ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees 18:00 UTC | Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Update: What to Expect · GSE briefing (e.g., ICANN Learn, Newcomers Day) and useful resources Monday, 24 February 2020 15:00 UTC | Registration Data Policy (Expedited PDP Phase 1): Implementation and Related Activities · Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team (IRT) work 17:00 UTC | Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Engagement Activities · Engagement with local/regional community and special sessions for the LAC community All webinars will be conducted in English. The Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) Update will offer Spanish interpretation. Recordings and presentation materials will be posted here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/cancun67-prep-week>. Additionally, the Pre-ICANN67 Policy Briefing materials will also be available in Spanish. ICANN Prep Week was established to help streamline the pre-meeting experience, increase awareness of current topics of importance, and enhance briefings and readout sessions conducted around an ICANN Public Meeting.

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 13 January 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 13, 2020

Jan. 13, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 13 January 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/BQVxBw> (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, Michelle

1 0

comment on potential „hybrid“ approach to public comment on final recommendations
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Jan. 10, 2020

Jan. 10, 2020

Dear all First of all let me wish you all a happy New 2020! I‘m not able to join the call today. However, I‘ve heard that PDP WG leadership is considering a „hybrid“ approach regarding the public comment period, whereby although all the final recommendations would be included only comments on a subset would be actively sought. I feel this approach is fraught with many perils and IMO is inconsistent with the GAC and ALAC letters on this issue. If anything, comments should be actively sought at least regarding al final recommendations which deviate from the 2012 AGB rules (similarly to what was done regarding the wt5 portion of recommendations). This would at least ensure that there is full notice and full say for the community on those rules that the PDP WG would propose to be changed in relation to the 2012 status quo. Thanks for considering this during the call(s) best regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org> Datum: 9. Januar 2020 um 20:45:43 MEZ An: ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Betreff: [Ntfy-gnso-newgtld-wg] **CALL ON IN 15 MINUTES** Meeting invitation: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday 09 January 2020 at 20:00 UTC **CALL ON IN 15 MINUTES** To avoid email overload, please send apologies and dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only. Dear all, The details are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 09 January 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/rgavyxy [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_rgavyxy&d=…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/AQVxBw Zoom room: https://icann.zoom.us/my/gnso.pdp1 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_my_gnso.…> You will have VoIP and telecom bridge audio options available to you upon logging in. If you are joining via audio only, please see below. One tap mobile +19294362866,,3107952819# US (New York) +16699006833,,3107952819# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 310 795 2819 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/acwzlz1QoY<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_u_acwzlz1QoY&d…> Slide to assist you with Zoom: Welcome to Zoom: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/1sal3l5qf4csdukt0pk2c75ey3bte22z.pdf [icann.box.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_s…> Zoom FAQ: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/d5rap0g6xphevhkdd3mhu2hy753l2m3s.pdf [icann.box.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_s…> If Zoom disappears, see instructions: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/presentation/disappe… [gnso.icann.org] [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…> A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Andrea

4 5

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Thursday, 09 January 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Jan. 10, 2020

Jan. 10, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 09 January 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/AQVxBw> (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