October 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 19 October 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 19, 2020

Oct. 19, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the regular WG meeting on Monday, 19 October 2020 at 20:00 UTC. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-19+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…>): 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Meeting with the SSAC re: draft Final Report; selected topics TBD 3. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9vbkFUNEAb55oEPCFRsdrDlowh06zIUBiU… and review the following topics; we will cover as many as time permits: a. #32 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism b. #9 Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments c. #20 Application Change Requests d. #35 Auctions/Private Resolutions e. #2 Predictability f. #23 Closed Generics 1. 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>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 2

Do we have an agenda for Monday's meeting?
by Jim Prendergast Oct. 19, 2020

Oct. 19, 2020

Jeff and Cheryl Will we have the SSAC or should we prep for more comment review? Nothing on the Wiki yet. https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-19+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699

6 7

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 October at ICANN69
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 14, 2020

Oct. 14, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the working sessions on 14 October at ICANN69 at 12:00 and 14:00 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/2020-10-14+ICANN69+Hamburg-+New+g…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: #17 Applicant Support: ACTION ITEM: Staff to copy the ALAC and RySG comments on metrics into the Metrics topic. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the Public Comment Review Tool at:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9vbkFUNEAb55oEPCFRsdrDlowh06zIU…: Overview: -- Reviewing the comments to decide how the WG will deal with them, if not already addressed in the Final Report. -- Not working on final text/language for the Final Report. -- Staff will complete the Public Comment Review Tool and the overall statistical report by 21 October. -- Not trying to count or weight the comments – some represent groups, some individuals. #17 Applicant Support: -- ICANN Org notes that ICANN is not a grant-seeking organization. Role could be more as a facilitator with those organizations and applicants. Referred to the Pro Bono Assistance Program. -- Think through how we can have ICANN serve in a facilitation role while also ensuring that organizations can help applicants by providing pro bono services. -- ICANN Board comment: “Alternatively, ICANN org – through the Pro Bono Assistance Program – could act as a facilitator in the introduction of industry players or potential funding partners to the prospective entrants.” Seems that this doesn’t suggest that ICANN org is seeking funding. Not sure why that is “pro bono” as that relates to services that are provided but not charged. ICANN org could be the facilitator, but the applicant gets the money. -- Via constant funding there might be an affiliation with ICANN and it might attract attention of the anti-monopoly agencies around the world (not sure it goes well with fiduciary duties of directors) for such constantly funded registries. -- Might be helpful to have some context: in discussions over the years we’ve talked about the uniting of resources, such as how to reach all of the different parties. -- GAC comments: Some are definitional, which we can consider whether we need to provide more definitions – some are very difficult to define. -- One point the GAC raised is about ongoing ICANN fees. Some commenters supported that concept and some didn’t. Don’t see a clear answer coming from the community on yes or no. It will be difficult for the WG to make a concrete recommendation for ongoing fees. Consider whether there is some middle ground. -- Financial stability is important for second level registrants. If you can't pay the ICANN taxes, you probably aren't a safe bet for second level registrants. -- The WG didn’t come to agreement on differentiating applicant support for geos and non-geos. There are some comments on who ICANN org should work with to get funding, and those are implementation details we could pass on. -- On gaming: ask WG members from groups who submitted comments on gaming – be more specific as to why there would be more gaming and provide examples we can work with. -- Low numbers of applicants last round probably due to a combination of poor communications/marketing and disqualification of application if they do not qualify for Applicant Support. The other factor was poor marketing and communications. -- In part of the WG recommendations we say that unless the panel finds willful gaming they can convert to a regular application, but if there is willful gaming it can’t convert. -- INTA comment: That they did consider the possibility of gaming in order to prevail in the context of auctions and put in some guardrails there. INTA were flagging that the issue is a potential risk for all applicant support, not just with auctions. But we’ve already built in some guardrails: “INTA suggests that Implementation Guidance 17.7 be clarified such that the restrictions against gaming not apply solely to Applicants getting Applicant Support who prevail in an auction...” -- In terms of the RySG comments: “17.2 financial support should be clarified and/or expanded upon to include a variety of professional fees (beyond application writing and attorney fees) such as financial viability, securing funding, etc.” Also discussion of gaming – would like more specificity. WG will need to revise its recommendations also based on ICANN org comments. Need more information on this: “(see 35.2) Applicant Support applicants who have access to bid credits, multipliers, other should be protected from more sophisticated applicants who benefit financially from entering into a business combination or joint venture.” Move comments on metrics to the Metrics section. More clearly define “Going out of business”. -- NCSG comments: Look at outreach and communication section and see if we need to add. Facilitation for the Pro Bono Assistance Program should be made as early as possible. -- Line 22 ALAC comments: “We not only support a recommendation that “Community” should be broadly interpreted, but would go further to advocate that the way “community” is interpreted should be applied consistently throughout each aspect of the application process.” Need to make sure this is consistent with the Community Applications. -- Not sure why we can’t have two different definitions of community for Applicant Support and for evaluation of CPE. As well as for Community Objections. ACTION ITEM: Staff to copy the ALAC and RySG comments on metrics into the Metrics topic. #34 Community Applications: General Review of Comments: -- Re: ALAC’s comments don’t think the WG will be able to develop a concrete definition of what is community. -- Lots of groups that support the output completely. -- Needs to be two different standards – one for economic and non-economic-based communities – see ALAC comments – as a WG there is a general feeling that the way the CPE Guidelines were written in 2012 they were biased towards economic communities. The WG is working on revising the Guidelines to eliminate that bias. -- Swiss Govt. comments, line 11: “We note that consideration should be given to providing support for non-profit community-based applications, which is not included in final recommendations. In addition, we recall that one of the key criticisms of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) was that qualification as a Community application was far too difficult to achieve given the level of requirements or rather the severity of the material requirements or criteria set for this purpose. We are of the opinion that this point is not being sufficiently and effectively addressed by the SubPro PDP WG in its recommendations.” We did consider this although we talk about economic and non-economic – WG should make this clearer. -- Couple of comments on the scoring. We discussed this in the WG, but haven’t come to a conclusion. Even if we lowered the scoring to 12 from 14 that would have only resulted in one additional applicant being granted community status, so we have been concentrating on making the criteria more clear and attainable. -- ALAC comments: Going through comments (two documents) provided on the CPE Guidelines in the last few weeks. -- fTLD comments – they have Spec 12, community based, but didn’t have to go through CPE. Wanted to make sure in their comments that CPE Guidelines are more clear. -- Think more about the timing of when changes are made. Will consider more when we get to that topic. -- ICANN org has comments – a lot are which are in line with what we are already discussing – going through the Guidelines. -- Don’t see anything here that we aren’t already considering. -- <question>PICs are very problematic they allow contracted parties to bypass mandatory RPMs. It’s very curious why ICANN would want standardised contracts but allows private RPMs which have no oversight – Surely if a RPM is good enough for 1 gTLD it should apply to all gTLDs? Or if not none?</question> Board Comments on PICs/RVCs and Bylaws restriction on content regulation (falls in this topic as well as others): -- Question: Re: “In this context the Board also encourages the PDP WG to consider the mission-limitation that derives from the Bylaws, which state that ICANN will not restrict “services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide” (Section 1.1 (c)). The PDP WG may want to review the impact this provision might have on ICANN’s ability to enforce the content of community TLDs post delegation.” Board and ICANN Org comments casting doubt on whether community applications should proceed in the next round. Concerns about whether PICs/RVCs could conflict with the Bylaws. Can the Board provide any context? Why would a registry voluntarily agreeing to regulate itself be considered as content regulation? -- Avri Doria, Board: There will be differences between what the Board provided and what ICANN org provided. One set of issues relates to whether the commitments ICANN is responsible for enforcing can be enforced, or will they conflict with the Bylaws. If it requires looking at a complaint about content, is that an activity ICANN can engage in – enforcing a contract against a complaint about content. The Board is not making a comment about whether there should be priority or not, but we did look at what happened in the last round. The Board is asking whether there is a problem that could force the Board into the adjudication process. Is this a working method? How do we deal with the mission statement of no content regulation? -- The way the WG framed it is that there are ways to do this by treating it as a breach of contract that ICANN could have an outside panel make a determination (say a violation of a PIC) – that ICANN would only make a determination on what the registry agreed to do, on a breach of contract, not on content. -- If there is an issue with the Bylaws, the Bylaws can be amended. -- If it can only be solved with a Bylaws change then the Board would look at it. -- Avri Doria, Board: What we are saying now is please look at this and tell us if we are wrong. -- Seems like this is more of a legal determination. All the WG could say to the Board is that if they think there could be a violation of the Bylaws, if the community wants this then the Board needs to figure out it could be allowed in the Bylaws. -- The process for amending Fundamental ByLaws via the EC procedures would be pretty complicated. Moving PIC and RVC Dispute Resolution to an outside panel/provider would be more efficient. -- Will we find out way done the line that ICANN legal determines that the new PICs are not enforceable? We need input as to whether the wording allows us to have a new applicant have new PICs related to content. -- The Board is raising some important issues and not sure the WG has considered these issues. -- Section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws from the point of view that the restriction of content is not the be-all and end-all. The mission also involved in upholding security and stability. With respect to string similarity evaluation using PICs concerning different uses of singular and plurals of words seems to relate to security and stability. -- WG is not rejecting the Board’s comments, but trying to understand them better. -- Question: Is the issue PICs and RVCs as tools, or just as the intersect with content? Answer: Could be anything in the contract that could cover the content associated with the TLD. -- Jorge Cancio, Swiss, Govt.: In the 2016 Bylaws this was considered to be a good compromise that allows for different readings. There might be different interpretations of what the Board is posing in its question. The reading from the Board goes to trying to limit any legal dangers, but this is only one view of the mission. What does the restriction on content regulation mean in relation to the WG’s recommendation. The grandfathering in the Bylaws extends to any new PICs that are similar or analogous to the PICs previous to the 2016 PICs. There was an intention behind that to allow for similar PICs in the future. It is very important for this WG to look at the overall interpretation and the history of the creation of this piece of the Bylaws, and not just from a risk-mitigation approach. -- Avri Doria, Board: Risk aversion is part of its fiduciary role. The Board is asking for discussion, an understanding of the policy basis, finding a set of answers to the questions. Board always has to go back to the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process. -- Don’t think the WG could agree on one interpretation of what the Bylaws mean, but even if we did it is irrelevant since only the Board can determine whether something violates the Bylaws. As a WG we have to decide what we think the policy should be and what we want to happen. The community needs to affirm that through its processes. If the Board approves the recommendation then the Board has to consider how and whether to approve and what that would entail. -- But if it's clear to us that something violates the bylaws, we shouldn't recommend that. If it's something grey instead of black and white then we could send the recommendation upstream. -- The WG shouldn’t just punt it to the Board. The Board is not going to amend the Bylaws to allow ICANN to regulate content. We should get a determination now and decide how to amend the recommendation. If it is already a process in the PICDRP that if ICANN determines something is related to content it can shift the evaluation to a third party, we should call that out in the recommendation. This should be a dialog with the Board now, to avoid a delay later. Don’t think we can afford punting this to the Board to determine later. -- The larger issue is that ICANN is an infrastructure group so they have stayed away from regulating content and maintaining content neutrality. -- The Board raised this issue concerning closed generics too. -- We need to get to the substance to ensure this is what we want to recommend and we all figure out how we want to make it happen. -- All ICANN is able to enforce is that stuff their bylaws define they can. That's expanded or shrunken elsewhere. Aligning / allowing agreements within that scope seems patently reasonable. -- Amending the Bylaws might actually increase risk.

1 0

Auction theory
by Rubens Kuhl Oct. 14, 2020

Oct. 14, 2020

This year Nobel prize on economics was awarded to the developers of the FCC spectrum auction system, making for some interesting reading: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2020/popular-informatio… <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2020/popular-informatio…> The book that was the basis for the prize is available at: http://www.econ.ucla.edu/riley/271/Milgrom-Putting%20Auction%20Theory%20to%… <http://www.econ.ucla.edu/riley/271/Milgrom-Putting%20Auction%20Theory%20to%…> At a first glance I don't see anything that wasn't already considered by the WG, but more in-depth reading might reveal otherwise. Rubens

1 1

Reminder/Work Plan Re: Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - ICANN69 Sessions Wednesday, 14 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 14, 2020

Oct. 14, 2020

Dear WG Members, As a reminder, please find below the proposed agenda and the attached agenda slides for the WG Working Sessions at ICANN69 on Wednesday, 14 October 2020. Please also see the draft Work Plan as discussed at the last WG meeting at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5Kn…. Kind regards, Julie From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, October 9, 2020 at 10:35 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - ICANN69 Sessions Wednesday, 14 October Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG Working Sessions at ICANN69 on Wednesday, 14 October 2020 at: Working Session 1 of 2 at 14:00 CEST/12:00 UTC for 90 minutes -- See: https://69.schedule.icann.org/meetings/oATf8ZTYxS9pC734Q Working Session 2 of 2 at 16:00 CEST/14:00 UTC for 60 minutes -- See: https://69.schedule.icann.org/meetings/g696FRw6tdbCetCDX Note that participation links will be published 24 hours prior to the session start. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/GgebC>): 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9vbkFUNEAb55oEPCFRsdrDlowh06zIUBiU… and review the following topics; we will cover as many as time permits over the two Working Sessions: a. #17 Applicant Support b. #34 Community Applications c. #32 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism d. #9 Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments e. #20 Application Change Requests f. #35 Auctions/Private Resolutions g. #2 Predictability h. #23 Closed Generics 1. 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>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

3 4

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - ICANN69 Sessions Wednesday, 14 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 9, 2020

Oct. 9, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG Working Sessions at ICANN69 on Wednesday, 14 October 2020 at: Working Session 1 of 2 at 14:00 CEST/12:00 UTC for 90 minutes -- See: https://69.schedule.icann.org/meetings/oATf8ZTYxS9pC734Q Working Session 2 of 2 at 16:00 CEST/14:00 UTC for 60 minutes -- See: https://69.schedule.icann.org/meetings/g696FRw6tdbCetCDX Note that participation links will be published 24 hours prior to the session start. Proposed Agenda (also posted on the wiki<https://community.icann.org/x/GgebC>): 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9vbkFUNEAb55oEPCFRsdrDlowh06zIUBiU… and review the following topics; we will cover as many as time permits over the two Working Sessions: * #17 Applicant Support * #34 Community Applications * #32 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism * #9 Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments * #20 Application Change Requests * #35 Auctions/Private Resolutions * #2 Predictability * #23 Closed Generics 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>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 October at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 8, 2020

Oct. 8, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 08 October at 15:00 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/2020-10-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments (PICs), bullet A; Re: “The language of the Bylaws, however, could preclude ICANN from entering into future registry agreements (that materially differ in form from the 2012 round version currently in force) that include PICs that reach outside of ICANN’s technical mission as stated in the Bylaws. The language of the Bylaws specifically limits ICANN’s negotiating and contracting power to PICs that are “in service of its Mission.” The Board is concerned, therefore, that the current Bylaws language would create issues for ICANN to enter and enforce any content-related issue regarding PICs or Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs).” ACTION ITEM: WG Leadership will reach out to the Board liaisons and put some thoughts into an email. Topic 17: bullet B, Pro Bono Assistance Program; “B. Implementation Guidance 17.14 states that “ICANN org should seek funding partners to help financially support the Applicant Support Program, as appropriate.” The ICANN Board notes that this would change the role of ICANN, as ICANN is not a grant-seeking organization. Alternatively, ICANN org – through the Pro Bono Assistance Program – could act as a facilitator in the introduction of industry players or potential funding partners to the prospective entrants.” ACTION ITEM: Ask the Board liaisons for guidance/context. Look at the Pro Bono Assistance Program. e. Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations, bullet B; Re: “The Board asks the PDP WG to include recommendations and implementation guidance for objective evaluation criteria to determine “different intended uses” because we believe this will be invaluable to ensure consistent and transparent processes regarding this element in string similarity evaluations. (Pg. 103) ACTION ITEM: Consider whether to add Implementation Guidance and rationale relating to criteria for “different intended uses”. Topic 34: Community Applications, bullet B, Bylaws considerations “A. The Board believes these clarifications are required in order for the Board to assess whether it is in the best interests of ICANN and the ICANN community to proceed with CPEs in the next round.” --and-- “B. In this context the Board also encourages the PDP WG to consider the mission-limitation that derives from the Bylaws, which state that ICANN will not restrict “services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide (Section 1.1 (c)). The PDP WG may want to review the impact this provision might have on ICANN’s ability to enforce the content of community TLDs post delegation.” ACTION ITEM: The WG leadership should seek guidance from the Board liaisons. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Paul McGrady: Appointed by the IPC as the Policy Coordinator; this is a volunteer position. Updated his SOI. 2. ICANN69 Update – Begin Public Comment Review of Selected Topics -- Email from staff that the spreadsheet of responses is cleaned up the spreadsheet and set it to allow download. -- The spreadsheet is not the document the WG will use to review comments. -- Staff is creating a Public Comment Review Tool organized by topic and level of support. The tool will be used for the WG to review the comments. -- Tool will be ready to send to the WG no later than the end of the week. -- We have a draft Work Plan. Staff can send it to the WG, although it still is a draft. -- Not going in depth into every single subject, especially those that got very few comments or got support from the community. -- Will focus on those topics where there are comments that introduce new ideas. -- Timeline will require some sort of flexibility. ICANN org and Board comments are quite extensive and instructive. 3. Discussion of selected topics from the ICANN Board of Directors comments on the SubPro PDP WG draft Final Report – possible topics related to authority and/or potential Bylaws issues include the following (see attached document): a. Topic 2 Predictability, bullets C and E “C. With regard to the proposed Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT), the Board encourages the PDP WG to consider whether there are established processes within the GNSO (or within ICANN’s multistakeholder model) that might serve the intended role(s) of the SPIRT, rather than creating new ones.” -- Believe that the WG has considered established processes at length. -- Much of the work of the SPIRT that the work was not envisioned to be policy; didn’t identify processes that did what the SPIRT would do. -- Do agree that the statement about the GNSO Operating Procedures taking precedence should be moved from Implementation Guidance to Recommendation; this suggestion will be discussed further. -- GAC wanted the WG to clarify what the role of the GAC and other parts of ICANN would be in the SPIRT. -- Thought the Board was asking the WG to tell them that the WG took a good look at all of the alternatives. Not sure we built out what a non-SPIRT process would look like. “E. It may also be useful for the PDP WG to consider the role of precedent in the Predictability Framework, e.g., can SPIRT recommendations form a body of decisions to guide handling of issues and increase efficiencies? (Pg. 16)” -- Would think that once there is an outcome from the SPIRT that should establish some sort of precedent. -- This was a weird question. There is sort of an automatic precedential effect. The idea of formal precedent doesn’t seem necessary. There is history. -- Important point is that the SPIRT is not meant to look at one registry in particular, but at overall issues. -- Other important point is that the SPIRT does not make decisions. It can advise the GNSO Council. It can’t set precedent. -- Probably should respond to the Board that precedent isn’t set by the SPIRT but by the decision made by the GNSO Council or Board. -- I don't think it says the body of decision "comes" from SPIRT - I think body of decisions comes from GNSO Council, per the way SPIRT is structured. -- The word “predictability” indicates that the SPIRT is created to maintain predictability. -- The WG will record its response to commenters in the PCRT and/or in the rationale of the Final Report. b. Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments (PICs), bullet A Re: “The language of the Bylaws, however, could preclude ICANN from entering into future registry agreements (that materially differ in form from the 2012 round version currently in force) that include PICs that reach outside of ICANN’s technical mission as stated in the Bylaws. The language of the Bylaws specifically limits ICANN’s negotiating and contracting power to PICs that are “in service of its Mission.” The Board is concerned, therefore, that the current Bylaws language would create issues for ICANN to enter and enforce any content-related issue regarding PICs or Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs).” -- Seems odd that the Board would ask the WG about what is allowed in the Bylaws; seems that is a determination that is made by ICANN as a determination. -- Not sure this question is relevant for the WG to consider. -- Could say that whether or not it is in the scope of the ICANN Bylaws at this time, this is something we want the community to do. ICANN org figures out how to do it. -- Need more information from the Board concerning the context for their concern. -- The Bylaws changes came after the 2012 round. -- The concern is with new provisions relating to RVCs and PICs that might be adopted in the next round. -- Without PICs and RVCs in future rounds, many of our "solutions" unravel and there is NO WAY we are getting this in by the end of the year. -- At the end of the day if we asked for legal advice would only be interpreting it under the existing Bylaws. -- There is a lot of interpretation lying behind the Board statement. The whole issue of content regulation: “regulation” is defined in the Bylaws. Something in a contract is not a regulation. -- One short answer could be that while we hadn’t considered it in detail we think that ICANN can enforce PICs under the existing Bylaws. -- We have recommended PICs and RVCs for resolution of issues with the GAC after Early Warning as well as resolution of Objections after public comment on the proposed resolution. Our whole system is depending on PICs and RVCs. I don't think this amounts to content regulation, but maybe the resolution is to put the PICDRP OUTSIDE of ICANN and into an independent panel. -- It is probably not unreasonable to look at the Board’s comments as risk adverse and controlling risk. -- Not the WG’s role to manage/mitigate risks. ACTION ITEM: WG Leadership will reach out to the Board liaisons and put some thoughts into an email. “B. In its comment on the Initial Report, the Board asked the PDP WG to give more clarity on how to frame “public interest” in the context of a PIC and the PIC Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP). We note that this has not yet been developed. We would like to reiterate our view that clear guidance on this issue will be valuable, and we encourage the PDP WG to work to that end. Specifically, we ask that the PDP WG provide clear and consistent implementation guidance on “public interest” in this context, to ensure that objective enforceability lies within ICANN’s mission. (See also our comment on Topic 24 below.)” -- The WG did consider how to frame “public interest”, but we viewed it more as resolving conflicts. -- Need to give this further consideration. c. Topic 17: bullet B, Pro Bono Assistance Program “B. Implementation Guidance 17.14 states that “ICANN org should seek funding partners to help financially support the Applicant Support Program, as appropriate.” The ICANN Board notes that this would change the role of ICANN, as ICANN is not a grant-seeking organization. Alternatively, ICANN org – through the Pro Bono Assistance Program – could act as a facilitator in the introduction of industry players or potential funding partners to the prospective entrants.” -- Want to ask the Board that they did give grants out in the first round, should that not have been allowed. -- Applicant Support is a huge issue for the community. It will involve coordination between applicants and providers. -- Helpful to know more about what is behind this. -- Didn’t read this that they couldn’t be a grant providing organization. The concern is being a grant-seeking organization. -- The original intent for the 2012 round Applicant Support Program was for ICANN to act as a facilitator. -- Could explore the Pro Bono Assistance Program. -- ICANN would also need to ensure that they are not favoring one provider over another for pro bono services, so that may also be a concern. This has come up previously with the communications strategy whereby ICANN would not pursue on the basis that they could not favor or promote one gTLD over another. ACTION ITEM: Ask the Board liaisons for guidance/context. Look at the Pro Bono Assistance Program. d. Topic 23: Closed Generics -- ICANN Board is punting it back to the WG. -- Saying that the Board will ultimately make a decision of what is in its best interest. Their resolution was not meant to dictate any boundaries on any advice that the WG would want to provide them. e. Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations, bullet B; -- This is related to the discussion of reliance on PICs. -- We put it in PICs so that it needs to be enforced, versus RVCs. -- Re: “The Board asks the PDP WG to include recommendations and implementation guidance for objective evaluation criteria to determine “different intended uses” because we believe this will be invaluable to ensure consistent and transparent processes regarding this element in string similarity evaluations. (Pg. 103) -- If we give them some criteria it could go into the rationale section as examples. Criteria could go into the Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Consider whether to add Implementation Guidance and rationale relating to criteria for “different intended uses”. f. Topic 25: Internationalized Domain Names -- Want to clarify what we mean by IDN tables vetted by the community. -- This is part of a larger discussion and part of a comment period. -- We should be looking at that in the context of everything else that is going on in this topic. g. Topic 29: Name Collisions “The Board encourages the PDP WG to provide details on how future NCAP study results should be dealt with in future rounds. Would these need to initiate new policy processes and how would such processes affect ongoing rounds?” -- Think we sort of addressed this. Should not be implemented mid-stream. - Think we addressed this but will consider again when we look at specific comments. h. Topic 34: Community Applications, bullet B, Bylaws considerations “A. The Board believes these clarifications are required in order for the Board to assess whether it is in the best interests of ICANN and the ICANN community to proceed with CPEs in the next round.” -- Sounds like the Board wants to be relieved of the burden to allow Community Applications. -- Or they are questioning whether CPE is a good way to resolve contentions. Also symptomatic of the fact that our recommendations are high level and not detailed enough. “B. In this context the Board also encourages the PDP WG to consider the mission-limitation that derives from the Bylaws, which state that ICANN will not restrict “services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide (Section 1.1 (c)). The PDP WG may want to review the impact this provision might have on ICANN’s ability to enforce the content of community TLDs post delegation.” -- Related to the content regulation. Want to make sure they can enforce the contracts but not get into content regulation. ACTION ITEM: The WG leadership should seek guidance from the Board liaisons.

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 08 October 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Oct. 8, 2020

Oct. 8, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 08 October 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/MwjQC> (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 Terri

1 0

Update re: Draft Final Report Public Comment Data and Review Tool
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

Dear WG members, As an update on the Draft Final Report public comments, staff would like to alert you to the following two ways you will be able to access and analyze the comments. Spreadsheet of Responses: First, as you may know, the comments submitted in the public comment forum<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-draft-final-…> for the SubPro draft Final Report are published in the form of a spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VOCuHrCIWc3D9aJV2-woOob8atmg6o20AzE…>. This spreadsheet reflects the comments without any analysis – essentially the raw data. Staff has cleaned up the spreadsheet and made it easier to read. We have also enabled the settings to allow viewers and commenters can see the option to download, print, and copy. Please let us know if you have any questions concerning access to the document. Public Comment Review Tool: Second, to assist WG members in reviewing the public comments, which the WG will commence next week at the working sessions at ICANN69, staff are organizing the comments in order by topic and level of support in a Public Comment Review Tool. This tool – which is the form commonly used by PDP WGs to review and analyze comments – will make it more efficient for the WG to conduct its review. Staff is prioritizing the input of the comments into the tool according to the topics identified by the WG leadership for the WG to review at ICANN69 as follows: #17 Applicant Support #34 Community Applications #32 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism #9 Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments #20 Application Change Requests #35 Auctions/Private Resolutions #2 Predictability #23 Closed Generics Staff anticipates being able to share links to the Public Comment Review Tool for the above topics likely before the end of this week. Please let us know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 08 October at 15:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 7, 2020

Oct. 7, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 08 October 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of selected topics from the ICANN Board of Directors comments on the SubPro PDP WG draft Final Report – possible topics related to authority and/or potential Bylaws issues include the following (see attached document): * Topic 2 Predictability, bullets C and F; * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments (PICs), bullet A; * Topic 17: bullet B, Pro Bono Assistance Program; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations, bullet B; * Topic 25: Internationalized Domain Names; * Topic 29: Name Collisions; * Topic 34: Community Applications, bullet B, Bylaws considerations 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>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 1