May 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg - lists.icann.org

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 07 May 0300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 7, 2020

May 7, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 07 May at 0300 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/2020-05-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Add this text to the Working Document. 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only] Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): ACTION ITEM: Change the text of the second sentence to, “In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the finalization and publication of the next Applicant Guidebook...” Include a comment that Some WG Members are advocating to maintain the gap between finalization of the AGB and launch of the application period. ACTION ITEM: Consider on the WG list whether this should be a Recommendation or Implementation Guidance and consider the placement. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): ACTION ITEM: Add a reference in the rationale that the WG discussed the additional government comments from the GAC. 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) ACTION ITEM: Leadership will consider how to revisit this subject. ACTION ITEM: Consider the new idea from Rubens Kuhl that the information on number of applications in the contention set should include whether there are self-designated community or geo applications in the contention set. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… a. 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only]:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_… ACTION ITEM: Add this text to the Working Document. Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): Suggested language from Paul, Anne, Justine: Recommendation xx: “To the extent that the GAC provides GAC Consensus Advice (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws) in the future on categories of TLDs, the GAC should provide this Advice prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and whether the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, or to a particular string, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the possible detrimental effect of such timing in determining whether to accept or override such GAC Consensus Advice as provided in the Bylaws." Discussion: -- In GAC comments most governments pushed back and said they needed some flexibility on particular unexpected categories. -- This WG has discussed that there needs to be balance between providing advice on categories to the extent it could have been provided prior to the round opening up. -- Could say “after the opening of the application submission period”. -- The language on timing has a gap where it says to provide the advice before the final version of the AGB and if issue after the application submission period has begun. Do we want it at the publishing of the final AGB? Or should it be after the opening of the application submission period? -- Fine to ask for GAC action prior to the finalization of the AGB then after the application submission period has begun then the rest would apply. -- But there is a gap between the publishing of the AGB and the opening of the application submission window – potentially a 4-month period. The next sentence should be “in the event the GAC advice is issued after the finalization of the AGB” – but change to publication of the final version of the AGB. -- If we keep the gap in we should note that we knowingly did so for the Implementation Team. -- Publication of the final AGB is consistent with the predictability framework language. -- In the evolution of this text, we changed it to a recommendation, but it had been implementation guidance. Seems like if it isn’t binding it should be Implementation Guidance (says “should” not “must”). -- Question: Does this mean it won’t be implemented? Answer: We would say in the preamble that Implementation Guidance should be implemented unless it’s not feasible. The idea is to be transparent if something is implemented differently. ACTION ITEM: Change the text of the second sentence to, “In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the finalization and publication of the next Applicant Guidebook...” Include a comment that Some WG Members are advocating to maintain the gap between finalization of the AGB and launch of the application period. ACTION ITEM: Consider on the WG list whether this should be a Recommendation or Implementation Guidance and consider the placement. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): Re: “Section 3.1 of the 2012 Applicant Guidebook states that GAC Consensus Advice “will create a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved.” Noting that this language does not have a basis in the current version of the ICANN Bylaws, the Working Group recommends omitting this language in future versions of the Applicant Guidebook to bring the Applicant Guidebook in line with the Bylaws language.” Discussion: -- Many governments wanted to keep the strong presumption language in the AGB, unless there is strong consensus in the community to take it out. -- Question: Don’t we indicate in our recommendations an acceptance of Early Warning, so aren’t we recognizing that advice comes after applicants are made? Answer: GAC Early Warnings do not constitute consensus advice. -- The language is from a time that has gone by. Hate to miss an opportunity to have protective language for applicants. -- GAC can provide advice on this Final Report. -- Not all of the governments agree with keeping the presumption in, such as the US. Belgium was the only one that addressed the point we tried to make, that we think it provides a disincentive to come up with other solutions than rejecting the application outright. Could hamper a direct dialog with the applicant to reach a solution. -- A lot of governments do not agree with the removal of the language. -- Let the Bylaws take over and take out all reference to the presumption. -- Should we modify “strong presumption” instead and rewrite the text to reflect the fact that there was support from some countries to keep in “strong presumption”. ACTION ITEM: Add a reference in the rationale that the WG discussed the additional government comments from the GAC. b. 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) Discussion: -- Question: Are private auctions off the table? Answer: Looking at the bulk of the comments and the letter from the Board and the previous work it seems like there is much more support for not allowing private auctions than there is support for keeping them. -- Thought we decided that private solutions could still be allowed. -- Does private solutions include private auctions? -- We describe private auctions as a perceived problem; if it’s just perceived then private auctions should be back on the table. -- If we do allow private auctions to go forward there are limiting elements that the WG could consider. -- NEW IDEA (from Rubens): When the contention sets are revealed for the types of applications to be identified – such as community or geo: “I still believe that the information on number of applications in the contention set should include whether there are self-designated community or geo applications in the contention set. Like this example: there are 7 applications in the provisional contention set, 1 is community and 1 is both geo and community.” ACTION ITEM: Leadership will consider how to revisit this subject. ACTION ITEM: Consider the new idea from Rubens Kuhl that the information on number of applications in the contention set should include whether there are self-designated community or geo applications in the contention set.

1 0

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Thursday, 07 May 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 7, 2020

May 7, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 07 May 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/u4PsBw> (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

Urgent Action required | Important Zoom update information
by Terri Agnew May 6, 2020

May 6, 2020

Dear all, This is to inform you action is required to update zoom meetings to Zoom 5.0 or later by 06 May 2020. Please see the blog with information and how to update if needed. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/further-securing-zoom-meetings [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> Thank you. Kind regards, GNSO Support Team

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 07 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Steve Chan May 6, 2020

May 6, 2020

Dear WG Members, In support of agenda item 2b, the WG-Chairs and staff have sought to integrate the deliberations from the 4 May 2020 call and update the proposal, which you will find attached. The updated proposal, under the header “Hybrid Proposal 2+ for discussion on 7 May”, can be found starting on page 3. In addition to updating the proposal, we have tried to identify several questions that the WG was still discussing on the previous call. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, May 4, 2020 at 1:10 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 07 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 07 May 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Note that for agenda item 2a below, WG members should: Review the latest version of 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_PArk_p… Review the proposed edits from Paul McGrady: “[ In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the detrimental effect of such timing when considering such GAC Consensus Advice which should result in a strong presumption against the Board adopting such late GAC Consensus Advice.]” Review the Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/2020-May/002759.html and attached Proposed Agenda: Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest Discussion of Final Report Topics: a. 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_PArk_p… Revisions since the WG Discussion Suggested text from Paul McGrady GAC Comments (attached) b. 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) – Document TBD AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Kind regards, Julie

6 7

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 07 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Steve Chan May 5, 2020

May 5, 2020

Dear Paul, Anne, Justine, all, The purpose of the agenda item was to consider the proposed changes made to incorporate recent deliberations, but then to also consider the more substantive changes stemming from what we knew of Paul McGrady’s proposal. As we have all seen, that text has evolved quite a bit from his redlines quite some time ago to what is reflected below, with some of those adjustments obviously taking place since the agenda was shared with the WG. What I’ve done is capture the revised text as comments to the relevant recommendations/implementation guidance, so that during the Thursday WG call, the rest of the group can have the opportunity to better understand what might be changing. Hopefully this serves as a good middle ground. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 3:25 PM To: Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 07 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Thanks Justine. It strikes me that the Google doc should reflect the language that Paul has confirmed this morning – as proposed in the most recent form by you. Anne From: Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:20 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 07 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes [EXTERNAL] Correction: The SECOND block of text is my proposed amended version (incorporating Anne's) to Paul's suggested amendment to one recommendation. The FIRST block of text refers to SUBSEQUENT recommendation which is one of the grounds cited to support for my SECOND block of text. But, are we looking again at the original text developed by Leadership/staff (if that's still on the table because that's what I saw on the version of Googledoc shared by staff in the agenda?). Thanks, Justine ----- On Wed, 6 May 2020, 05:56 Aikman-Scalese, Anne, <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> wrote: Steve et al, At this point, the language shown is Agenda Item 2 is no longer on the table. The current draft is shown below: "Section 3.1 of the 2012 Applicant Guidebook states that GAC Advice “will create a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved.” Noting that this language does not have a basis in the current version of the ICANN Bylaws, the Working Group recommends omitting this language in future versions of the Applicant Guidebook to bring the Applicant Guidebook in line with the Bylaws language. The Working Group further notes that the language may have the unintended consequence of hampering the ability for applicants, ICANN org, and the GAC to mitigate concerns and reach a mutually acceptable solution as described in the relevant Bylaws language, which could allow an application to proceed." AND Recommendation xx: To the extent that the GAC provides GAC Consensus Advice (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws) in the future on categories of TLDs, the GAC should provide this Advice prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and whether the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, or to a particular string, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the possible detrimental effect of such timing in determining whether to accept or override such GAC Consensus Advice as provided in the Bylaws." From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of mail(a)christopherwilkinson.eu CW Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:53 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 07 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes [EXTERNAL] Steve: On a Point of Order, it is not acceptable that the extreme opinions of a sole member should take precedence over those of the GAC members, among others. At the very least, Points 2 and 3 must be inverted in the Agenda. CW El 5 de mayo de 2020 a las 22:19 Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> escribió: Dear WG Members, In support of agenda item 2b, the WG-Chairs and staff have sought to integrate the deliberations from the 4 May 2020 call and update the proposal, which you will find attached. The updated proposal, under the header “Hybrid Proposal 2+ for discussion on 7 May”, can be found starting on page 3. In addition to updating the proposal, we have tried to identify several questions that the WG was still discussing on the previous call. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, May 4, 2020 at 1:10 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 07 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 07 May 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Note that for agenda item 2a below, WG members should: Review the latest version of 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_PArk_p… [docs.google.com] Review the proposed edits from Paul McGrady: “[ In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the detrimental effect of such timing when considering such GAC Consensus Advice which should result in a strong presumption against the Board adopting such late GAC Consensus Advice.]” Review the Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/2020-May/002759.html and attached Proposed Agenda: Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest Discussion of Final Report Topics: a. 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_PArk_p… [docs.google.com] Revisions since the WG Discussion Suggested text from Paul McGrady GAC Comments (attached) b. 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) – Document TBD AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Kind regards, Julie _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. 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

Revisions to sections on GAC Advice - Current Status?
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne May 5, 2020

May 5, 2020

Jeff and Cheryl (and Paul McGrady), Jeff, you said that if there were any proposed changes to the GAC Advice language, we should get those in by May 1. However, the last time the WG looked at this, Paul had inserted a number of redline changes into the document. So which version are you expecting us to use when you ask for proposals to be made no later than May 1? And are these alternate proposals supposed to come in the form of redlines to the WG document in the same manner that Paul used? I had understood that Paul was doing some redrafting of his numerous edits. Or was there another small group that was supposed to be convened on this point? I don't see any way we can cancel the discussion on the language covering GAC Advice, even though you suggested at the top of the last call that we might. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D61D65.8ADA6800] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61D65.8ADA6800] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.

6 9

Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Co-Chairs' response to GAC Chair letter: GAC Leadership Input on Subpro PDP WG Timeline
by Emily Barabas May 5, 2020

May 5, 2020

Dear Manal, I hope you are well. Please find attached a letter from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group Co-Chairs Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr responding to your 9 April 2020 letter. Kind regards, Emily From: Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 9 April 2020 at 17:33 To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Cc: "gac-leadership(a)icann.org" <gac-leadership(a)icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: GAC Chair letter to Subpro PDP WG Co-Chairs: GAC Leadership Input on Subpro PDP WG Timeline Dear Cheryl and Jeff, I hope this email finds you well. Please find attached the letter from the GAC Chair, Manal Ismail, to you both as Subsequent Procedures for new gTLDs Co-Chairs, relative to GAC leadership input on the timeline of the PDP WG. The letter can also be found on the GAC website correspondence page<https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-leadership-concerns-regarding-cha…>. Thank you. Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support Manager benedetta.rossi(a)icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 04 May 1500 UTC
by Emily Barabas May 5, 2020

May 5, 2020

Hi Donna, The most recent discussions on this topic took place on 12 & 16 December and then 7 & 9 January. You can find the notes and recordings here: * 12 December: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-12-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… * 16 December: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-12-16+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… * 7 January: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-01-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… * 9 January: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-01-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Reply to: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2020 at 01:17 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 04 May 1500 UTC Hi Julie Can you remind me of the date that we last had substantive discussion on the topic we discussed today. I’d like to review the notes from that call if I can in conjunction with the discussion we had today. Thanks Donna From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, May 04, 2020 12:19 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 04 May 1500 UTC Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 04 May 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/2020-05-04+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-0…>. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEMS: In preparation for the next meeting on Thursday, 07 May at 0300 UTC WG members should: 1. Review the latest version of 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only] – link to be sent with the agenda. 2. Review the proposed edits from Paul McGrady: “[ In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the detrimental effect of such timing when considering such GAC Consensus Advice which should result in a strong presumption against the Board adopting such late GAC Consensus Advice.]” 3. Review the Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/2020-May/002759.html<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/20…> ACTION ITEM re: 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) – Staff will revise the Proposal based on the WG discussion. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTg…> 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions), page 1 Option 1: Submission of bid at application submission. Once the contention sets are established, only the application with the highest bid is evaluated (this would require significant changes to the processing of applications as carried out in the 2012 round). Option 2: Submission of bid prior to reveal day. Contention sets are established, but applicants are only provided the number of applications in the set, but not the applying entities. After all bids are submitted, the identify of entities in contention sets would be revealed and applicants could participate in various forms of private resolution (perhaps including private auctions). The assumption is that all applications are evaluated, as well as other application procedures. Proposal (Option 3): -- Add T&Cs warning applicants that: * They shall not submit applications for the purpose of financially benefiting from the resolution of contention sets * They shall not participate in the resolution of contention sets where non-winning applicants receive financial benefit to lose. * The above rules shall not prohibit applicants from creating partnerships or other forms of joint ventures that would allow two or more applicants within a contention set to jointly run and/or operate the applied for string if that joint venture ultimately is otherwise qualified to operate and administer the registry in accordance with the rules set out in the then-current Applicant Guidebook. -- No additional changes would need to be made to the application/evaluation/objection processes. -- Applicants are permitted to resolve contention sets as laid out in the T&Cs -- Auctions of last resort are strictly a single round and via sealed bid. -- A PIC is incorporated into the registry agreement to capture the requirements from the T&Cs. The punitive measures could include the potential loss of the registry as well as a bar on participation in any future rounds (both for the individuals as well as the entities (and their affiliated) involved. Discussion: -- We have yet to identify the problem and harms. -- It is not universally accepted that this was problematic, but there were enough comments from the community and Board that to allow financial gain from auctions by those who lose doesn’t fit with the whole notion of operating in the global public interest and the allocation of public resources. -- We are trying to come up with potential solutions where you don’t have to go to an auction of last resort, such as joint bids or joint ventures. -- Our goal is not 100 percent solving the situation, but to mitigate/reduce. -- Need to be careful not to make the rules too complicated. -- Don’t think they are complicated -- no private auctions, but allow private resolutions. -- There could be other penalties. This seems to ensure that no smaller entity ever gets a registry. What keeps a big entity bidding a billion dollars and I get it for the second higher price? -- Keep in mind that you were required to put 10 percent of your bid down. That could dissuade huge bids. -- If we go to a sealed auction bid then we could get large entities making huge bids. -- Someone could think this was to hard/complicated. Need to be careful that we aren’t creating an extremely complicated process. -- Like the idea of having a financial penalty. If we go ahead with this we need to carefully think about the Ts&Cs, who does the evaluation, what are the consequences, how are they enforced. You also could have them put into escrow what their bid amount is. -- Question re: Option 1 -- Wondering where you have in parenthesis “(this would require significant changes to the processing of applications as carried out in the 2012 round).” Wouldn’t it be easier to change the evaluation process than having Ts&Cs that are hard to enforce and easy to game? -- If it is only the one with the highest bid is evaluated, then what if you object to all of them, or to the first bidder but not the other bidder? You will have to do the community evaluation first. -- There was a Visio document that showed a flow chart/process diagram. -- It would be easier to figure out a different process then to have rules that were hard to enforce. -- Both options have advantages and disadvantages. -- Requiring full bid to put into escrow would disadvantage small firms who can’t do that. -- Rather than just present options for public comment it would be better to present recommendations. -- Don’t lose the suggestion of a multiplier for those that qualify under the Applicant Support Program. -- Option 3 (this proposal) eliminates blind bids. -- We will always have the ‘giant guy always wins’ problem in any scenario. -- Re: “The above rules shall not prohibit applicants from creating partnerships or other forms of joint ventures that would allow two or more applicants within a contention set to jointly run and/or operate the applied for string if that joint venture ultimately is otherwise qualified to operate and administer the registry in accordance with the rules set out in the then-current Applicant Guidebook.” -- Could say this in a more positive light. -- At-Large asked for consideration for an applicant which gets Applicant Support to get priority in a contention set. We put out as a potential option early on, but it didn’t get traction. It is possible. -- I'm concerned that we're losing sight of the intent of the program, which is to increase competition and innovation. New entrants in a contention set might need a leg up. -- We still need to find a solution to a situation where there is not a new entrant in the contention set. -- Question: The auctions of last resort via a seal bid, at what point would that happen? Why can’t you have Option 2 with these terms and conditions? “Submission of bid prior to reveal day.” Option 3/Proposal - you aren’t having the sealed bid until the very end when you know you haven’t resolved anything. We got push back to the notion of submitting a sealed bid before knowing who you were bidding against. -- There was also the problem that if new members were added to the contention set after string sim review, these applicants would have different information compared to the others in the contention set. This was seen as unfair. -- If you keep the sealed bid as the very first step then you don’t have some applicants who may have more information and an advantage. -- Others said that if the auction of last resort isn’t held until 2-3 years after submitting the sealed bid then things could have changed. -- Suggest Option 2, with Ts&Cs and no private auction. The only difference with Option three is the timing of the sealed bid. -- Question: What is the benefit of doing the sealed bid earlier or later? Answer: Earlier in the process is the true value of the bid since you don’t know who you are bidding against. Submitting later on you could gain more intelligence, but if you submit right away by the time the auction is held it may not be worth the same amount as when you submitting the bid. -- When we first thought about Option 2 private auctions were still allowed. If it isn’t a private auction all the money goes back to ICANN. So, private auctions are not off the table. -- Seems that there is support for Option 2, with Ts&Cs, and no private auctions. Need to agree on the timing of the sealed bid. -- This new version of Option 2 would still prohibit gaming. Would still allow creative solutions. Would require more detail in implementation. We are not saying you could pay someone off (horse trading). -- One of the issues raised with Option 2 is that the contention set composition may be impacted by String Confusion objections.  New applicant could have more information than the others in the set. - Any new additions to the contention set get an advantage. -- We could say what is acceptable and provide a guiding principle. -- Think we need to work through the details of what happens while waiting for the sealed bid. -- Seems like Option 2 with Ts&Cs and without private auctions, but need to agree on the timing of the submission of the sealed bid. -- One concern is that what we are trying to do here is to push applicants to resolve the contention set through a joint venture or some other mechanism, other than private auctions. If it ends in an auction of last resort and the bud is submitted at that time, then the applicants would have more time to gather information to make a winning bid -- it is unfair because now you have more information and you can make sure your bid will win the day. -- Under Option 2 you would know how many in the contention set, but not who they were. But after a string confusion objection a new player could be added who could know the number and also the identity. -- Maybe all three applicants have the option to resubmit their sealed bids if they want to. -- Why not have Option 2 but with everyone submitting their bids at the beginning? It’s biased against those who don’t have lots of resources. -- Need to have a reveal day so that you can have objections and public comments. -- The original concern with Option 1 is that there is no information to base the value of the TLD. If you wait until reveal day and you know how many strings are in the contention set, why put applicants through the angst of trying to figure out how much a string is worth to them without any information. If you understand how many are in the contention set with you, you can make a decision with more information. -- Question: Could two of the three in a contention set combine their resources, or set up a joint venture? Answer: It would depend on the timing of the submission of the sealed bid. The only way to do a joint venture to convince all applicants to withdraw in favor of the joint venture. You could do it if you did the sealed bid at the very end. -- If there were material changes to an application it would have to be submitted as a change request. -- If the composition of the set changes after the submission of the bids, the set can be given the opportunity to re-bid. if the composition of the set changes after the submission of the bids, the set can be given the opportunity to re-bid. -- In the case of sealed bids there is no need for a deposit. The application fee is the deposit.

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 04 May 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 04 May 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/2020-05-04+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEMS: In preparation for the next meeting on Thursday, 07 May at 0300 UTC WG members should: 1. Review the latest version of 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only] – link to be sent with the agenda. 2. Review the proposed edits from Paul McGrady: “[ In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the detrimental effect of such timing when considering such GAC Consensus Advice which should result in a strong presumption against the Board adopting such late GAC Consensus Advice.]” 3. Review the Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/2020-May/002759.html ACTION ITEM re: 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) – Staff will revise the Proposal based on the WG discussion. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions), page 1 Option 1: Submission of bid at application submission. Once the contention sets are established, only the application with the highest bid is evaluated (this would require significant changes to the processing of applications as carried out in the 2012 round). Option 2: Submission of bid prior to reveal day. Contention sets are established, but applicants are only provided the number of applications in the set, but not the applying entities. After all bids are submitted, the identify of entities in contention sets would be revealed and applicants could participate in various forms of private resolution (perhaps including private auctions). The assumption is that all applications are evaluated, as well as other application procedures. Proposal (Option 3): -- Add T&Cs warning applicants that: * They shall not submit applications for the purpose of financially benefiting from the resolution of contention sets * They shall not participate in the resolution of contention sets where non-winning applicants receive financial benefit to lose. * The above rules shall not prohibit applicants from creating partnerships or other forms of joint ventures that would allow two or more applicants within a contention set to jointly run and/or operate the applied for string if that joint venture ultimately is otherwise qualified to operate and administer the registry in accordance with the rules set out in the then-current Applicant Guidebook. -- No additional changes would need to be made to the application/evaluation/objection processes. -- Applicants are permitted to resolve contention sets as laid out in the T&Cs -- Auctions of last resort are strictly a single round and via sealed bid. -- A PIC is incorporated into the registry agreement to capture the requirements from the T&Cs. The punitive measures could include the potential loss of the registry as well as a bar on participation in any future rounds (both for the individuals as well as the entities (and their affiliated) involved. Discussion: -- We have yet to identify the problem and harms. -- It is not universally accepted that this was problematic, but there were enough comments from the community and Board that to allow financial gain from auctions by those who lose doesn’t fit with the whole notion of operating in the global public interest and the allocation of public resources. -- We are trying to come up with potential solutions where you don’t have to go to an auction of last resort, such as joint bids or joint ventures. -- Our goal is not 100 percent solving the situation, but to mitigate/reduce. -- Need to be careful not to make the rules too complicated. -- Don’t think they are complicated -- no private auctions, but allow private resolutions. -- There could be other penalties. This seems to ensure that no smaller entity ever gets a registry. What keeps a big entity bidding a billion dollars and I get it for the second higher price? -- Keep in mind that you were required to put 10 percent of your bid down. That could dissuade huge bids. -- If we go to a sealed auction bid then we could get large entities making huge bids. -- Someone could think this was to hard/complicated. Need to be careful that we aren’t creating an extremely complicated process. -- Like the idea of having a financial penalty. If we go ahead with this we need to carefully think about the Ts&Cs, who does the evaluation, what are the consequences, how are they enforced. You also could have them put into escrow what their bid amount is. -- Question re: Option 1 -- Wondering where you have in parenthesis “(this would require significant changes to the processing of applications as carried out in the 2012 round).” Wouldn’t it be easier to change the evaluation process than having Ts&Cs that are hard to enforce and easy to game? -- If it is only the one with the highest bid is evaluated, then what if you object to all of them, or to the first bidder but not the other bidder? You will have to do the community evaluation first. -- There was a Visio document that showed a flow chart/process diagram. -- It would be easier to figure out a different process then to have rules that were hard to enforce. -- Both options have advantages and disadvantages. -- Requiring full bid to put into escrow would disadvantage small firms who can’t do that. -- Rather than just present options for public comment it would be better to present recommendations. -- Don’t lose the suggestion of a multiplier for those that qualify under the Applicant Support Program. -- Option 3 (this proposal) eliminates blind bids. -- We will always have the ‘giant guy always wins’ problem in any scenario. -- Re: “The above rules shall not prohibit applicants from creating partnerships or other forms of joint ventures that would allow two or more applicants within a contention set to jointly run and/or operate the applied for string if that joint venture ultimately is otherwise qualified to operate and administer the registry in accordance with the rules set out in the then-current Applicant Guidebook.” -- Could say this in a more positive light. -- At-Large asked for consideration for an applicant which gets Applicant Support to get priority in a contention set. We put out as a potential option early on, but it didn’t get traction. It is possible. -- I'm concerned that we're losing sight of the intent of the program, which is to increase competition and innovation. New entrants in a contention set might need a leg up. -- We still need to find a solution to a situation where there is not a new entrant in the contention set. -- Question: The auctions of last resort via a seal bid, at what point would that happen? Why can’t you have Option 2 with these terms and conditions? “Submission of bid prior to reveal day.” Option 3/Proposal - you aren’t having the sealed bid until the very end when you know you haven’t resolved anything. We got push back to the notion of submitting a sealed bid before knowing who you were bidding against. -- There was also the problem that if new members were added to the contention set after string sim review, these applicants would have different information compared to the others in the contention set. This was seen as unfair. -- If you keep the sealed bid as the very first step then you don’t have some applicants who may have more information and an advantage. -- Others said that if the auction of last resort isn’t held until 2-3 years after submitting the sealed bid then things could have changed. -- Suggest Option 2, with Ts&Cs and no private auction. The only difference with Option three is the timing of the sealed bid. -- Question: What is the benefit of doing the sealed bid earlier or later? Answer: Earlier in the process is the true value of the bid since you don’t know who you are bidding against. Submitting later on you could gain more intelligence, but if you submit right away by the time the auction is held it may not be worth the same amount as when you submitting the bid. -- When we first thought about Option 2 private auctions were still allowed. If it isn’t a private auction all the money goes back to ICANN. So, private auctions are not off the table. -- Seems that there is support for Option 2, with Ts&Cs, and no private auctions. Need to agree on the timing of the sealed bid. -- This new version of Option 2 would still prohibit gaming. Would still allow creative solutions. Would require more detail in implementation. We are not saying you could pay someone off (horse trading). -- One of the issues raised with Option 2 is that the contention set composition may be impacted by String Confusion objections.  New applicant could have more information than the others in the set. - Any new additions to the contention set get an advantage. -- We could say what is acceptable and provide a guiding principle. -- Think we need to work through the details of what happens while waiting for the sealed bid. -- Seems like Option 2 with Ts&Cs and without private auctions, but need to agree on the timing of the submission of the sealed bid. -- One concern is that what we are trying to do here is to push applicants to resolve the contention set through a joint venture or some other mechanism, other than private auctions. If it ends in an auction of last resort and the bud is submitted at that time, then the applicants would have more time to gather information to make a winning bid -- it is unfair because now you have more information and you can make sure your bid will win the day. -- Under Option 2 you would know how many in the contention set, but not who they were. But after a string confusion objection a new player could be added who could know the number and also the identity. -- Maybe all three applicants have the option to resubmit their sealed bids if they want to. -- Why not have Option 2 but with everyone submitting their bids at the beginning? It’s biased against those who don’t have lots of resources. -- Need to have a reveal day so that you can have objections and public comments. -- The original concern with Option 1 is that there is no information to base the value of the TLD. If you wait until reveal day and you know how many strings are in the contention set, why put applicants through the angst of trying to figure out how much a string is worth to them without any information. If you understand how many are in the contention set with you, you can make a decision with more information. -- Question: Could two of the three in a contention set combine their resources, or set up a joint venture? Answer: It would depend on the timing of the submission of the sealed bid. The only way to do a joint venture to convince all applicants to withdraw in favor of the joint venture. You could do it if you did the sealed bid at the very end. -- If there were material changes to an application it would have to be submitted as a change request. -- If the composition of the set changes after the submission of the bids, the set can be given the opportunity to re-bid. if the composition of the set changes after the submission of the bids, the set can be given the opportunity to re-bid. -- In the case of sealed bids there is no need for a deposit. The application fee is the deposit.

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 07 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 07 May 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Note that for agenda item 2a below, WG members should: 1. Review the latest version of 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_PArk_p… 2. Review the proposed edits from Paul McGrady: “[ In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the detrimental effect of such timing when considering such GAC Consensus Advice which should result in a strong presumption against the Board adopting such late GAC Consensus Advice.]” 3. Review the Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/2020-May/002759.html and attached Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: * 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_PArk_p… * Revisions since the WG Discussion * Suggested text from Paul McGrady * GAC Comments (attached) * 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) – Document TBD 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

1 0