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

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Monday, 04 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 04 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/t4PsBw> (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

Auction of last resort "Option 2"
by Alexander Schubert May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

Hi group, To clarify my suggestions that I made during the call to the “option 2”: Option 2 as it is currently suggested: * The application submission window closes * ICANN reveals all strings – but not the identity of the applicants * Contention sets are identified by ICANN (but no string similarity objection etc. at this stage) * All members of contention sets are invited to submit their bid for a potential auction of last resort (if they don’t want to participate in such auction: the obviously do not have to bid) * The bids are “sealed”: nobody knows who or how much others have bit. * Thereafter everything continues pretty much like in 2012: Full reveal day, etc. * In the few cases that make an auction of last resort necessary: the bids are already in! My suggestion of slight changes to Option 2: * We require all those who would like to join a potential “auction of last resort” to submit their auction bid prior to the end of the submission period. Obviously the bid is and remains “sealed”. * The “limited reveal” (of all strings) is then obsolete. We can directly move to the “proper” reveal day. * In case that we require an auction “deposit”: o Such deposit would obviously NOT have to be paid during the submission period o In fact it could be paid precisely at the point of time it was required in 2012: about 2 weeks prior to any potential auction of last resort, and of course ONLY if you want to participate in said auction! o So during the application submission you could bid what you think would be feasible to obtain the TLD – it doesn’t cost you a dime. Only if ICANN calls the contention set members for an auction of last resort and you want to participate: you THEN need to come up with the required percentage of your bid (last time 10%). No difference to 2012 here. o Remember: The deposit is a penalty that ensures that nobody goes crazy during the auction. The deposit will only not be refunded in case you fail to come up with the amount due should you win the auction (usually the 2nd highest bid). Hence the deposit is mainly a way to keep the bidding “serious”. Deposits will only be held for a short time: everybody gets it back after he auction. * Actually with my suggested “tweak” Option 2 would be almost identical to the 2012 procedure with the main difference that you submit your auction of last resort bid prior to the end of the submission period. With the suggested tweak we solve most problems that Option 2 presents. The only caveat is that we force folks to decide about the “value” of their application(s) before they gain knowledge about the application roster. Singular applicants won’t have a problem with that. And the deposit situation is identical to 2012: due immediately prior to the auction only. The ones who get problems are portfolio applicants. And that is “by design”. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2020 1:13 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 04 May at 15:00 UTC for 120 Minutes Hi there, Regarding the attached PDF “Auction discussion points”: In Option 2 we have two reveals: one is revealing only the strings, the second the applicants as well. Prior to the reveal of applicants we establish the contention sets – and require contention set members to place an “auction of last resort” sealed bid. My question is: How are the “contention sets” being established? * Like in the 2012 round? * Or “automatically”: only identical strings? If we strive to establish contention sets like in 2012 – we run into a big problem: that process took many years. Think “string similarity objection”. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Friday, May 01, 2020 10:09 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 04 May at 15:00 UTC for 120 Minutes Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 04 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 120 minutes. Proposed Agenda: Note that for agenda item 2 below, for the purposes of stimulating discussion on the Private Resolution/Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort topics, the WG Co-Chairs have taken what we believe to be the majority positions and converted them into the attached proposal. We understand that the substance remains under discussion, but after taking into account all of the comments, and the many deliberations of the Working Group, this proposal will hopefully represent something that WG members can all live with. 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 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 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Final Report to be published without Minority Views?
by Kathy Kleiman May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

Hi All,I'd like to echo Anne's questions about both Minority Views and Minority Reports. It would seem very appropriate and timely for them to be going out in the next version. In many ways, it makes the report stronger. We discussed, debated and ultimately agreed on many issues (with tx to Jeff and Cheryl's leadership). All the more important (and valuable) to share those issues in which we continue to disagree. It's part of the transparency and accountability of our process and part and parcel of our work together -- and the success of our presentation. So let me echo Anne's question (slightly rephrased): Does the Consensus Call come before the Final Report is published or after? How will minority views appear in the version that is soon to be published? Best and hope everyone is well, Kathy On 4/30/2020 5:42 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Hi Jeff and Cheryl Does the Consensus Call come before the Final Report is published or after? Are you saying that no Minority Views can appear in the version that is published? (I may be confused as to Steve’s comment in the chat about Minority Statements.) Thank you, Anne ANNE E. AIKMAN-SCALESE Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [1] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ Links: ------ [1] http://lrrc.com/

2 1

FW: [Ext] Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs
by Emily Barabas May 4, 2020

May 4, 2020

Please see below. From: Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg> Date: Monday, 4 May 2020 at 12:06 To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "GACSTAFF (gac-staff(a)icann.org) (gac-staff(a)icann.org)" <gac-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs [cc’ing GNSO support staff to kindly forward to the SubPro PDP WG mailing list] Dear Cheryl and Jeff, I hope this email finds you well. As noted during ICANN67, following the focus on priority topics to the GAC on Subsequent Rounds of new gTLDs being discussed within the SubPro PDP WG, GAC members were asked to provide input on PDP WG draft recommendations available to date (attached – as of March 27th 2020) and answered three specific questions on each of the following topics: 1. GAC Advice and GAC Early Warnings 2. Public Commitments (PICs) 3. Applicant Support Program 4. Community Applications 5. Closed Generics Please note this input is not GAC consensus advice as specified in the compilation document but individual input from GAC Members and Observers on current draft final recommendations. For your reference, please find attached: * The compilation document with input received from 23 GAC members and observers on the five topics mentioned above, via three specific questions on each topic; * The GAC written consultation document originally submitted to GAC members for your reference, which includes: o Prior GAC positions; o Draft final recommendations from the SubPro PDP; o Questions to GAC members on each topic The GAC welcomes any further engagement with SubPro PDP WG Leadership on the input provided, and on ongoing recommendations being drafted. Many thanks for your continuous cooperation and engagement with the GAC. Kind Regards, --Manal

1 0

Subject: Revisions to sections on GAC Advice - Current Status?
by mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW May 3, 2020

May 3, 2020

Dear Paul: Th Community has no interest in fomenting antagonism between GNSO and the GAC. To do so, reflects a serious lack of understanding and experience of the process whereby ICANN was created in its present form. If anything, the Transition resulted in reinforcing GAC's potential influence in the ICANN Community. Accordingly, I could not support the amendments that you are proposing in this regard. Regards Christopher From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, May 01, 2020 2:57 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com >; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com >; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au ) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au >; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Revisions to sections on GAC Advice - Current Status? Hi All, I have not been able to connect with Greg on this as hoped. Even so, I submit the following change which I believes deals with concerns some have raised that we cannot tie the ICANN Board’s hands but at the same time want to create a sense of urgency-leading-to-predictability in relationship to when the GAC gives advice: [ 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.] I hope this balance is acceptable to the WG. This is an area of failure for the community in the last round and I think it would be really unfortunate if we set ourselves up for failure again by not addressing it in the new AGB. Jeff/Cheryl, will one of you please confirm receipt and that this will be on our agenda for discussion in the appropriate WG call? Thanks! Best, Paul

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
by Jamie Baxter May 3, 2020

May 3, 2020

Hey Paul & Anne I think both your edits are improvements. Ideally I would like to see something that limits the independent research activity to “verifying statements or claims made in the application” and not just to “verify the community status of the applicant.” The later seems to introduce opportunity for advocacy. I would also like considered a requirement by the evaluators to produce an equal or resounding body of research when countering claims or statements made in an application. This avoids single sourced or fringe views from impeding the larger community interests, and it helps ensure balance and perspective are considered in the decisions. Thanks Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:01 PM To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, Jamie Baxter <Jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D61A6A.7D647740] Paul, I think you could use this language in the AGB, but I would change the last sentence to “When conducting such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.” I think “especially aware” is tough to measure and “evidence which a party should have included in its filings” is impossible to judge. I am mindful of the fact that these determinations will now be subject to appeal and that we are laying groundwork for an appeal with this language, e.g. appeal on the grounds that the panelist acted as an advocate in conducting independent research. Do you intend to set up grounds for appeal with your proposal? Should we be avoiding those grounds and stick to the substance of the community priority decision as demonstrated via objective evidence/research rather than setting up grounds based on a charge of improper conduct on the part of the evaluator? Thank you, Anne From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 12:10 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com) <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Anne. I think your language is a good start to a compromise. The concern is both knowing what the panelist is looking at and relying on as well as making sure that panelists don’t slip into an advocacy role s/he believes that a particular party is not being very well represented. Even the best of us are vulnerable to confirmation bias from time to time. How about: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists must be especially aware not assume an advocacy role, such as searching for evidence which a party should have already included in its filings.” Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Best, Paul To opt in to Taft's daily updates on COVID-19, please subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For news and advice on coronavirus-related implications, please review our Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> anytime. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:34 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>) <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Subject: RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Paul, You wanted to start a small group on this topic, but we have not heard from you as to a counter-proposal. Jamie and Kathy are copied. Thank you, Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 7:52 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>) <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Subject: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Dear WG, In light of the short time frame, I am proposing language re the standard for Community Evaluation panelist relying on independent research (proposed limitation from 2012 by Kristine Dorrain and Paul McGrady) as follows: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant, provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose such independent research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered.” Just trying to get the ball rolling on this proposed compromise – noting that a lack of consensus results in a fallback to 2012 implementation. In addition, I think I have missed the proposed revisions to the Community Guidelines for scoring. Jeff, was this sent around again? 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@01D61A6A.7D647740] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61A6A.7D647740] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

3 4

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 04 May at 15:00 UTC for 120 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund May 2, 2020

May 2, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 04 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 120 minutes. Proposed Agenda: Note that for agenda item 2 below, for the purposes of stimulating discussion on the Private Resolution/Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort topics, the WG Co-Chairs have taken what we believe to be the majority positions and converted them into the attached proposal. We understand that the substance remains under discussion, but after taking into account all of the comments, and the many deliberations of the Working Group, this proposal will hopefully represent something that WG members can all live with. 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 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 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

4 3

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Revisions to sections on GAC Advice -- PLEASE DO NOT GAG THE GAC
by Alexander Schubert May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

Dear group, Because not everybody here is necessarily “fluent” in regards to the topic we are talking about, here an ICANN link to GAC advice: newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice The way we are building “consensus” in this group here seems to be (I over-simplify): if there is no opposition but some support then we have consensus. So if folks do not understand the implications of the proposed suggestion, they won’t have objections: which implies consensus. So in my mind and in all fairness, folks should be able to gauge what the real life impact of the suggested policy would be. For example in the last round GAC advised to not allow “generic string based” closed gTLDs to move forward. As a result the applicants had to choose between terminating the application or revert to open registries. Nobody really assumed that kind of “predatory behavior” (my personal view and choice of words) by industry leaders. The issue of closed generics was being discussed during the policy development that lead to the 2012 AGB – but in my mind lobbyists successfully avoided clear guidance in the AGB. In the end GAC had to step up – when in reality this should have been clarified by the GNSO and before the finalization of the AGB. So in this respect we might simply listen to GAC already now – instead having to wait for them stepping in after the applications have been submitted. If any such situation (e.g. abuse of closed generics) would occur again – then the currently suggested policy would essentially gag GAC, or rather gag the Board to fix it. In that respect I would like to voice objection to such language. We know what GAC has advised – and we chose to ignore it: * “Protect geo names” (we did not: no additional protections have been implemented) * “Do not allow generic industry keyword term based closed new gTLDs” (at least in the last round, and the circumstances that lead to such advise haven’t changed at all in my mind) The failure is not with GAC – the failure is us not factoring in their advice. Actually: we tried, but in my mind a certain grouping here made sure that consensus was denied. Time after time again. My take: Either we factor GAC’s advise in (we seemingly try to avoid that) – or we live with the possibility that GAC will issue similar advise yet again. It’s just an “advise” – not a death penalty. Please do not gag the GAC by restraining the board. It’s about as helpful as welding shut the security valve of a pressure cooker. With so many who seem to heartedly oppose the GAC I think it’s just fair if there is also a voice that supports GAC – and is thankful for their guidance. Thank you GAC for preventing the worst. Sorry that we ignored all your advice. And no way that your voice will be silenced: directly or indirectly. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, May 01, 2020 2:57 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Revisions to sections on GAC Advice - Current Status? Hi All, I have not been able to connect with Greg on this as hoped. Even so, I submit the following change which I believes deals with concerns some have raised that we cannot tie the ICANN Board’s hands but at the same time want to create a sense of urgency-leading-to-predictability in relationship to when the GAC gives advice: [ 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.] I hope this balance is acceptable to the WG. This is an area of failure for the community in the last round and I think it would be really unfortunate if we set ourselves up for failure again by not addressing it in the new AGB. Jeff/Cheryl, will one of you please confirm receipt and that this will be on our agenda for discussion in the appropriate WG call? Thanks! Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe> subscribe here. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> Resource Toolkit. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:37 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au> ) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au> >; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> ; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> > Subject: Re: Revisions to sections on GAC Advice - Current Status? Sorry to have missed last night's witching hour call and sorry this is not done. You can blame me, not Paul. i will look at the last bit of language in play this evening and hammer something out with Paul. On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:03 PM Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > wrote: 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 <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

2 1