June 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Package 6
by McGrady, Paul D. June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

Hi Jeff & Cheryl, I was under the impression that we were going to discuss Closed Generics again, but I see it is Package 6. Is Closed Generics not on the agenda for upcoming calls? If it is, how can we be doing the so-called “Can’t live with” exercise when the topic isn’t closed on the calls? Also, I see that the text indicates that the WG agrees the Board instituted a ban on them in the last round. That is not what the Board resolution says – and in fact there was much discussion on the calls and chat about how “ban” does not apply. There were three options: (1) make a change to non-exclusive access, (2) maintain & defer to the next round, or (3) withdraw. Is there a way to make that section reflect the actual facts before we have to undertake the so-called “can’t live with” exercise? The way it is written now essentially takes the starting position of the part of the WG that wants to censor closed generics and implies everyone agrees with it. That isn’t the case. Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com<http://www.taftlaw.com> / PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [https://dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_image_fetch?cid=1016&ep=2b8abf60503911b8…] Taft Bio<http://www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [V-Card Icon] Taft vCard<http://www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Subscribe to our law updates<http://taftlaw.com/news/subscribe> To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-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.

4 4

With correction: Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 29 June 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

** with correct agenda wiki page url, thank you Justine Chew for pointing this out!** Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 29 June 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-29+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> (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

Additional Transparency for Private Auctions
by McGrady, Paul D. June 29, 2020

June 29, 2020

Jeff, As promised I am kicking around your suggestion. Can you clarify what you had in mind? Would the parties and dollars need to be reported at the end of every private auction, or in one lump report after the close of the round? I guess I’m a little concerned that Party A and B have a private auction, Party A reports it because they have no more contentions left and the report helps/hurts Party B in an auction with Party C. One final report at the end of a round may be easier to get on board with (although I am still trying to identify unintended consequences). Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com<http://www.taftlaw.com> / PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [https://dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_image_fetch?cid=1016&ep=32b382944b053828…] Taft Bio<http://www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [V-Card Icon] Taft vCard<http://www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Subscribe to our law updates<http://taftlaw.com/news/subscribe> To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-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.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Auction of last resort and Private Resolutions
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne June 29, 2020

June 29, 2020

Dear WG Members, Re: private resolution of contention sets, I just wanted to mention again (as I did in chat on the last call) that apparently 90% of string contention sets were resolved before auction of last resort in the 2012 round. (My source for this is the CCWG Auction Proceeds group so let me know if you disagree on this statistic.) This means private resolution is by far “the rule” in resolving string contention. It seems to me that promoting “joint ventures” of 2 or more applicants for the string will very easily result in “buy-outs” and “horse trading”. An applicant who really wants to win will need only to structure a revised “change request” application in which (a) the other party becomes a “silent partner” or (b) is named a “key person” whose expertise is desirable and who serves on the Board or the Advisory Board at a certain consulting fee. The “silent partner” and/or Advisory Board member agrees in exchange to withdraw the competing application. We should be thinking of ways to address this. I had suggested the possibility of the “losing” applicant being required to pay a fee into an Applicant Support fund upon withdrawal of its application if it (or one of its principals) participates in the so-called “joint venture” revised application. Separately, loose references to the organizational structure known as Joint Venture are probably ill-advised. That form of corporate structure is rarely pursued in this day owing to the high degree of risk of liability taken on by each joint venturer for the acts or omissions of the other joint venturer(s). Whatever we recommend as a matter of policy, it might be better to adopt some sort of neutral terminology such as “ revised business combination applicant” terminology. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D64BAD.734CB280] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image002.jpg@01D64BAD.734CB280] 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.

11 13

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Auction of last resort and Private Resolutions
by Pruis, Elaine June 29, 2020

June 29, 2020

Hi Paul, Since we’re still waiting for leadership to define how consensus will be determined, three dissenting voices on the WG calls doesn’t mean the majority of the community hasn’t come to agreement…. It means there could be a dissenting statement included in the recommendations. Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 [signature_51725297] From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Date: Monday, June 29, 2020 at 11:03 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM>, Jean Guillon <jean(a)guillon.com>, "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Auction of last resort and Private Resolutions There is no, and never has been, any consensus for banning private auctions. As the last call made clear, there can be some guardrails around applications to make sure that they are not for the sole purpose of participating in private auctions and that the applicants have a bona fide interest in running the registry. As for tweaking the auction of last resort (via Vickery or otherwise) that really is a separate topic. Happy to discuss on the call. Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-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: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 9:01 AM To: Jean Guillon <jean(a)guillon.com>; Pruis, Elaine <epruis(a)verisign.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Auction of last resort and Private Resolutions After all is said and done - the Vickery auction is the most elegant solution. It results in far fewer required evaluations, allowing greater refunds to more applicants. If you are the 3rd or lower bidder for a string, you don’t have to pay of a useless evaluation of an application that will not proceed. It eliminates possibility of collusion between applicants in contention sets and eliminates the concerns about what may or may not happen with JVs. Treats every TLD as its own asset and doesn’t provide any advantage to large portfolio applicants over single string applicants. It’s clean, fast and in almost every case, can be settled in weeks, not years. Are there corner cases that will require an adjustment for community and other one off scenarios with objections? Yes – but for 95+% of applicants in a contention set, it just works. Unless of course you are in this process to make $$$ from losing auctions, whether to walk away or roll it into other auctions. But making life easier or more efficient for those applicants is not the purpose of this program. Fair and transparent distribution of critical internet infrastructure is. We had really good discussions about this months ago, including a tweak from Donna on Vickery that seemed to have broad support, including from me. I’m not sure how we are back at this again. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jean Guillon Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 4:30 PM To: Pruis, Elaine <epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Auction of last resort and Private Resolutions I read things such as :"a “key person” whose expertise is desirable and who serves on the Board or the Advisory Board at a certain consulting fee" and "the possibility of the “losing” applicant being required to pay a fee into an Applicant Support fund upon withdrawal of its application" These are good ideas but from an applicant perspective it complexifies greatly the application procedure. I don't think that applicants should have to deal with more complex (and costly) procedures that only Icann insiders are able to explain. The only thing missing in the next guidebook is a clear and simplified procedure for .BRANDs The next AGB should be more simple, not more complex. Jean Guillon Le dim. 28 juin 2020 à 20:47, Pruis, Elaine via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> a écrit : Hi, The “auction of last resort” in 2012 was aptly named. Private resolution was encouraged. ICANN auctions were the very last possible remedy for contention sets. So it’s not surprising that 90% of contention sets were resolved privately. That was intentional. Keeping the option for private resolutions is reasonable- it’s the gaming and buyouts we’ve been asked by the board to try to prevent. If we want to avoid any of it, let’s do the Vickrey auction - put in a sealed bid with your application. Parties can try to make whatever deals they want after the TLD is delegated. This eliminates horse trading or gaming or disadvantaging single applicants by paying portfolio applicants to lose. Elaine On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:32 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Re: private resolution of contention sets, I just wanted to mention again (as I did in chat on the last call) that apparently 90% of string contention sets were resolved before auction of last resort in the 2012 round. (My source for this is the CCWG Auction Proceeds group so let me know if you disagree on this statistic.) This means private resolution is by far “the rule” in resolving string contention. It seems to me that promoting “joint ventures” of 2 or more applicants for the string will very easily result in “buy-outs” and “horse trading”. An applicant who really wants to win will need only to structure a revised “change request” application in which (a) the other party becomes a “silent partner” or (b) is named a “key person” whose expertise is desirable and who serves on the Board or the Advisory Board at a certain consulting fee. The “silent partner” and/or Advisory Board member agrees in exchange to withdraw the competing application. We should be thinking of ways to address this. I had suggested the possibility of the “losing” applicant being required to pay a fee into an Applicant Support fund upon withdrawal of its application if it (or one of its principals) participates in the so-called “joint venture” revised application. Separately, loose references to the organizational structure known as Joint Venture are probably ill-advised. That form of corporate structure is rarely pursued in this day owing to the high degree of risk of liability taken on by each joint venturer for the acts or omissions of the other joint venturer(s). Whatever we recommend as a matter of policy, it might be better to adopt some sort of neutral terminology such as “ revised business combination applicant” terminology. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image001.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> <image002.jpg> 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1PLoeviMseeYNBh9XxgE9I659c_9al5K4QT0JSeI1GFEIo… _______________________________________________ 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://secure-web.cisco.com/16wBjzudNDVS8MGemaPxIAYGAgxFlPbZx6Ukv68iHHYoDI…) and the website Terms of Service (https://secure-web.cisco.com/17kdC1aiME966HuVyAwyy_Sj_c2T5hq_YAAh4caVFUATx2…) 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lWbAtCVtnH2eyO_0Wq12IO3_9PJN5UYh-jNqHy3Z7vlpe…> _______________________________________________ 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<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1B0YOh63Q0xpIBnA-Zw7mW2sgPEe0vQj-fBY1dGDx8oTpI…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1C_GA3RzNqwffqRX_OiwqsvwMYPkjSNmnl73lpn4WV_ku3…>). 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.

2 1

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 29 June 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew June 29, 2020

June 29, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 29 June 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/jwBcC> (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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 29 June at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 29, 2020

June 29, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 29 June 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/2020-06-29+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: "Can't Live With" comments on Package 5: 2.4 Application Change Requests Proposed new Implementation Guidance: Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 3) ACTION ITEM: Accept the change from Justine to include text in brackets, “Insofar as it is feasible, ICANN org should explore the possibility of allowing applicants to delay [by 60-90 days] evaluation of relevant applications pending early submission [prior to their own] of an applicant change request on the basis of business combination or other forms of joint ventures, so as to facilitate evaluation (instead of re-evaluation) of the new combined venture or entity, in an effort to save time and cost.” Also make consistent the text in Rationale for Recommendation xx (rationale 3). Recommendation xx (rationale 4): [Suggested edit to the preceding sentence: [Applicants of .Brand strings will be given the opportunity to continue with the application process for a change in string that is linked to their brand without the need for an auction of last resort to resolve contention, contingent on process guardrails which ensure that changes in the applied-for string occur only under narrow circumstances, limit impact on the New gTLD Program more broadly, and are subject to public comment and objections processes.] ACTION ITEM: The WG agrees to the change. 2.8.1 GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Rationale for recommendation xx (rationale 6): ACTION ITEM: Revise the text with text in brackets: Application changes would be subject to [public comment and] evaluation by ICANN as discussed in section xx Application Change Requests.” 2.5.4 Applicant Support Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ACTION ITEM: Revise the text to include text in brackets and strikeout: “In addition, the Working Group recommends that ICANN continue to facilitate [and promote] non-financial assistance including the provision of pro-bono assistance to applicants in need.” [ICANN will provide educational materials and outreach during the communications period to both the applicants and potential providers of pro bono services.] Also, update Rationale for Affirmation xx with modification (rationale 2). Recommendation xx (rationale 4) Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4) ACTION ITEM: Revise the text with text in brackets: “The Working Group recommends that ICANN improve outreach, awareness-raising, application evaluation, and program evaluation elements of the Applicant Support Program, [as well as usability of the Applicant Support Program] as proposed in the Implementation Guidance below.” ACTION ITEM: Revise the text with the text in brackets: “In implementing the Applicant Support Program for subsequent rounds, the dedicated Implementation Review Team should draw on experts with relevant knowledge, including from the targeted regions, to develop appropriate program elements related to outreach, education, [business case development,] and application evaluation. Regional experts may be particularly helpful in providing insight on the [development] of business plans from different parts of the world.” Also, update Rationale for Recommendation xx and Implementation Guidance xx-xx (rationale 4). c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. [Proposed additional paragraph: The Working Group considered a comment submitted by the ALAC during the call for public comments to the Initial Report which proposed for an applicant that qualifies for ASP to be given priority in any string contention set, and not be subjected to any further string contention resolution process. While the Working Group noted that applicants which apply for applicant support would consider themselves as applicants in need of financial support and therefore less likely to possess the financial wherewithal to succeed in an auction of last resort, the Working Group did not come to an agreement on the ALAC’s proposal. Instead, the Working Group preferred to consider the ALAC’s secondary proposal for the provision of a multiplier (or equivalent) to help applicants which qualified for applicant support to effectively ACTION ITEM: Integrate concept with content about the multiplier/bid credit -- to be added to ASP section and released with package 7. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Complete review of "Can't Live With" comments on Package 5, start on page 95: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 2.4 Application Change Requests [Proposed new Implementation Guidance: Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 3): Insofar as it is feasible, ICANN org should explore the possibility of allowing applicants to delay evaluation of relevant applications pending early submission of an applicant change request on the basis of business combination or other forms of joint ventures, so as to facilitate evaluation (instead of re-evaluation) of the new combined venture or entity, in an effort to save time and cost.] C5.6 - Justine Chew proposed adding new Implementation Guidance. Rationale: "In the interest of transparency and predictability, it should be clarified if application change requests are allowed immediately after close of the application period and when all applied-for strings and corresponding applicants are revealed. Where permissible, we should consider allowing applicants which have applied for exactly matching strings or strings which in their belief run the risk of being confusingly similar an opportunity to delay their evaluation/reviews pending submission of an applicant change request on the basis of business combination or other forms of joint ventures. Having to evaluate just the new combined venture or entity will help avoid need for re-evaluation, also save time and costs. Withdrawals of application and corresponding refunds should be allowed." Discussion: -- Any suggestions for the amount of time for the delay. -- Clarify that an applicant could delay his/her own application. -- Suggest a an applicant could ask for a delay of 60-90 days. -- Define “early” in “pending early submission”. ACTION ITEM: Accept the change from Justine to include text in brackets, “Insofar as it is feasible, ICANN org should explore the possibility of allowing applicants to delay [by 60-90 days] evaluation of relevant applications pending early submission [prior to their own] of an applicant change request on the basis of business combination or other forms of joint ventures, so as to facilitate evaluation (instead of re-evaluation) of the new combined venture or entity, in an effort to save time and cost.” Also make consistent the text in Rationale for Recommendation xx (rationale 3). Recommendation xx (rationale 4): [Suggested edit to the preceding sentence: [Applicants of .Brand strings will be given the opportunity to continue with the application process for a change in string that is linked to their brand without the need for an auction of last resort to resolve contention, contingent on process guardrails which ensure that changes in the applied-for string occur only under narrow circumstances, limit impact on the New gTLD Program more broadly, and are subject to public comment and objections processes.] JC5.8 - Justine Chew proposed editing the preceding sentence - underlined text is new. Rationale: "For greater comfort, the sentence “Applicants will be given the opportunity to continue with the application process for a string linked to their brand without the need for an auction of last resort to resolve contention.” must be expressly tied to a .Brand context and contingent on the process guardrails described. As it stands, that sentence is too open-ended." ACTION ITEM: The WG agrees to the change. 2.8.1 GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Rationale for recommendation xx (rationale 6): KK5.6 - Kathy Kleiman proposed adding the words "and the Community" to this sentence. Rationale: "Should not be controversial; many application changes reviewed by ICANN are also reviewed by the Community. Just clarifying here." ACTION ITEM: Revise the text with text in brackets: Application changes would be subject to [public comment and] evaluation by ICANN as discussed in section xx Application Change Requests.” 2.5.4 Applicant Support Recommendation xx (rationale 2): [Proposed alternate text to the preceding sentence: In addition, the Working Group recommends that ICANN proactively manage the pro bono assistance program by not only encouraging the provision of non-financial pro-bono assistance but also by coordinating communication in respect of the provision of pro-bono assistance to and uptake by applicants in need.] JC5.9 - Justine Chew proposed alternate text to the preceding sentence. Rationale: "In addition, the Working Group recommends that ICANN proactively manage the pro bono assistance program by not only encouraging the provision of non-financial pro-bono assistance but also by coordinating communication in respect of the provision of pro-bono assistance to and uptake by applicants in need." Discussion: -- Be careful that ICANN Org is not assisting applicants. Passive language would be better. -- Education and promotion is fine, but should be delivered generally and transparently. -- Add “In addition, ICANN Org will publicize the program and provide educational materials for applicants who qualify for support.” -- The solution lies in outreach. Add a clause “including ICANN Org making the need for pro bono assistance known throughout the legal community.” -- Needs to be outreach to vendors that can provide that support. What is our timing? The communications period is described in that section – a least 6 months. ACTION ITEM: Revise the text to include text in brackets and strikeout: “In addition, the Working Group recommends that ICANN continue to facilitate [and promote] non-financial assistance including the provision of pro-bono assistance to applicants in need.” [ICANN will provide educational materials and outreach during the communications period to both the applicants and potential providers of pro bono services.] Also update Rationale for Affirmation xx with modification (rationale 2). Recommendation xx (rationale 4): The Working Group recommends that ICANN improve [utility,] outreach, awareness-raising, application evaluation, and program evaluation elements of the Applicant Support Program, as proposed in the Implementation Guidance below. JC5.11 - Justine Chew proposed adding the word "utility." Rationale: "At-Large considers the element of education around viable business models for applicants as identified by the AMGlobal Study is also important to increase the utility of the ASP for potential ASP applicants." And Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4): In implementing the Applicant Support Program for subsequent rounds, the dedicated Implementation Review Team should draw on experts with relevant knowledge, including from the targeted regions, to develop appropriate program elements related to outreach, education [(including education on business models, for e.g. through different business case studies)], and application evaluation. Regional experts may be particularly helpful in providing insight on the evaluation of business plans from different parts of the world. JC5.12 - Justine Chew proposed adding the highlighted text to this sentence. Rationale: "The proposed change corresponds to the change to the above the above Recommendation xx (rationale 4)." - see JC5.11. ACTION ITEM: Revise the text with text in brackets: “The Working Group recommends that ICANN improve outreach, awareness-raising, application evaluation, and program evaluation elements of the Applicant Support Program, [as well as usability of the Applicant Support Program] as proposed in the Implementation Guidance below.” ACTION ITEM: Revise the text with the text in brackets: “In implementing the Applicant Support Program for subsequent rounds, the dedicated Implementation Review Team should draw on experts with relevant knowledge, including from the targeted regions, to develop appropriate program elements related to outreach, education, [business case development,] and application evaluation. Regional experts may be particularly helpful in providing insight on the [development] of business plans from different parts of the world.” Also, update Rationale for Recommendation xx and Implementation Guidance xx-xx (rationale 4). Rationale for Recommendation xx and Implementation Guidance xx-xx (rationale 6): There will need to be a clear plan in place for funding the Applicant Support Program. ICANN will need to evaluate the extent to which funds will be provided from the ICANN org budget and if additional funding is needed, should consider additional funding sources. [Proposed additional sentence: In this respect, ICANN org should actively inform, encourage and liaise with National banks and aid agencies worldwide to participate in sponsoring applicants or funding for the Applicant Support Program, as well as to take steps to structure a mechanism to implement joint financing.] JC5.14 - Justine Chew proposed adding this sentence to the end of the paragraph. Rationale: "Securing funding for the ASP is critical to its chance for success. In anticipation of more applicants for ASP in the next round, there should be concerted effort to raise more than the USD2mil allocated in the last round. In this respect, stronger language with more concrete exploratory steps is needed to compel securing of such funding." Discussion: -- This looks like Implementation Guidance, not rationale. It is very specific. -- This seems to be beyond scope. -- There already is Implementation Guidance relating to this. -- This could be raised in public comments. c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. [Proposed additional paragraph: The Working Group considered a comment submitted by the ALAC during the call for public comments to the Initial Report which proposed for an applicant that qualifies for ASP to be given priority in any string contention set, and not be subjected to any further string contention resolution process. While the Working Group noted that applicants which apply for applicant support would consider themselves as applicants in need of financial support and therefore less likely to possess the financial wherewithal to succeed in an auction of last resort, the Working Group did not come to an agreement on the ALAC’s proposal. Instead, the Working Group preferred to consider the ALAC’s secondary proposal for the provision of a multiplier (or equivalent) to help applicants which qualified for applicant support to effectively JC5.15 - Justine Chew proposed adding a new paragraph. Rationale: "Reference to the ALAC/At-Large proposal that an applicant that qualifies for ASP be given priority in any string contention set, and not be subjected to any further string contention resolution process is omitted. Unsure if this omission was intended because of the latest deliberation on a multiplier/bid credit for applicants which qualify for ASP." ACTION ITEM: Integrate concept with content about the multiplier/bid credit -- to be added to ASP section and released with package 7. 3. Private Resolutions: Hybrid Proposal 2+ and Proposal 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ…> Discussion: -- Support – reflects the reality on the ground. -- How do we enforce that? Who is going to determine if intent is bona fide or not? -- What if an applicant changes their mind once they see the other applications? This is too easily gamed. -- What is the purpose of preserving private auctions. Why are they so critical to this program? (aside from allowing large portfolio players to game this). -- Penalize for next round? Why not penalize "this" round? Bad actor can reconstitute in many ways to participate in the next round - how do we police that? -- Without taking a position on the substance, and agreeing that bad intent should not be assumed, we should be realistic about the ability to enforce any attestation of intent. -- Would people agree in restricting private resolution to Brand TLDs ? -- People are going to game – try find a way to allow this to work. Try to put in guardrails to minimize the gaming. -- ICANN endorsing the concept of private auctions up front is a dangerous path in this this environment. Too big a spot light on them. You do Vickery up front - its transparent and takes out the possibility of all the collusions. -- Complete transparency will limit gaming. Requiring all details of private resolution with ICANN (and potentially the community) Failure to be transparent will result in penalty and disclosure. -- If we say that everything must be disclosed – to ICANN if not also to the community? Consider the proposal of transparency. Could allow us to gather data (which we could not do next time). -- Think about this in the context of the benefits to the community. 

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 29 June at 15:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund June 26, 2020

June 26, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Monday, 29 June 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete review of "Can't Live With" comments on Package 5, start on page 95: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… 3. Private Resolutions: Hybrid Proposal 2+ and Proposal 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… 4. 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] Deadline 30 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 6
by Steve Chan June 26, 2020

June 26, 2020

Dear WG Members, We hope you all had a productive ICANN68 meeting. This is a friendly reminder to review Package 6 and if applicable, provide any “cannot live with” input by Tuesday 30 June at 23:59 UTC. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, June 19, 2020 at 12:15 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 30 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 6 Dear all, The leadership team is releasing the sixth set of revised draft recommendations for your review. There are 6 topics in package 6 here, beginning on page 117: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… [docs.google.com] · 2.2.4 Different TLD Types (last discussed on 23 Apr) · 2.2.8 Conflicts of Interest (this is new section, but the recommendation contained in it was discussed on 9 Apr under topic Objections) · 2.6.1 Application Queuing (last discussed on 8 Jun) · 2.7.3 Closed Generics (last discussed on 14 May) · 2.8.1 Objections (last discussed on 9 Apr) · 2.9.1 Community Applications (last discussed on 8 Jun) Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. Deadline for comments is Tuesday 30 June at 23:59 UTC Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Kind regards, Emily

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 25 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland June 25, 2020

June 25, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 25 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/4gAdC> (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