June 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 June 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 15, 2020

June 15, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 11 June at 2000 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/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Applicant Support (multipliers at auction): ACTION ITEM: In the Implementation Guidance add language about researching a cap. ACTION ITEM: Change to “However, assignments that become necessary because of changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc., shall be permitted.” Delete the word “legitimate from the preceding sentence. Check the chat for other examples from Paul McGrady. 2.3 Role of Application Comment b. Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Rationale for Recommendation xx and Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5): ACTION ITEM: WG members should review section 2.4. General comment -- spell out acronyms when first used. ACTION ITEM: Spell out acronyms when first used in a section. 2.7.4 String Similarity Evaluation Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ACTION ITEM: Add implementation guidance that states that in the event intended use is unclear from the application to determine whether one string is a singular/plural of the other, ICANN should ask the applicant a clarifying question to ascertain the intended use of such string. 2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: Add text that clarifies that the PDP WG is not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant. Suggestion: “This working group has not discussed the process by which an existing registry operator could apply for, or be given, an IDN variant of an existing TLD. Nor has it discussed who one would include in its application for a new gTLD its desire for an IDN Variant.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) page 6 in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… Proposed Language - Bid Credit/Multiplier for Applicant Support Recipients at Auction Implementation Guidance: “All assignments after such time shall be governed under the then-current Registry Agreement standard provisions; provided that any Assignment or Change of Control after the third year, but prior to the seventh (7th) year, shall require the applicant to repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%).” Discussion: -- Another option: “To disincentivize “gaming” of the applicant support program by applicants who are applying on behalf of third parties, or with the intent to immediately transfer ownership to third parties, applicants who receive financial support through the ASP Program will not be permitted to assign the relevant Registry Agreement within the first five (5) years of execution of the Registry Agreement unless they repay the repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%). ” -- Suggest 3 years from the signing of the contract. -- Need to make sure an ASP candidate can manage the finances and security. -- Need to give some thought to the string. An ASP applicant might want to go with a generic string, especially if they wanted to raise money for their community. -- Talked about this before in 2016 in Work Track 1 -- didn’t want to limit what an applicant could or couldn’t apply for. -- Put into the context of other provisions, such as if an applicant is a community applicant and qualifies (CPE), then auctions won’t apply. -- If they are one of many applicants then we are trying to even the playing field (or if they don’t qualify as community). -- This is similar to spectrum auctions in the US and Brazil. -- If we have two successful community applicants for the same string we haven’t come up with anything other than auctions to address it. -- The funding for the ASP is limited, so maybe there is a ceiling or payback option. -- If the bid credit is 25% then the applicant is only on the hook for 75%, but money is not being paid out. -- A credit won’t work with a third party auctioneer -- the administrative fees -- but this would be limited to an ICANN auction. -- In the public comments there was no support for giving priority to an applicant who gets applicant support. -- Mechanism could just be a discount off of the price -- but we are saying that research should be done on the mechanism. We don’t have enough knowledge to determine the mechanism or cap. We could add language about researching a cap. -- Could add something about being consistent with similar processes. Re: “However, legitimate assignments (e.g., changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc.) shall be permitted.” -- Non-profits also have requirements that might involve legitimate assignments. -- Let the Implementation Review Team focus on the legal language. -- Mergers, name changes, entity restructuring,... the normal changes of an organization or company.  -- The word “legitimate” doesn’t seem to be the right term. -- Not sure how the result of a recommendation coming out of an IRT on this could be anything other than policy. Not sure how this could be figured in a predictability framework, but the IRT needs to be able to develop this formula. -- On the wording, what if it is changed to “assignments that become necessary due to death or retirement, the EBERO process, etc.” Another possibility could be lack of resources, or going out of business. Make sure it’s not different from what would happen in EBERO. ACTION ITEM: In the Implementation Guidance add language about researching a cap. ACTION ITEM: Change to “However, assignments that become necessary because of changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc., shall be permitted.” Delete the word “legitimate from the preceding sentence. Check the chat for other examples from Paul McGrady. 3. Review "Can't Live With" comments on package 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…: 2.3 Role of Application Comment b. Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Rationale for Recommendation xx and Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5): The Working Group notes that if an applicant proposes changes to the application in response to public comments, additional processes apply, including an additional public comment period, where applicable. Please see section xx Application Change Requests for discussion of processes related to changes in the application [, with notification to the extent possible of those who made the requests for proposed changes]. -- KK4.1 - Kathy Kleiman suggested adding an additional clause to this sentence. Rationale: "We have asked for ICANN to collect information about the commenters, including email, so it should be relatively easy to notify commenters that, in response to public comment, a proposed change has been made (and fair too). Letting those providing the original comments know that a directly-related change has been proposed to the application and a public comment period has opened seems an easy follow-on to continue the discussion and foster review the proposed change." -- Staff note: The following is included under section 2.4 Application Change Requests: Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): Community members should have the option of being notified if an applicant submits an application change request that requires a public comment period to be opened at the commencement of that public comment period. ACTION ITEM: WG members should review section 2.4. General comment -- spell out acronyms when first used. ACTION ITEM: Spell out acronyms when first used in a section. 2.7.4 String Similarity Evaluation Recommendation xx (rationale 2): Applications will not automatically be placed in the same contention set because they appear visually to be a single and plural of one another but have different intended uses. For example, .SPRING and .SPRINGS could both be allowed if one refers to the season and the other refers to elastic objects, because they are not singular and plural versions of the same word. However, if both are intended to be used in connection with the elastic object, then they will be placed into the same contention set. Similarly, if an existing TLD .SPRING is used in connection with the season and a new application for .SPRINGS is intended to be used in connection with elastic objects, the new application will not be automatically disqualified. KK4.4 - Kathy Kleiman submitted a question: "What if they are both open gTLDs without specific use specified; or one is specific use, e.g., elastics, and one is open?" -- What if we add implementation guidance that states that in the event intended use is unclear from the application to determine whether one string is a singular/plural of the other, ICANN should ask the applicant a clarifying question to ascertain the intended use of such string? ACTION ITEM: Add implementation guidance that states that in the event intended use is unclear from the application to determine whether one string is a singular/plural of the other, ICANN should ask the applicant a clarifying question to ascertain the intended use of such string. 2.7.5 Internationalized Domain Names Original Text: Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs identified as variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will be allowed provided they have the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements. Text suggested by Justine: [Recommendation xx (Rationale 4): IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will not be allowed for separate application and allowed for activation by the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements.] AAS4.4 - Anne Aikman Scalese: "Clarifying Question: Do we mean here that in the next round, no one can apply for “.casino” in Cyrillic script or .bible” in Hebrew script and that any TLD that exists now in the root bars all applications by a third parties for the spelling/translation of that string in a different script? In other words, that only the original applicant may activate the equivalent idn?" JC4.1 - Justine Chew proposed editing the text of this recommendation. Rationale: "The explanation provided by the At-Large IDN WG is as follows, The wording of this recommendation seems to expect that an IDN Variant TLD go through the same "application process“ when in fact any IDN Variant TLD should only be "activated" not "applied for" by the same Registry Operator. This is consistent with how the 2012 round was envisioned and handled. Allowing IDN Variant TLDs to be "applied for" is problematic for the concept of IDN Variants." -- This is a tough one. We never discussed doing anything but having the same application process. We would have to create a whole separate process then to apply for the Variant TLD. -- Could say that the WG acknowledges that the process for getting an IDN TLD may not be going through the normal process, but the IRT should investigate this issue. -- See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations…, which was referenced in developing this section. Alternative suggested language from Justine: “"IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will only be allowed to the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements." -- This implies that if you already have one variant you can just ask for the other variant. -- Not sure how this is different from the old language. -- It shouldn’t have to go through the application process, it should just be a request. -- We need to say that there is future work on this and we are not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant. ACTION ITEM: Add text that clarifies that the PDP WG is not addressing the process for applying or being granted an IDN TLD variant. Suggestion: “This working group has not discussed the process by which an existing registry operator could apply for, or be given, an IDN variant of an existing TLD. Nor has it discussed who one would include in its application for a new gTLD its desire for an IDN Variant.”

3 3

ICANN68: GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland June 12, 2020

June 12, 2020

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open virtual meetings. In addition to this, ICANN Meetings’ Team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN68 Meeting Schedule [68.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__68.schedule.icann.org_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/a4EEC> Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN68 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the Full Agenda can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the [cid:image001.png@01D640B1.DE9E1760] (blue ‘+’ box) in the upper right corner of each meeting. This adds it to your individual schedule, My Agenda, which you can then add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - To import your schedule into your calendar: once you’ve added all your chosen meetings to your schedule, click on [cid:image002.png@01D640B1.DE9E1760] (View My Agenda) * Click the down arrow next to Export * Select Export My Agenda (ics) * Open the exported meetings .ics and add to your chosen calendar * For Microsoft Outlook, right-click on the exported meetings .ics file and choose Show in Folder Right-click on the file, and select Open with Microsoft Outlook. Save & Close. Note: Your Agenda can only be exported from the desktop app; the ICANN68 phone app does not offer this feature Step 3 - All remote participation sessions will use Zoom rooms. You can find the Zoom room links for public meetings on the ICANN68 Meeting Schedule [68.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__68.schedule.icann.org_…> and on the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/a4EEC>. PLEASE ENSURE YOU HAVE UPDATED YOUR ZOOM APP TO THE LATEST VERSION (5.0) TO ACCESS ICANN68 SESSIONS. Please download the latest Zoom app [zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_download&d=DwM…> on your participation device (mobile or desktop computer). Need to learn or brush-up on using Zoom? Check out the Joining a Zoom Meeting Tutorial [support.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__support.zoom.us_hc_en-…>. Step 4 - Download the mobile app by searching for “ICANN Meetings” in your app stores. There are three options to connect your audio: 1) Via VoIP, choose Computer Audio (from a smartphone choose Call using Internet Audio) 2) Getting a dial out from Zoom to your phone, choose Call Me (from a smartphone choose Call My Phone) 3) Phoning into the audio bridge (access numbers and Meeting ID are provided for that option), choose Telephone Audio (from a smartphone choose Dial in) If you cannot log into the Zoom room, but wish to connect via telephone only, you can dial into the meeting. Please refer to the GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/a4EEC> for access numbers and individual Meeting IDs. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 16 June at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund June 12, 2020

June 12, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Tuesday, 16 June 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review "Can't Live With" comments on package 3 – additional comment from Anne Aikman-Scalese on page 38: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… 3. Review "Can't Live With" comments on package 4, start on page 57: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… 4. 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), Hybrid Proposal 2+, starting on page 10: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… 5. 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 1

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group / Thursday, 11 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland June 11, 2020

June 11, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 11 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/1wAdC> (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

FW: IDN Variant - Activation or Application?
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne June 11, 2020

June 11, 2020

Jeff, Does this ICANN document say the idn variant is available via Application? Or Activation? By the holder of the original idn TLD? Anne ________________________________ https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-rationale-lgr-2… ________________________________ 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 11 June at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Emily Barabas June 11, 2020

June 11, 2020

Dear all, As a follow-up to the agenda and specifically regarding item 2 -- there is some proposed recommendation/implementation guidance text in the Working Document on page 6 that we will reference on the call. It draws on Jeff’s proposal below and input from WG members on the last call. For easy reference, I’m including it by email, as well: Recommendation xx: If an applicant qualifies for Applicant Support and is part of a contention set that is resolved through an auction of last resort, a bid credit, multiplier, or other similar mechanism must apply to the bid submitted by that applicant. Implementation Guidance xx: Research should be conducted in the implementation phase to determine the exact nature and amount of the bid credit, multiplier, or other mechanism described in recommendation xx. Implementation Guidance xx: If the Applicant getting Applicant Support prevails in an auction, there should be restrictions placed on the Applicant from assigning the Registry Agreement, and/or from any Change of Control for a period of no less than three (3) years. This restriction is in place to prevent gaming of the applicant support program whereby an applicant immediately transfers its ownership of a registry to a third party in exchange for any form of financial gain. However, legitimate assignments (e.g., changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc.) shall be permitted. All assignments after such time shall be governed under the then-current Registry Agreement standard provisions; provided that any Assignment or Change of Control after the third year, but prior to the seventh (7th) year, shall require the applicant to repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%). Rationale: By definition, applicants qualified to receive applicant support have demonstrated that they have limited financial resources available to apply for a TLD. Applicants with limited financial resources are expected to be disadvantaged when participating in auctions of last resort. The Working Group recommends increasing the chances of applicants qualified to receive applicant support winning at auction by applying a bid credit, multiplier, or other similar mechanism for bids submitted by such applicants to increase their chances of success at auction. The Working Group recommends that in the implementation phase, appropriate expertise and research should be leveraged to determine the exact nature and amount of the bid credit, multiplier, or other similar mechanism. To reduce the risk of gaming, the Working Group suggests additional restrictions on assigning the Registry Agreement and/or Change of Control for those Registry Operators that have benefited from a bid credit, multiplier, or similar mechanism. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 10 June 2020 at 20:39 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, 11 June at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 11 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) page 6 in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> and proposed language from Jeff Neuman – see below for latest 3. Review "Can't Live With" comments on package 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>: 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 --- Applicant Support (multipliers at auction), proposed revised language: Re: Highlighted language: How do we word allowing assignments/change of control through the normal course of business (changing corporate entities, death or retirement of owners, etc.). If we just use the standard, you can assign to parents or subs, then that will allow reverse triangular mergers which gets around the whole no assignment/change of control rules. “If the Applicant getting Applicant Support prevails in an auction, there should be restrictions placed on the Applicant from assigning the Registry Agreement, and/or from any Change of Control for a period of no less than three (3) years. This restriction is in place to prevent gaming of the applicant support program whereby an applicant immediately transfers its ownership of a registry to a third party in exchange for any form of financial gain. However, legitimate assignments (e.g., changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc.) shall be permitted. All assignments after such time shall be governed under the then-current Registry Agreement standard provisions; provided that any Assignment or Change of Control after the third year, but prior to the seventh (7th) year, shall require the applicant to repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%).

3 2

FW: [NCAP-Discuss] next steps for the discussion group
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

Dear Sub Pro WG members, See below by way of update from the Name Collision Analysis Project. Jeff Neuman has been participating actively in the weekly meetings of this group. Anne -----Original Message----- From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of James Galvin Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 1:34 PM To: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss(a)icann.org> Subject: [NCAP-Discuss] next steps for the discussion group [EXTERNAL] First, we want to thank everyone who has been participating (and observing as we have had a couple of regular observers) to the work so far. It is a great thing to have as many folks as we’ve had contributing! The NCAP Admin Committee has just had a meeting to consider the question of what our next steps could be. We believe there are at least 4 tasks in front of us. In no particular order, these tasks are as follows. * Review of name collision definition * Consideration of .corp, .home, and .mail, per the Board resolution * Continue work on the 9 questions by doing the analysis in Studies 2 and 3 with what we have * Review Studies 2 and 3 as currently proposed in the original NCAP Proposal and propose revisions as appropriate What the NCAP Admin Committee is prioritizing is the last task for us to act on in this discussion group. We will review the current proposal and consider what, if anything, we need to change. It’s been more than 2 years since the original proposal was drafted. Given the additional understanding and experience that comes with the last 2 years I’m sure there are changes to consider. Separately you’ll be reminded of the full project proposal on the Wiki by Kim. She will setup two Google docs for us, one for each of the Study 2 and 3 proposals, which she will excerpt from the full project proposal for us. If we create revised proposals we will submit these as a work product to the SSAC, who will be responsible for passing them to the Board for consideration when they review the funding for continued NCAP work. The discussion group will begin this process next week, 17 June, at our usual meeting time. We will not meet the week of the ICANN68 Kuala Lumpur virtual meeting. Beginning 1 July we will meet weekly and continue our project proposal review and pick up the other tasks as appropriate. Thanks again for your participation! Jim, Patrik, and Matt Thomas co-Chairs NCAP _______________________________________________ NCAP-Discuss mailing list NCAP-Discuss(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss _______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) 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

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 11 June at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 11 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) page 6 in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… and proposed language from Jeff Neuman – see below for latest 3. Review "Can't Live With" comments on package 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…: 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 --- Applicant Support (multipliers at auction), proposed revised language: Re: Highlighted language: How do we word allowing assignments/change of control through the normal course of business (changing corporate entities, death or retirement of owners, etc.). If we just use the standard, you can assign to parents or subs, then that will allow reverse triangular mergers which gets around the whole no assignment/change of control rules. “If the Applicant getting Applicant Support prevails in an auction, there should be restrictions placed on the Applicant from assigning the Registry Agreement, and/or from any Change of Control for a period of no less than three (3) years. This restriction is in place to prevent gaming of the applicant support program whereby an applicant immediately transfers its ownership of a registry to a third party in exchange for any form of financial gain. However, legitimate assignments (e.g., changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc.) shall be permitted. All assignments after such time shall be governed under the then-current Registry Agreement standard provisions; provided that any Assignment or Change of Control after the third year, but prior to the seventh (7th) year, shall require the applicant to repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%).

1 0

proposed Language for those Getting Applicant Support
by Jeff Neuman June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

All, On the call today, Susan raised a good point about applicants that get Applicant Support trying to "game the system" by immediately flipping their registries to a third party to make a profit. Although we would hope that those that take the time to go through the Applicant Support Program (ASP) and get approved would alone demonstrate that this is unlikely to happen. The process to get support is supposed to be vigorous and try to root out potential gaming. That said, I worked with Susan to draft the following language. Would this be acceptable as a Recommendation? "If the Applicant getting Applicant Support prevails in an auction, there should be restrictions placed on the Applicant from assigning the Registry Agreement, and/or from any Change of Control for a period of no less than five (5) years. This restriction is in place to prevent gaming of the applicant support program whereby an applicant immediately transfers its ownership of a registry to a third party in exchange for any form of financial gain. However, legitimate assignments (e.g., changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc.). All assignments must have ICANN's consent, which consent may be reasonably withheld. In the event of a change of control after the first five (5) years but during the remaining first term of the registry agreement, the applicant should be required to repay the financial support that they received." Note: We would add this to Agreements for all that get Applicant Support, not just those that prevail at an auction (with the multiplier or other form of bid credit). Discuss........... Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> [cid:image001.jpg@01D63DA3.235624E0] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

7 21

Is there an agenda for tomorrow's call? I can't find it. Thanks and sorry.
by McGrady, Paul D. June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

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=f7716fc610e04863…] 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