July 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 23 July at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 23, 2020

July 23, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 23 July at 03:00 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/2020-07-23+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Closed Generics – Proposal from George Sadowsky/Small Group (George with Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg, and Kathy Kleiman) – See attached document. -- Schedule for the agenda for the meeting on Monday, 27 July. -- Continue the discussion on the list. 3. Private Resolutions and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort: Model 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… Discussion: -- Paul McGrady made some edits, most of which were not substantive, but we’ll go through them. -- Edits came in late; no time to review before the meeting. Re: “Any modified application resulting from a non-auction private resolution is subject to...” -- It makes it sound as though you could have a modified application that did not result from an auction private resolution that was somehow not subject to public new public comment but the subject of the sentence is any modified application so it doesn’t make sense. -- Feel free to comment on the list to reverse the sentence if it makes more sense, essentially “any private resolution resulting in a modified application...” Re: “Applicants will be given a reasonable timeframe to respond. Applicants can mark portions of any such responses as “confidential” if the responses include proprietary business information and such portions will not be shared or communicated by the Evaluator. In no event will an Applicant be required to disclose any trade secrets.” -- Re: “Applicants will be given a reasonable timeframe to respond.” – if this edit is maintain, it should be made consistent with the CQ section. Re: “if the responses include proprietary business information and such portions will not be shared or communicated by the Evaluator.” -- The evaluators will disappear once the evaluation is complete – this is an ICANN administered program and they should be the ones to ensure compliance, which they can’t do if the evaluators aren’t disclosing information to ICANN. -- Jim Prendergast will come back with comments on the list. Re: “In no event will an Applicant be required to disclose any trade secrets.” -- who would determine that, because I think that all from an applicant standpoint, I would just say, Hey, you know, I'm not, I'm not going to tell you what my business model is here for sure because that is a trade secret and that's going to be you know my competitive advantage. And that could be a very legitimate position to be in. But does it address the question of disclosure that we're trying to with this – this is very broad, catch-all, language. -- No one should ever be required to disclose any trade secrets but saying it as an affirmative -- giving people an affirmative way out that they can say everything is a trade secret when they have to reveal certain elements to evaluators in order for them to evaluate the application, it's a little much. -- Applicants might consider the model that they are using to operate a trade secret, and if they weren’t willing to disclose it they might be rejected. -- You could have safety or security issues that you are baking into your application that you don’t want to reveal as it would put your registered users at risk later. -- Security and stability issues suggests that it should be disclosed to the evaluator as confidential. The evaluator needs to have enough information to evaluate security and stability. We shouldn’t have this statement: “In no event will an Applicant be required to disclose any trade secrets.” -- The applicant needs to figure out a way to describe what you want to do in enough detail without revealing trade secrets. I don’t think we need this statement here. -- Not having that statement there is not the same thing as saying that an applicant is required to disclose trade secrets. -- There might be a middle ground – there could be procedures for the evaluators, but it’s difficult to edit this text on the fly. It doesn’t have to be either you have to disclose or you don’t. It’s hard to come up with a solution to a very substantive point. -- There are systems for disclosing trade secrets confidentially under applicable trade secret law. Disclosure can be made to the Evaluator without disclosing to the public where measures are taken to preserve the trade secret. Re: Sealed Bids: -- Clarified the language to make it clear that sealed bids are just for last resort auctions. -- Even if the sealed bid is not prescribed as method for private auctions, most applicants will choose the same method as the last resort one. -- Don't think there was agreement on Jim's proposal that sealed bids be in play for private auctions. -- With this language we aren’t doing anything to prevent the rolling of auction proceeds from one auction to another, which is the second part of the Board’s concern. -- Trying to prevent rolling money from one auction to another is likely to benefit the largest and most sophisticated entrants, because they will have other financing methods available. -- Realize that this is a Board concern but that doesn’t mean we have to address it. -- You want to run the risk that the board comes back and say you didn't address it - work on it - or worse - come up with their own ideas - that's one path. Address it up front and avoid that inevitable delay. -- Thought sealed bids were being used for both private auctions and auctions of last resort and the distinction was that the applicants decide to split the money or it goes in an auction of last resort. -- The way it reads now if there is a private resolution it can be handled any way that the participants wish as long as the transparency requirements are met. Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements Re: Private Auction or Bidding Process / ICANN Auction: In the case of a private auction or an ICANN auction of last resort, all parties in interest to any agreements relating to participation of the applicant in the private auction or ICANN Auction of Last Resort must be disclosed to ICANN within 72 hours of resolution and ICANN must, in turn, publish the same within 72 hours of receipt. -- Discuss timing on the list. Re: Eliminating “and contact information” -- Question to Paul McGrady: Why remove this? Answer: So that we don’t get bogged down in GDPR issues. -- We need it to be disclosed to ICANN so they can do background checks. -- No problem to disclose it to ICANN, but not publicly. -- Make a note of this. Re: “All material terms of any arrangement between applicants to privately resolve a contention set (financial or otherwise) must be disclosed to ICANN [and the community];” -- Paul McGrady wants to delete this text. -- That is a substantive change since this was the purpose of the transparency requirements. -- Paul is suggesting it isn’t needed because it is redundant with transparency requirements earlier in the document. -- It’s not redundant because the first section is one form of resolution and here we are talking about other forms of resolution that don’t fall into the above category. Re: “Rebuttable Presumptions of Non-good faith Intent” -- Consider what mitigation efforts could be made and put those in place. -- Did any of the things and the rebuttal presumption of non-good faith intent occurred in the last round. Do we have data on that? -- On the third bullet point there is a time element that is missing. -- Don’t agree that these are good proxies. -- This puts the burden on the applicant to prove that it acted in good faith. Not clear how these could be rebutted. -- Problem with the term “rebuttal presumption” – instead maybe say factors that must be taken into consideration. Try to avoid legal terms. 4. Predictability Framework, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kT…. -- We don't want to get too far down into the weeds of the wording, but we also don't want to do a major overhaul of Annex A so that everybody is happy with every single word. -- One way to do that is in this first paragraph is recommending that the implementation review team use annex a as a guideline. -- Especially the specific or use the language annex a as a guideline, as opposed to being very as opposed to being prescriptive. “The Working Group recommends that during implementation, ICANN org use the Predictability Framework detailed in Annex A of this Report as indicative (rather than prescriptive) guidance to achieve the goal of predictability in mitigating issues.” Discussion: -- The call for volunteers and that being extended to members of the PDP working group that shouldn't just be guidelines. That should be required. -- We need some flexibility here to support the intended spirit may not actually be possible to time and spirit is constituted to find someone who's on the working group. -- So, some elements should be prescriptive. -- In the WG deliberations we talked about bringing in the applicable IRT provisions, but if you want to change their status by picking out certain ones then you are changing what our deliberations have been. -- If everyone agrees with all of these being prescriptive then we won’t change anything. Conflicts of Interest: -- Thought we were adding in that a SPIRT member had to disclose involvement with a particular application or applications when it arose, and not just part of a broad Statement of Interest, particular if an application was impact by the changes being proposed by the SPIRT? -- See the text in the second bullet: “Members of the SPIRT should accordingly disclose in their Statements of Interest (Chapter 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures) any financial interests and, possibly, incentives as they pertain to a specific complaint or issue under review.” -- We ask for updates to Statements of Interest at the start of every meeting. Would it be possible for the spirit at the start of every meet any of every meeting to say, do you have a direct interest in any of the applications being discussed, or any of the changes being proposed? -- Don’t see why not.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public interest generic gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg July 22, 2020

July 22, 2020

Jeff, as Greg noted, since it is a closed TLD, all "registrations" are owned by the registry, so they are not actually registrations. In terms of your first question, why not just a restricted open TLD, you are basically correct. We went with the premise that in light of GAC advice, the only closed generics will be ones that are demonstrable serve a public interest goal. If as you hypothesize, all such public interest closed generics *COULD* be implemented as open restricted, then there is no need for closed generics and the PDP recommends that closed generics not be allowed. Period. End of discussion. The rational for why one would select our proposal over an open restricted is that the proposal rules cover all of the objections that could be raised to an open restricted TLD - such as being based on an insufficient governing structure for instance. More important, the registration restrictions would have to be very difficult and specific on how nth level registrations and extensions are used and the types of content allowed. I'm not sure there are TLDs with such restrictions. The closed TLD can set all the rules for how the overall TLD is use, allocating 2nd level, 3rd level, 4th level, etc. names as they best suit its purpose. So the "restricted" would be FAR more than just validating credentials. Note that in our proposal the first characteristic we are looking for is TRUST. The proposal is designed to help build public trust in the TLD. AN open restricted domain MIGHT do that, but it might not. We were working on the presumption that one of the major concerns was predictability - that an application not be made that could be shot down in a multitude of ways and at the very least, subjected to long delays. So "follow the PICG rules, and the chances of actually being able to deploy the TLD are much better." And with that comes some conditions as you note. But as I started with, if there is no value to what we are proposing, then perhaps the best path is to simply forbid such closed TLDs. Alan At 2020-07-21 09:38 AM, Jeff Neuman wrote: >Thanks for this proposal George and the team. The major item that >jumps out at me is that the TLD structure you describe is not really >a "closed" TLD, but rather is akin an "open restricted" TLD. > >Anyone can already apply for an "open restricted" TLD without any of >the restrictions you have set forth in this paper. This is like >.bank, .pharmacy or others that have third party registrants who >agree to very strict validation requirements. So, if I can apply >for a .earthquake (your example) as an "open restricted" TLD without >any of the restrictions that are contained within your paper, why >would I apply for your "PICgTLD" and agree up front to (a) no >expectancy of renewal; (b) restrictions on transfers; (c) >obligations of a Council, (d) approval by the board, etc.? What is >the benefit for me to do that when I can achieve the same thing >without agreeing to any of that? > >Now if we stated that all of the registrations are "owned" by the >Registry itself for use in connection with itself and its members, >then perhaps that gets closer to the closed TLD. Thus, the registry >could "license" registrations to third parties (not transfer >ownership) so long as the registry itself always maintains ownership >of the names and can control the type of content on the sites. > >Thanks for kicking off the discussion. > >[] > > >[] > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Founder & CEO >JJN Solutions, LLC >p: +1.202.549.5079 >E: <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com >http://jjnsolutions.com > > >From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf >Of George Sadowsky >Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 7:03 AM >To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public >interest generic gTLDs > >All, > >As promised, attached is our proposed method of implementing the use >of new closed generic top level domains in the public interest >within the DNS. It has been formulated by Alan Greenberg, Kathy >Kleiman, Greg Shatan and me. We believe that it has merit and >deserves consideration by both the working group and the broader >ICANN community, and we welcome the opportunity to present it for >comment, discussion and criticism. We believe that while there are >improvements can be made, the approach of creating such a category >of TLDs, trusted and protected to serve a public interest, is a goal >that can be achieved. > >We hope that the proposal and the approach that it takes to >implementing such a new class of gTLDs will receive serious >consideration and criticism by the community. > >Regards, > >George > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 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.

4 5

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public interest generic gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg July 21, 2020

July 21, 2020

The proposal was sent to this list which is public. So you can forward it anywhere (presumably being clear on the context that is is a prposal, nothing more at this time). Alan At 2020-07-21 01:10 PM, Jean Guillon wrote: >Can I publish this proposal to the new gTLD group on LinkedIn ? >I think it makes sense for all those who don't >know how things happen at ICANN. > >Feed back appreciated. > >On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 4:55 PM Greg Shatan ><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Jeff, > >This is meant to be a proposal for a closed TLD, >and not an open restricted TLD. There would be >no third party registrants. It's possible that >in the press of time, and drafting by committee, >we were not sufficiently clear. Can you point >to some specific places where this jumps out at >you? I did a final scrub last night and made >some changes meant to clarify this, but I clearly did not catch them all. > >We can revise and either recirculate or hold >this draft for further comments. Either way, we >want this point to be completely clear and unambiguous. > >Best regards. > >Greg > >On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 9:38 AM Jeff Neuman ><<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> wrote: > >Thanks for this proposal George and the >team. The major item that jumps out at me is >that the TLD structure you describe is not >really a âclosedâ TLD, but rather is akin an âopen restrictedâ TLD. > > > >Anyone can already apply for an âopen >restrictedâ TLD without any of the >restrictions you have set forth in this paper. >This is like .bank, .pharmacy or others that >have third party registrants who agree to very >strict validation requirements. So, if I can >apply for a .earthquake (your example) as an >âopen restrictedâ TLD without any of the >restrictions that are contained within your >paper, why would I apply for your âPICgTLDâ >and agree up front to (a) no expectancy of >renewal; (b) restrictions on transfers; (c) >obligations of a Council, (d) approval by the >board, etc.? What is the benefit for me to do >that when I can achieve the same thing without agreeing to any of that? > > > >Now if we stated that all of the registrations >are âownedâ by the Registry itself for use >in connection with itself and its members, then >perhaps that gets closer to the closed >TLD. Thus, the registry could âlicenseâ >registrations to third parties (not transfer >ownership) so long as the registry itself always >maintains ownership of the names and can control >the type of content on the sites. > >Thanks for kicking off the discussion. > > > >[] > > > > >[] > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman > >Founder & CEO > >JJN Solutions, LLC > >p: +1.202.549.5079 > >E: <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com > >http://jjnsolutions.com > > > > > >From: Gnso-newgtld-wg ><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> >On Behalf Of George Sadowsky >Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 7:03 AM >To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for >introducing new public interest generic gTLDs > > > >All, > > > >As promised, attached is our proposed method of >implementing the use of new closed generic top >level domains in the public interest within the >DNS. It has been formulated by Alan Greenberg, >Kathy Kleiman, Greg Shatan and me. We believe >that it has merit and deserves consideration by >both the working group and the broader ICANN >community, and we welcome the opportunity to >present it for comment, discussion and >criticism. We believe that while there are >improvements can be made, the approach of >creating such a category of TLDs, trusted and >protected to serve a public interest, is a goal that can be achieved. > > > >We hope that the proposal and the approach that >it takes to implementing such a new class of >gTLDs will receive serious consideration and criticism by the community. > > > >Regards, > > > >George > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) >and the website Terms of Service >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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. > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) >and the website Terms of Service >(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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. > >Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png" >Content-ID: <17371daa6db4cff311> >X-Attachment-Id: 17371daa6db4cff311 > >Content-Type: image/png; name="image002.png" >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image002.png" >Content-ID: <17371daa6db5b16b22> >X-Attachment-Id: 17371daa6db5b16b22 > > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >_______________________________________________ >By submitting your personal data, you consent to >the processing of your personal data for >purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 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.

3 2

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 20 July at 15:00 UTC
by Pruis, Elaine July 21, 2020

July 21, 2020

Thanks Marc, We talk about “contracting” as the time the applicant signs the registry operator contract. Do you think prior to that an applicant has a contract with ICANN (“ Anything a party to a contract is legally permitted to do that is not addressed in the contract the party can continue to do”)? By applying for a TLD is an applicant entering into a contract with ICANN? Or just agreeing to Terms and Conditions in order to participate in the application process? If it’s just agreeing to Ts and Cs then the Ts and Cs should absolutely include information about competition authority referral. Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 [signature_931369448] From: "trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com" <trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com> Date: Monday, July 20, 2020 at 4:03 PM To: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com>, "julie.hedlund(a)icann.org" <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 20 July at 15:00 UTC I would point out that if there is nothing in the ICANN applicant guidebook, new gTLD contract, or bylaws regarding referring applicants to the relevant competition authority and ICANN and there is nothing that prohibits ICANN from doing this under the applicable law then ICANN is able to do it. Anything a party to a contract is legally permitted to do that is not addressed in the contract the party can continue to do. I don’t think we need to add in to the new rules a specific permission for ICANN to do everything else in the world that it is already able to legally do. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1hE181IkxJh1ebsEsN8ZXvDEY8PVxXWokI__T9BWwzN5HZ3…> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Pruis, Elaine via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 2:28 PM To: julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 20 July at 15:00 UTC *EXTERNAL TO GT* Thanks for the notes Julie. Regarding “-- Seems that ICANN can already refer something to a competition authority if they want to.” Would someone point to the languages in the ICANN applicant guidebook, new gTLD contract, or bylaws (or whatever other source) that already indicates that ICANN can refer applications or contention resolution outcomes to a competition authority? Folks on the call made the statement that ICANN already has the ability to refer applications or contention resolution outcomes to a competition authority, but I’d like to see the authoritative language to confirm; especially considering the option is clearly called out in the RSEP text. We don’t want to make policy on assumptions. If we can’t find supporting documentation, I’ll feel a lot better about subsequent procedures if we clearly outline ICANN’s rights and responsibilities on this issue. Thanks much Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 [signature_1324536874] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, July 20, 2020 at 12:39 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 20 July at 15:00 UTC Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 20 July 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/2020-07-20+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1c9SWrzlMyLvuKjMkza…>. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Private Resolutions: ACTION ITEM: Consider the Proposed alternative: General notice that ICANN may refer any application and/or the outcome of contention resolution to a competition authority at its sole discretion. ACTION ITEM: WG members should review Model 5 and provide comments. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Closed Generics – Update from George Sadowsky/Small Group (George with Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg, and Kathy Kleiman) -- Group is about 95% done with the document. Expect it will be distributed tomorrow. -- We started this effort because of a divergence between two poles – those that oppose Closed Generics and those that think they should be allowed in some form. -- The group is attempting to find a middle ground between the poles. -- Will be presenting a general concept along with a lot of detail. -- Trying to come out with something that could be put together relatively quickly and coherent for discussion. 3. Private Resolutions and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort: Model 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg…> [Additional language proposed by Jim Prendergast: In the event ICANN reasonably determines during any resolution of a contention set, might raise significant competition issues, ICANN shall refer the issue to the appropriate governmental competition authority or authorities with jurisdiction over the matter within five business days of making its determination, with notice to the potential Registry Operator. Any such referral communication shall be posted on ICANN's website on the date of transmittal. If such a referral occurs, the potential Registry Operator’s application will placed on hold until (XX) calendar days following the referral, unless earlier cleared by the referred governmental competition authority.] Discussion: -- Board Concerns – second concern doesn’t seem to be addressed: private resolutions to finance other applications. -- Don’t think the bona fide as states goes far enough. -- Also not addressing the gaming concerning rolling the money to another application. -- Question: What’s the difference between gaming and a strategy? Answer: -- Any objections to including the language proposed by Jim? -- Question: How many is XX calendar days? Answer: 30 days as a placeholder. -- Question: When does ICANN have to submit it? Answer: If it’s an auction result you’ll know that right away. If it’s a JV it needs to go out for public comment. Depends on if someone submits a change there is a new entity applying, so needs to be a background check, etc. Differentiate between auction results and other forms of resolution. -- Proposed language is within 5 days of ICANN making its determination. -- Question: What would a significant competition issue be? Answer: Suggested language is from ICANN’s RSEP rules for Registry Operators. -- Ask ICANN if they have applied this – submitted this to a competition authority? This seems unworkable and impractical. Competition issues are varied. Could be many different things. -- Who does the deferral – ICANN Org or the Board? -- Seems that ICANN can already refer something to a competition authority if they want to. -- Need to agree on what we think is a significant competition issue. -- Just trying to make applicants aware that if something arises concerning resolving the contention set that involves competition issues then ICANN has the right to refer the application to a competition authority. -- It might be important to capture a timeframe for a quiet period after string contention resolution to see if there are competition authorities raise concerns. -- This has been done before – ICANN has done it and has the right to do it. -- The Board did not raise issues of JVs, etc. WG doesn’t have to address them. -- Maybe there is another way to restate this: perhaps as an overarching principle that applies to the program and applicants in the whole--ICANN may refer an issue/applicant to the appropriate governmental competition authority. -- Just do a general notice that any outcome that raises competition issues ICANN has the right to refer the issue to a competition authority. -- Proposal: 30 days from the publication of the result of the private resolution for ICANN to refer to a competition authority; and 30 days for a response from the competition authority. -- Competition authority will take as long as it will take – it’s out of our control. -- Could say at the beginning that any application could be referred by ICANN to a competition authority, not necessarily in the context of private resolution. -- This should be an overarching statement/principle that is applicable to any applicant or application and not just contention set resolution. ACTION ITEM: Consider the Proposed alternative: General notice that ICANN may refer any application and/or the outcome of contention resolution to a competition authority at its sole discretion. Second Proposal: “All private auctions would be conducted using sealed bids and all bids, regardless of whether they be used for ICANN Auction of last resort or for ICANN administered “private auctions” would be due on the same day. Any bids not used would be destroyed and not revealed.” Discussion: -- “The board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions…” if we take away private auctions we remove that problem. -- We could make it simple and say that everything goes to an auction of last resort. The is so complicated because we are dealing with the notion of private resolutions, that was introduced in the last round. -- If we want private resolutions to remain it will be complicated. -- Need to make this achievable for applicants. Having all bids at one time with multiple applications would put them at a disadvantage. ACTION ITEM: WG members should review Model 5 and provide comments. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster(a)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.

2 1

Proposal for introducing new public interest generic gTLDs
by George Sadowsky July 21, 2020

July 21, 2020

All, As promised, attached is our proposed method of implementing the use of new closed generic top level domains in the public interest within the DNS. It has been formulated by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, Greg Shatan and me. We believe that it has merit and deserves consideration by both the working group and the broader ICANN community, and we welcome the opportunity to present it for comment, discussion and criticism. We believe that while there are improvements can be made, the approach of creating such a category of TLDs, trusted and protected to serve a public interest, is a goal that can be achieved. We hope that the proposal and the approach that it takes to implementing such a new class of gTLDs will receive serious consideration and criticism by the community. Regards, George

4 3

Nomination Opens for Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building
by Nathalie Peregrine July 21, 2020

July 21, 2020

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-07-20-en Nomination Opens for Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building LOS ANGELES – 20 July 2020 – Today, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) opened a one-month nomination<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfPHSlRlSPCfCO5sPZTTXRMTLRyb2j_FS9…> period for the Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building. ICANN first introduced<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2020-01-27-en> the Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building in January to recognize ICANN community members for significant efforts in developing capacity in areas related to ICANN's Mission. The award was established in honor of the late Dr. Tarek Kamel, an Internet pioneer known for his contributions to global Internet governance. At the time of his passing, Kamel was ICANN's Senior Advisor to the President and Senior Vice President for Government and Intergovernmental Organization Engagement. This annual award will be awarded to one individual during ICANN's Annual General Meeting, held in the fourth quarter each year. The ideal recipient will have at least five years of: · Significant contributions to national, regional, or global capacity-building programs related to ICANN's Mission. · Developing capacity-building programs that positively influenced the multistakeholder model and diversified participation at ICANN. In addition: · All nominations must include detailed information and documentation to demonstrate the nominee's fulfilment of the award criteria. · Any ICANN community member or ICANN community group (e.g., Supporting Organization (SO), Advisory Committee (AC), or a SO/AC constituent group) may submit a nomination. · All nominations must be submitted via the nomination form. · Self-nominations are not allowed. The ICANN Board will evaluate a shortlist of candidates. Please submit your nominations via this nomination form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfPHSlRlSPCfCO5sPZTTXRMTLRyb2j_FS9…> by 21 August 2020 23:59 UTC. Any additional information in support of nominations or questions about the award process may be submitted via email to kamelaward(a)icann.org<mailto:kamelaward@icann.org>. This year's award recipient will be announced in October 2020 at ICANN69. For more information, please refer to ICANN Community Wiki.<https://community.icann.org/x/dgVcC> About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world. Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 20 July at 15:00 UTC
by Pruis, Elaine July 20, 2020

July 20, 2020

Thanks for the notes Julie. Regarding “-- Seems that ICANN can already refer something to a competition authority if they want to.” Would someone point to the languages in the ICANN applicant guidebook, new gTLD contract, or bylaws (or whatever other source) that already indicates that ICANN can refer applications or contention resolution outcomes to a competition authority? Folks on the call made the statement that ICANN already has the ability to refer applications or contention resolution outcomes to a competition authority, but I’d like to see the authoritative language to confirm; especially considering the option is clearly called out in the RSEP text. We don’t want to make policy on assumptions. If we can’t find supporting documentation, I’ll feel a lot better about subsequent procedures if we clearly outline ICANN’s rights and responsibilities on this issue. Thanks much Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 [signature_1324536874] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, July 20, 2020 at 12:39 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 20 July at 15:00 UTC Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 20 July 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/2020-07-20+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1c9SWrzlMyLvuKjMkzaGbbpJHtV2fQ66daMSMh_pRKARnA…>. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Private Resolutions: ACTION ITEM: Consider the Proposed alternative: General notice that ICANN may refer any application and/or the outcome of contention resolution to a competition authority at its sole discretion. ACTION ITEM: WG members should review Model 5 and provide comments. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Closed Generics – Update from George Sadowsky/Small Group (George with Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg, and Kathy Kleiman) -- Group is about 95% done with the document. Expect it will be distributed tomorrow. -- We started this effort because of a divergence between two poles – those that oppose Closed Generics and those that think they should be allowed in some form. -- The group is attempting to find a middle ground between the poles. -- Will be presenting a general concept along with a lot of detail. -- Trying to come out with something that could be put together relatively quickly and coherent for discussion. 3. Private Resolutions and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort: Model 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… [Additional language proposed by Jim Prendergast: In the event ICANN reasonably determines during any resolution of a contention set, might raise significant competition issues, ICANN shall refer the issue to the appropriate governmental competition authority or authorities with jurisdiction over the matter within five business days of making its determination, with notice to the potential Registry Operator. Any such referral communication shall be posted on ICANN's website on the date of transmittal. If such a referral occurs, the potential Registry Operator’s application will placed on hold until (XX) calendar days following the referral, unless earlier cleared by the referred governmental competition authority.] Discussion: -- Board Concerns – second concern doesn’t seem to be addressed: private resolutions to finance other applications. -- Don’t think the bona fide as states goes far enough. -- Also not addressing the gaming concerning rolling the money to another application. -- Question: What’s the difference between gaming and a strategy? Answer: -- Any objections to including the language proposed by Jim? -- Question: How many is XX calendar days? Answer: 30 days as a placeholder. -- Question: When does ICANN have to submit it? Answer: If it’s an auction result you’ll know that right away. If it’s a JV it needs to go out for public comment. Depends on if someone submits a change there is a new entity applying, so needs to be a background check, etc. Differentiate between auction results and other forms of resolution. -- Proposed language is within 5 days of ICANN making its determination. -- Question: What would a significant competition issue be? Answer: Suggested language is from ICANN’s RSEP rules for Registry Operators. -- Ask ICANN if they have applied this – submitted this to a competition authority? This seems unworkable and impractical. Competition issues are varied. Could be many different things. -- Who does the deferral – ICANN Org or the Board? -- Seems that ICANN can already refer something to a competition authority if they want to. -- Need to agree on what we think is a significant competition issue. -- Just trying to make applicants aware that if something arises concerning resolving the contention set that involves competition issues then ICANN has the right to refer the application to a competition authority. -- It might be important to capture a timeframe for a quiet period after string contention resolution to see if there are competition authorities raise concerns. -- This has been done before – ICANN has done it and has the right to do it. -- The Board did not raise issues of JVs, etc. WG doesn’t have to address them. -- Maybe there is another way to restate this: perhaps as an overarching principle that applies to the program and applicants in the whole--ICANN may refer an issue/applicant to the appropriate governmental competition authority. -- Just do a general notice that any outcome that raises competition issues ICANN has the right to refer the issue to a competition authority. -- Proposal: 30 days from the publication of the result of the private resolution for ICANN to refer to a competition authority; and 30 days for a response from the competition authority. -- Competition authority will take as long as it will take – it’s out of our control. -- Could say at the beginning that any application could be referred by ICANN to a competition authority, not necessarily in the context of private resolution. -- This should be an overarching statement/principle that is applicable to any applicant or application and not just contention set resolution. ACTION ITEM: Consider the Proposed alternative: General notice that ICANN may refer any application and/or the outcome of contention resolution to a competition authority at its sole discretion. Second Proposal: “All private auctions would be conducted using sealed bids and all bids, regardless of whether they be used for ICANN Auction of last resort or for ICANN administered “private auctions” would be due on the same day. Any bids not used would be destroyed and not revealed.” Discussion: -- “The board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions…” if we take away private auctions we remove that problem. -- We could make it simple and say that everything goes to an auction of last resort. The is so complicated because we are dealing with the notion of private resolutions, that was introduced in the last round. -- If we want private resolutions to remain it will be complicated. -- Need to make this achievable for applicants. Having all bids at one time with multiple applications would put them at a disadvantage. ACTION ITEM: WG members should review Model 5 and provide comments.

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 23 July at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund July 20, 2020

July 20, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 23 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Closed Generics – Discussion of proposal from George Sadowsky/Small Group 3. Review Private Resolutions – Model 5 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… 4. Complete Review of the updated Predictability Framework, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kT…. Also attached, please find the updated concerns/mitigation document and process flow. 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>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 09 July at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Pruis, Elaine July 20, 2020

July 20, 2020

Paul, I’m surprised by your comments. Especially surprising because of your concern that the WG conversation on closed generics was shut down prematurely, and you’ve been pushing for more conversation on that topic. What’s the hurry now with contention resolution? We’ve got a reasonable proposal to consider and discuss. It was sent to the list and introduced to the WG on the 11pm July 1st, where we agreed to table the conversation until Jeff was back and we would have enough time to dig into the details. Folks have had 10 days to study it, and many people prepared for the discussions that have been scheduled and delayed twice. The “discussed for months” aspects are the compromise positions proposed. It wraps in Kristina’s ask for creative resolution, Donna’s proposal to allow for auctions, your proposal for guardrails, Jeff’s proposal for transparency, the sealed bid auction proposal. It is not “last minute” any more than your guardrails are last minute. There not “rearranged”, they’re all included. We’re not forced to pick one, we can have them all. Continuing to deny there is a problem ignores the Board statement, CCTRT recommendations, and the GAC advice on the topic. Please let’s try to get to a compromise on this issue. Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 [signature_587102058] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Date: Friday, July 10, 2020 at 9:27 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 09 July at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Thanks Jeff, The issue became moot because we ran out of time on the last call. Good job putting the finishing touches on the SPIRT! Regarding your email below, I was puzzled by Jim’s assertion that all of the substantive elements of his second version of his last minute proposal “are the same and have been discussed by this group for months.” I am not at all sure that this statement is accurate (as far as I know, the new ICANN-controlled-not-“auction of last resort”-mechanism appears to be new, sweepingly invasive, and suggested just a few days ago right as this PDP is winding down). Even so, if all of the substantive elements in Jim’s second version of the last minute proposal have been discussed by this group for months as Jim suggests, why are we taking this up again? While I will have more to say on the list regarding the flaws in Jim’s last minute plan (stay tuned), if what Jim says is accurate, discussing a mere repackaging of elements that “have been discussed by this group for months” and rejected doesn’t seem like a good use of anyone’s time. Bringing back old rejected ideas, rearranging them, and then presenting them as new, especially at the last minute, runs the risk of derailing our progress to tweaks to the status quo to address presumptive concerns about abusive applications. We will be far better served to continue our progress of the last several weeks and spend the majority of what time remains to look over and refine the guardrails to the status quo that I have suggested as a compromise position. And, it is a compromise position because many, many of us simply have yet to hear of a compelling problem that needs to be solved and believe the status quo is just fine. But, my guardrails are an olive branch to try to address whatever it is that a portion in this WG seem worried about. Best, Paul From: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 11:43 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM> Cc: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 09 July at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Thanks Jim. Paul – given Jim’s statements that his changes were for clarity and not substantive, I believe we can discuss it on the call in a few hours. Jeff Neuman JJN Solutions, LLC Founder & CEO +1.202.549.5079 Vienna, VA 22180 Jeff(a)JJNSolutions.com<mailto:Jeff@JJNSolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com<http://jjnsolutions.com/> From: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 12:38 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Cc: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 09 July at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes No substantive differences Jeff. Edits for clarity and more logical ordering. All the substantive elements are the same and have been discussed by this group for months. The new text is the compromises contained because that it what you asked the group to do. Original email from July 1 is posted immediately below. From: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: July 1, 2020 at 4:26:50 PM EDT To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Compromise proposal on Auctions In the interest of compromise and in hopes of not reverting to the 2012 rules and thereby ignoring the Board’s request that we make a recommendation on this issue, please consider this proposal to allow contention resolution via creative means as well as auctions, with guardrails and tweaks made to the well-received hybrid proposal. It is a blend of many of the compromise solutions proposed. It also accommodates those who do not want ICANN to end up with all auction proceeds but at the same time minimizes the entire pool of money committed, thereby not disadvantaging single applicants. Objective: Increase transparency and accountability in contention resolution to improve the perception of ICANN and the new gTLD program. Proposed process: * String Similarity evaluation completed * On Reveal Day, all contention sets are announced (number and entities are revealed) * A 90-day Resolution Period begins * Members of a contention set may * Form a JV * Withdraw * Find a creative private resolution * Fail to resolve * Members of a contention set may NOT * Participate in a private auction or auction like mechanism. * No later than the close of the 90-day Resolution Period, remaining contention sets will be required to provide ICANN with their decision on how to resolve the contention. They will have decided to: * Agree to create a partnership or other form of joint venture that would allow two or more applicants within a contention set to jointly run and/or operate the applied for string. Application Change Request requirements will apply, including public comment period. * Agree to participate in a sealed bid “3rdParty Auction” which is overseen by ICANN. Proceeds are distributed amongst the losing applicants in the contention set. * Agree to participate in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort using the sealed bids. Proceeds go to ICANN Auctions Proceeds fund. * Auctions of Last Resort and 3rd Party Auctions will take place immediately after the 90 day Private Resolution Period * For 3rd Party Auctions * All auctions are conducted as sealed bids by the same auction provider ICANN chooses for Last Resort auctions. The applicant that submitted the highest sealed bid amount pays the second-highest bid amount. The auction provider must attest that the participants fully disclosed all information and followed the rules before the funds are released to the losers. * All bids for all unresolved contention sets are due on the same date, no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. Auctions for contention sets involving objections, CPE or other outstanding accountability challenges may be delayed but bids are still due no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. * All auctions are to be conducted in an identical fashion using publicly available procedures. * All auctions should be finalized as quickly as possible after the 90 day deadline. * All results are disclosed on a similar timeline as ICANN auctions of last resort from 2012 round, which was usually 72 hours. All parties partaking in the auction as well as winning bidder and amount paid are disclosed. * Auctions of Last Resort * All bids for all unresolved contention sets are due on the same date, no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. Auctions for contention sets involving objections, CPE or other outstanding accountability challenges may be delayed but bids are still due no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. * On the auction date, the applicant that submitted the highest sealed bid amount pays the second-highest bid amount. * Once payment is received, the applicant may proceed to evaluation and eventually the Transition to Delegation. * In the unlikely event that a winning bidder in either auction format does not pass evaluation (none failed in 2012), the next highest bidder is selected for evaluation. Requirements: * Add T&Cs warning applicants that they may not participate in any of the following activities (Prohibited Application Activities): * They shall not submit applications largely for the purpose of financially benefiting from the resolution of contention sets * During the 90-day Resolution Period, they will not participate in the resolution of contention sets where non-winning applicants receive financial benefit to withdraw. * The Registry Agreement must include a mandatory Public Interest Commitment stating that the registry: * has not submitted applications for the purpose of financially benefiting from the resolution of contention sets. * has not participated in an auction or auction like mechanisms outside of the ICANN 3rdparty and ICANN Auction of Last Resort. * agrees to punitive measures for violations listed above, which may include the potential loss of the registry as well as a bar on participation in any future rounds (both for the individuals as well as the entities (and their affiliates) involved. * The auction provider must agree to fully disclose all information about the auctions * The auction provider must assert that all rules were followed before releasing auction funds * All contention set resolutions including creative resolutions, 3rd Party Auction and ICANN Auctions of last resort must be submitted by ICANN to relevant competition authorities for review. Benefits: Full transparency, ICANN oversight and competition authority review mitigate community concerns about nefarious activity. Unlike the 2012 round, access to data from this point forward can inform future policy making efforts in the program. Private auctions are eliminated but applicants can still receive proceeds from a 3rd Party Auction if all applicants in a contention set agree. Sealed bids tend to result in lower auction prices so decreased auctions proceeds to ICANN fund. Speeds up the process allowing more applicants to withdraw applications prior to evaluations resulting in greater refund amounts and faster processing of remaining applications. On Jul 9, 2020, at 12:08 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: Jim, Can you highlight what differences (if any) are in your more refined proposal? Thanks. <image001.png> Jeff Neuman JJN Solutions, LLC Founder & CEO +1.202.549.5079 Vienna, VA 22180 Jeff(a)JJNSolutions.com<mailto:Jeff@JJNSolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com<http://jjnsolutions.com/> 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: Thursday, July 9, 2020 11:34 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 09 July at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Thanks Jim. Your first proposal was a very complex 11th hour “solution” to a problem that has yet to be identified. Now, there is another version of the 11th hour submission. Respectfully, all of this proposed reengineering should have been introduced months ago instead of all the digging in that was done by opponents of private resolutions. The ideas in here are sweeping and we are trying to get a final report out of the door. Co-chairs, if there is an intention to take up version 2 of Jim’s proposal in the next call, I really must ask for more time than just a few hours before the call to dig through it. No one has time to unpack what the proposed changes to the last minute ideas here are, much less have time to understand the consequences and unintended consequences of the second last minute proposal. Since my additional safeguards build on the last 3-4 weeks of work by the WG, I am happy to address those on the next call if the agenda permits, but I don’t think it is fair to force a discussion of this new submission from Jim within less than 24 hours of it going out on the list. 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 8:21 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 09 July at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes In the event we get to Agenda Item 3 tomorrow, below is a more refined version of the Compromise Proposal I circulated on July 1. I’d like to ask the Co-Chairs and Staff to add it to the working document so it is more easily displayed to those participating in the Zoom call tomorrow. Objective: Increase transparency and accountability in contention resolution to improve the perception of ICANN and the new gTLD program. Compromises contained Some WG participants wanted an opportunity for creative resolutions to contentions via JVs and other corporate structuring. * 90-day window to negotiate and announce those to ICANN. Some WG participants expressed a strong desire for losers in auctions to get paid. Others were concerned ICANN would “line its pockets” if all auctions were auctions of Last Resort. * Parties in a contention set may opt for an ICANN administered 3rd Party Auction where losers get paid as opposed to ICANN. Advocates for Vickery Auction wanted sealed bids submitted at time of application to eliminate possibility of collusion. Others raised concerns about the burden on applicants who would not be in a contention set. * Only parties in contention sets will have to submit a sealed bid. Bids will be submitted 30 days into the 90 Day Resolution Period. * While this does not eliminate the collusion concerns, it does narrow the window for that type of activity to occur. Advocates for “applicant support” applicants and single TLD applicants were concerned with the 2012 practice of rolling private auctions proceeds from one auction to another to overwhelm a single applicant or applicants who receive applicant support. * Conducting all 3rd party Auctions at the same time eliminates this. Benefits of the Compromise Proposal: * Full transparency, ICANN oversight and competition authority review mitigate community concerns about nefarious activity and add legitimacy to the process. * Unlike the 2012 round, access to data from this point forward can inform future policy making efforts in the program. * Private Auctions are eliminated but applicants can still receive proceeds from a 3rd Party Auction if all applicants in a contention set agree. * Research shows sealed bids result in lower auction prices so decreased auctions proceeds to ICANN in Last Resort auctions. * The compromise position increases efficiency and speeds up the process allowing more applicants to withdraw applications prior to evaluations resulting in greater refund amounts and faster processing of remaining applications. In 2012 millions of dollars were wasted on evaluations of applications that never had a chance of operating a TLD and those applicants had to wait years to get significantly reduced refunds from withdrawing. Proposed process: * String Similarity evaluation completed * On Reveal Day, ICANN announces contention sets including names of applicants. * A 90-day Resolution Period begins * Members of a contention set may * Form a JV or other corporate structure * Find a different creative resolution * Withdraw * Fail to resolve * Members of a contention set may not * Participate in a private auction or auction like mechanism. * 30 days into the Resolution Period, all parties in a contention set will be required to submit a sealed bid for each string for which they are in a contention set. * If a JV, other corporate structure, or different creative resolution process is utilized, bids are destroyed and never revealed. * If at the end of the 90-day Resolution Period, parties chose one of the two auction paths, bids submitted will be used for the auction the contention set decides to participate in. * As part of AGB and communications plan, ICANN must make potential applicants aware that they should be considering these bids, including securing financing where necessary, as part of their business planning and application process. * No later than the close of the 90-day Resolution Period, remaining contention sets will be required to provide ICANN with their decision on how to resolve the contention. They will have decided to: * Agree to create a partnership or other form of joint venture that would allow two or more applicants within a contention set to jointly run and/or operate the applied for string. Application Change Request requirements will apply, including public comment period and ICANN would have to approve. * Agree to participate in a sealed bid “3rd Party Auction” which is overseen by ICANN. Proceeds are distributed amongst the losing applicants in the contention set. * If parties are unable to agree to either of the two previous options, an ICANN Auction of Last Resort will be conducted using the sealed bids. Proceeds go to ICANN Auctions Proceeds fund. * Auctions of Last Resort and 3rd Party Auctions will take place as soon as possible after the 90 day Private Resolution Period and before application evaluation takes place. * For 3rd Party Auctions * All auctions are conducted as sealed bids by the same auction provider ICANN chooses for Last Resort auctions. The applicant that submitted the highest sealed bid amount pays the second-highest bid amount. The auction provider and ICANN must attest that the participants fully disclosed all required information and followed the rules before the funds are released to the losers. * As discussed previously, All bids for all unresolved contention sets are due on the same date, no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. Auctions for contention sets involving objections, CPE or other outstanding accountability challenges may be delayed but bids are still due no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. * All auctions are to be conducted in an identical fashion using publicly available procedures. * All results are disclosed on a similar timeline as ICANN auctions of last resort from 2012 round, which was typically 72 hours. All parties partaking in the auction as well as winning bidder and amount paid are disclosed. * Auctions of Last Resort * If parties fail to form a JV or other Corporate structure, find a different creative resolution, or participate in a 3rd Party Auction, bids submitted during the 90 Day Resolution Period will be used. Auctions for contention sets involving objections, CPE or other outstanding accountability challenges may be delayed but bids are still due no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. * On the auction date, the applicant that submitted the highest sealed bid amount pays the second-highest bid amount. * Once payment is received, the applicant may proceed to evaluation and eventually the Transition to Delegation. * In the unlikely event that a winning bidder in either auction format does not pass evaluation (none failed in 2012), of fails because of a CPE determination or outstanding accountability challenge, the next highest bidder is selected for evaluation. Requirements: * Add T&Cs warning applicants that they may not participate in any of the following activities (Prohibited Application Activities): * They shall not submit applications largely for the purpose of financially benefiting from the resolution of contention sets * During the 90-day Resolution Period, they will not participate in the resolution of contention sets where non-winning applicants receive financial benefit to withdraw and not participate in the operation of the TLD. * The Registry Agreement must include a mandatory Public Interest Commitment stating that the registry: * has not submitted applications for the purpose of financially benefiting from the resolution of contention sets. * has not participated in an auction or auction like mechanisms outside of the ICANN 3rd Party and ICANN Auction of Last Resort. * Agrees to punitive measures for violations listed above, which may include the potential loss of the registry as well as a bar on participation in any future rounds (both for the individuals as well as the entities (and their affiliates) involved. * The auction provider must agree to fully disclose all information about the auctions as requested by ICANN. * The auction provider and ICANN must assert that all rules were followed before releasing auction funds. * All contention set resolutions including JVs, creative resolutions, 3rd Party Auction and ICANN Auctions of last resort must be referred by ICANN to relevant competition authorities for review. 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 Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 2:50 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 - Thursday, 09 July at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 09 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review the updated Predictability Framework, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kT…. Also attached, please find the updated concerns/mitigation document and process flow. 3. Review Private Resolutions/Auctions: 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>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

9 13

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 20 July 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 20, 2020

July 20, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 20 July 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/mQBcC> (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