July 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 20 July at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 20, 2020

July 20, 2020

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…. 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.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6
by Alexander Schubert July 20, 2020

July 20, 2020

Dear Marc,Yes: You are of course still a good soul.I think we simply have to present to the other souls out there in the community these two interpretations of public interest (this WG would have to hone the language of the two interpretations). Then we let the community decide. This is a question too fundamental and the both interpretations are too far apart. Plus we don't have a "fallback position"; but a mandate by the board to clarify the issue so guidance is established for the next round.Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com Date: 7/20/20 00:33 (GMT+02:00) To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Alex,This is where we differ. I don’t think a beauty company being awarded .makeup then posting only blogs, vlogs, fanpages, stores and whatnot on domain names in the TLD that sell the company's brands is abuse or against the public interest in the same way that I don’t think it’s a problem for that same company to own https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://makeup.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TW52pKVXHDy3qD… and post the same content on subdomains. It all comes down to what you think the public interest is. You appear to think that only the maxiumum availability of all second level domains to potential registrants is the public interest or is of the highest public interest. I disagree and believe that the availability of TLDs to those who want to apply for them and the ability of the TLD operator that is granted the TLD to operate its TLD in the way that it chooses so long as it is not in violation of the law or third party rights is in the public interest. I also think that this will result in greater utilization of new TLDs - which appears to be an issue close to your heart – albeit utilization that is different than we have traditionally seen, i.e., use of domain names for things other than content or email, such as allocation and assignment to medical or other devices. This will be real innovation and competition.Furthermore, as you previously pointed out, Section 1.2 (b)(iv) of the bylaws states that one of the commitments and core values is: “Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest…” I note that it doesn’t specify second level names and that allowing a company to operate a closed generic arguably does promote competition in the sense that it is promoting competition in the establishment and operation of top level domain names, the availability of which will be virtually unlimited as almost any string can be applied for as a TLD subject to some limited restrictions.Hopefully you still think I am a good soul!Best regards,Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholderGreenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020Mobile 773.677.3305trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>[Greenberg Traurig]From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander SchubertSent: Sunday, July 19, 2020 4:03 PMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.orgSubject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Hi Marc,Well the hallmark and definition of closed generics is: singular registrant. So just one registrant may register domains - vs. many could do in an open TLD.Regarding quality and public interest:There might be positive use cases.But what if companies claim generic term based gTLDs that describe their goods/services - then use the namespace to only promote their own brands? E.g. a beauty company snagging up .makeup then allowing only blogs, vlogs, fanpages, stores and whatnot that sell the company's brands? That's arguably not in the public interest and doesn't promote competition.I think we need a mechanism that easily prevents such abuse. What about a public comment period?AlexanderSent from my Samsung device-------- Original message --------From: trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.comDate: 7/19/20 22:53 (GMT+02:00)To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.orgSubject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Another question is whether just the program in general must be in the public interest or whether every single aspect does. If every aspect then arguably every restriction on registration in a TLD that diverts from a fully open TLD with no registration restrictions must be in the public interest and justified as such. I think the latter doesn’t make much sense and is not manageable and that it is thus the former – that the program more generally must be in the public interest. On this assumption I don’t think that every restriction on registration in a TLD that diverts from a fully open TLD with no registration restrictions must specifically be in the public interest and think the same for closed generics. That said, I think there is also an argument that closed generics generally can be in the public interest and that they Introduce competition in the registration of domain names, albeit not in the traditional sense of just higher volumes of registrations but potentially in higher quality registrations.Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholderGreenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020Mobile 773.677.3305trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>[Greenberg Traurig]From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander SchubertSent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 5:16 PMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.orgSubject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Dear Marc,Thank you very much. You are a good soul in bringing this up yourselves. Thank you.I went through the document (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governanc… <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance…>) running a search for “public interest” – and it came up 10 times. For us probably most imperative (all caps by the original author):Section 1.2. COMMITMENTS AND CORE VALUES(b) CORE VALUES(ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent;(iv) Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process;Especially Section 1.2 (b)(iv): “Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest…”I guess that’s what the new gTLD program was about: “Introducing ….. competition in the registration of domain names”. That’s the new gTLD program mission. It says that such introduction of competition should be done where it is beneficial to the public interest.Hence my lamenting since days: Let’s define how this binds the new gTLD program to a public interest goal: and what that exactly means. Is this clarification a task this group would be authorized to do? Or would that be the GNSO Council? Board? I think it would be strange if a legislative body provides itself with marching orders. And the guiding we need is: is a public interest goal included in our marching orders (obviously not explicitly – but probably implicitly). If the bylaws are the constitution then we almost need a Supreme Court Decision. Who within ICANN acts as the Supreme Court? Or is that analogy inappropriate?And Marc: thanks again. Very good spirit.Thanks,AlexanderFrom: trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com]Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 6:14 PMTo: alexander(a)schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6I probably should have checked the bylaws more closely before hitting send but at least I am doing so now. I see that public interest is included in the bylaws in particular in Section 1.2(b). So I guess the real question is what is in the public interest and how is this ascertained – i.e. if things in the new gTLD program (or the program itself generally) must be in the public interest, what does that mean? think it should be more evidence-based than theoretical and opinion-based but I guess that is up for debate.Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholderGreenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020Mobile 773.677.3305trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>[Greenberg Traurig]From: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech)Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 8:46 AMTo: 'alexander(a)schubert.berlin' <alexander(a)schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Alex or somebody please point me to where in ICANN’s mission or bylaws or other Board decision it says that the new gTLD program must be in the public interest. I am not aware of any formal reference to this other than from the GAC specifically in reference to closed generics. If this public interest mandate you keep raising doesn’t exist anywhere else than creating it is far outside the scope of this group and we should shut off discussion on it except with regard to closed generics so that it cannot keep being introduced as an obstacle to progress.Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholderGreenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020Mobile 773.677.3305trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>[Greenberg Traurig]From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander SchubertSent: Friday, July 17, 2020 7:52 AMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6*EXTERNAL TO GT*Dear WG,While “voluntary commitments” sounds positive on first view – they could serve as something that would trigger community members to object (had they been known initially).Example being a .makeup gTLD that all of a sudden “voluntary commits” to only allow bloggers that promote the applicant’s products to own domains. It’s a voluntary restriction – but one that would be met with fierce objections.Or we have to redefine what a “commitment” is. Do commitments have to serve the program goal of “public interest”? Or is any restriction a “commitment”?Have we clarified whether or not the new gTLD program is bound to a “public interest goal”? If we don’t clarify then we will always run into interpretation issues.Thanks,AlexanderFrom: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff NeumanSent: Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2020 21:49To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Kathy,I disagree. IT was always understood that Applicants could make voluntary commitments at any point in time so long as they were all subject to public comment and everything else in the Application Change section. That has always been the case.It doesn’t make sense to not allow any changes after an application is submitted especially since applications could sit in the queue for months if not years. This is not something I have created with my pen. I was trying to clarify the language that Anne had an issue with.[cid:image003.png@01D65DDB.67061080]Jeffrey J. NeumanFounder & CEOJJN Solutions, LLCp: +1.202.549.5079E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TWK6LM6h… <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXd…>From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:28 PMTo: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Jeff, you have reversed months of discussion and negotiation with one fell swoop of your pen. I object- this was not the agreement.Best, Kathy----- Original Message -----From:"Jeff Neuman" <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>To:"Kathy Kleiman" <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>Cc:Sent:Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:35:30 +0000Subject:RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6I don’t understand your concern Kathy. All proposed RVCs will be put out for comment. I don’t see the issue a Registry for a TLD wanting to add voluntary obligations for it to follow (contractually enforced).Example, Applicant proposes .crypto and submits its application. After submitting the application, applicant is approached by the American Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Association who expresses a concern that the Applicant has not agreed to follow the CryptoCurrency Security Standard in its application. Applicant realizes its mistake or realizes it would be better to include those in its application, so it files an Application Change request to commit to an additional RVC.What’s wrong with that?Jeffrey J. NeumanFounder & CEOJJN Solutions, LLCp: +1.202.549.5079E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TWK6LM6h… <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXd…>From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:17 PMTo: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6<< or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments.>>Disagree, Jeff, We expressly did not choose this language earlier. We agreed RVCs would be driven by comments, particularly from the GAC, would go through public comment processes, etc. It is not designed for an individual registry applicant to do anything it "desires." The applicant had the chance to submit anything it desired with the original application -- at this latter point in the process, the Community is engaged in a process of responding to that original submission.I strongly object to this line.Kathy----- Original Message -----From:"Jeff Neuman" <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>To:"Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>Cc:Sent:Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:32:05 +0000Subject:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6I am trying to distill all of these emails from the last 24 hours and here are my thoughts. 1. The text in the existing Applicant Guidebook states: “A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection initiates a dispute resolution proceeding.” Thus using the term “formal” does make sense in Section 2.3.2 Recommendation XX (Rationale 4). It does not make sense to include the word “informal” there because it creates a category of objections that does not exist. 1. Why don’t we just state something like: “ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments.The point of that language was to use as an example, but it was not intended to be a limited list. Plus, when combined with the language Steve quoted, there is no doubt that all RVCs are subject to public comment (whether they are in the initial application) or submitted as an Application Change.Jeffrey J. NeumanFounder & CEOJJN Solutions, LLCp: +1.202.549.5079E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TWK6LM6h… <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXd…>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, AnneSent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:26 AMTo: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6No – that’s the issue I am raising. All the changes to “formal objection” in the Objections section raise questions about the various references to “objections” in both the RVC section and the Application Change Request section. Those sections talk about “objections”. I did not see a prohibition on adopting RVCs in response to private negotiations with a party that is threatening to file an Objection. If we are permitting an RVC to be adopted during a private negotiation process, the RVC should be subject to public comment. If we are prohibiting adoption of an RVC to resolve a dispute before it gets to the formal Objection phase, then I am also fine with that.I am not fine with RVCs being adopted in private negotiations with that potentially not being subject to public comment. This is not at all clear in the document. We make reference to “formal objections” in the Objections section and just use the word “objections” in the RVC and Application Change Request section. We do not make any references to an RVC adopted pursuant to private negotiation before an Objection is filed. If we are going to allow those, it needs to be clear and it also needs to be clear that they are subject to public comment If we are not going to allow that kind of private resolution, that has to be clear from the document.AnneFrom: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AMTo: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6[EXTERNAL]Hey AnneAnd I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No?JamieFrom: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AMTo: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "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: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Jamie,I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below. I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment.It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection. My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment.Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency.Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment.AnneFrom: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AMTo: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6[EXTERNAL]Hey AnneI think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again.Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants.In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming.There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint.As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoringHopefully that clarifies.JamieFrom: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PMTo: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "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: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue. If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.” In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment. A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment.AnneFrom: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PMTo: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrccom<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6[EXTERNAL]Hey AnneI would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines.I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants.JamieFrom: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6
by Alexander Schubert July 19, 2020

July 19, 2020

Hi Marc,Well the hallmark and definition of closed generics is: singular registrant. So just one registrant may register domains - vs. many could do in an open TLD.Regarding quality and public interest:There might be positive use cases. But what if companies claim generic term based gTLDs that describe their goods/services - then use the namespace to only promote their own brands? E.g. a beauty company snagging up .makeup then allowing only blogs, vlogs, fanpages, stores and whatnot that sell the company's brands? That's arguably not in the public interest and doesn't promote competition.I think we need a mechanism that easily prevents such abuse. What about a public comment period? AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com Date: 7/19/20 22:53 (GMT+02:00) To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Another question is whether just the program in general must be in the public interest or whether every single aspect does. If every aspect then arguably every restriction on registration in a TLD that diverts from a fully open TLD with no registration restrictions must be in the public interest and justified as such. I think the latter doesn’t make much sense and is not manageable and that it is thus the former – that the program more generally must be in the public interest. On this assumption I don’t think that every restriction on registration in a TLD that diverts from a fully open TLD with no registration restrictions must specifically be in the public interest and think the same for closed generics. That said, I think there is also an argument that closed generics generally can be in the public interest and that they Introduce competition in the registration of domain names, albeit not in the traditional sense of just higher volumes of registrations but potentially in higher quality registrations.Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholderGreenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020Mobile 773.677.3305trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>[Greenberg Traurig]From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander SchubertSent: Saturday, July 18, 2020 5:16 PMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.orgSubject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Dear Marc,Thank you very much. You are a good soul in bringing this up yourselves. Thank you.I went through the document (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governanc… <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance…>) running a search for “public interest” – and it came up 10 times. For us probably most imperative (all caps by the original author):Section 1.2. COMMITMENTS AND CORE VALUES(b) CORE VALUES(ii) Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent;(iv) Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process;Especially Section 1.2 (b)(iv): “Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial to the public interest…”I guess that’s what the new gTLD program was about: “Introducing ….. competition in the registration of domain names”. That’s the new gTLD program mission. It says that such introduction of competition should be done where it is beneficial to the public interest.Hence my lamenting since days: Let’s define how this binds the new gTLD program to a public interest goal: and what that exactly means. Is this clarification a task this group would be authorized to do? Or would that be the GNSO Council? Board? I think it would be strange if a legislative body provides itself with marching orders. And the guiding we need is: is a public interest goal included in our marching orders (obviously not explicitly – but probably implicitly). If the bylaws are the constitution then we almost need a Supreme Court Decision. Who within ICANN acts as the Supreme Court? Or is that analogy inappropriate?And Marc: thanks again. Very good spirit.Thanks,AlexanderFrom: trachtenbergm(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com]Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 6:14 PMTo: alexander(a)schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6I probably should have checked the bylaws more closely before hitting send but at least I am doing so now. I see that public interest is included in the bylaws in particular in Section 1.2(b). So I guess the real question is what is in the public interest and how is this ascertained – i.e. if things in the new gTLD program (or the program itself generally) must be in the public interest, what does that mean? think it should be more evidence-based than theoretical and opinion-based but I guess that is up for debate.Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholderGreenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020Mobile 773.677.3305trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>[Greenberg Traurig]From: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech)Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 8:46 AMTo: 'alexander(a)schubert.berlin' <alexander(a)schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Alex or somebody please point me to where in ICANN’s mission or bylaws or other Board decision it says that the new gTLD program must be in the public interest. I am not aware of any formal reference to this other than from the GAC specifically in reference to closed generics. If this public interest mandate you keep raising doesn’t exist anywhere else than creating it is far outside the scope of this group and we should shut off discussion on it except with regard to closed generics so that it cannot keep being introduced as an obstacle to progress.Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholderGreenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020Mobile 773.677.3305trac(a)gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/>[Greenberg Traurig]From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander SchubertSent: Friday, July 17, 2020 7:52 AMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6*EXTERNAL TO GT*Dear WG,While “voluntary commitments” sounds positive on first view – they could serve as something that would trigger community members to object (had they been known initially).Example being a .makeup gTLD that all of a sudden “voluntary commits” to only allow bloggers that promote the applicant’s products to own domains. It’s a voluntary restriction – but one that would be met with fierce objections.Or we have to redefine what a “commitment” is. Do commitments have to serve the program goal of “public interest”? Or is any restriction a “commitment”?Have we clarified whether or not the new gTLD program is bound to a “public interest goal”? If we don’t clarify then we will always run into interpretation issues.Thanks,AlexanderFrom: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff NeumanSent: Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2020 21:49To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Kathy,I disagree. IT was always understood that Applicants could make voluntary commitments at any point in time so long as they were all subject to public comment and everything else in the Application Change section. That has always been the case.It doesn’t make sense to not allow any changes after an application is submitted especially since applications could sit in the queue for months if not years. This is not something I have created with my pen. I was trying to clarify the language that Anne had an issue with.[cid:image003.png@01D65DDB.67061080]Jeffrey J. NeumanFounder & CEOJJN Solutions, LLCp: +1.202.549.5079E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TWK6LM6h… <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXd…>From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:28 PMTo: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Jeff, you have reversed months of discussion and negotiation with one fell swoop of your pen. I object- this was not the agreement.Best, Kathy----- Original Message -----From:"Jeff Neuman" <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>To:"Kathy Kleiman" <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>Cc:Sent:Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:35:30 +0000Subject:RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6I don’t understand your concern Kathy. All proposed RVCs will be put out for comment. I don’t see the issue a Registry for a TLD wanting to add voluntary obligations for it to follow (contractually enforced).Example, Applicant proposes .crypto and submits its application. After submitting the application, applicant is approached by the American Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Association who expresses a concern that the Applicant has not agreed to follow the CryptoCurrency Security Standard in its application. Applicant realizes its mistake or realizes it would be better to include those in its application, so it files an Application Change request to commit to an additional RVC.What’s wrong with that?Jeffrey J. NeumanFounder & CEOJJN Solutions, LLCp: +1.202.549.5079E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TWK6LM6h… <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXd…>From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:17 PMTo: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Aikman-Scalese Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6<< or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments.>>Disagree, Jeff, We expressly did not choose this language earlier. We agreed RVCs would be driven by comments, particularly from the GAC, would go through public comment processes, etc. It is not designed for an individual registry applicant to do anything it "desires." The applicant had the chance to submit anything it desired with the original application -- at this latter point in the process, the Community is engaged in a process of responding to that original submission.I strongly object to this line.Kathy----- Original Message -----From:"Jeff Neuman" <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>To:"Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, "Jamie Baxter" <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>Cc:Sent:Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:32:05 +0000Subject:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6I am trying to distill all of these emails from the last 24 hours and here are my thoughts. 1. The text in the existing Applicant Guidebook states: “A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection initiates a dispute resolution proceeding.” Thus using the term “formal” does make sense in Section 2.3.2 Recommendation XX (Rationale 4). It does not make sense to include the word “informal” there because it creates a category of objections that does not exist. 1. Why don’t we just state something like: “ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, GAC Early Warnings, GAC Consensus Advice, or for any other reason the applicant desires to make additional commitments.The point of that language was to use as an example, but it was not intended to be a limited list. Plus, when combined with the language Steve quoted, there is no doubt that all RVCs are subject to public comment (whether they are in the initial application) or submitted as an Application Change.Jeffrey J. NeumanFounder & CEOJJN Solutions, LLCp: +1.202.549.5079E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!TWK6LM6h… <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!XHB7hsRXd…>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, AnneSent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:26 AMTo: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6No – that’s the issue I am raising. All the changes to “formal objection” in the Objections section raise questions about the various references to “objections” in both the RVC section and the Application Change Request section. Those sections talk about “objections”. I did not see a prohibition on adopting RVCs in response to private negotiations with a party that is threatening to file an Objection. If we are permitting an RVC to be adopted during a private negotiation process, the RVC should be subject to public comment. If we are prohibiting adoption of an RVC to resolve a dispute before it gets to the formal Objection phase, then I am also fine with that.I am not fine with RVCs being adopted in private negotiations with that potentially not being subject to public comment. This is not at all clear in the document. We make reference to “formal objections” in the Objections section and just use the word “objections” in the RVC and Application Change Request section. We do not make any references to an RVC adopted pursuant to private negotiation before an Objection is filed. If we are going to allow those, it needs to be clear and it also needs to be clear that they are subject to public comment If we are not going to allow that kind of private resolution, that has to be clear from the document.AnneFrom: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AMTo: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6[EXTERNAL]Hey AnneAnd I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No?JamieFrom: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AMTo: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "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: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Jamie,I don’t disagree with any of what you have said below. I am only saying that the document now creates the possibility that someone can argue that an RVC adopted in response to private negotiations (as opposed to the currently listed mechanisms) would not be viewed as an application change request requiring public comment.It is certainly not my purpose to “create” an informal objection. My purpose is to clarify that any RVC adopted to resolve a potential dispute (not just formal objection) should trigger an application change request process that requires public comment.Perhaps I have used the wrong language to try to accomplish that but it seems to me that once we say that Application Change Request with public comment only applies where there is a “formal objection”, then you have created a big loophole to transparency.Not intending to create a new category, just recognizing that private parties may approach each other and negotiate and the outcome could be a “settlement” that results in an RVC and that should always be subject to public comment.AnneFrom: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AMTo: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icannorg>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6[EXTERNAL]Hey AnneI think my point may have been missed so I’ll try again.Currently there are public comments and there are objections (formal objections). These are two clearly defined periods for comment and opposition to be expressed by those reviewing applications (minus any GAC processes). Each of these have clearly defined procedures and timelines associated with them as noted in the 2012 AGB, creating transparency and predictability for all. If someone is interested in expressing comment or opposition about an application they are required to do so within those confines (minus GAC). This makes it a fair playing field for all applicants, including community applicants.In the 2012 round, people expressed comment and opposition outside of those confines and ICANN took no steps to enforce the AGB rules or prevent that comment or opposition from impacting the application and evaluation process. This diminished any transparency and predictability that was promised to applicants, and it was in contradiction to what the AGB provided for comment and oppostion. For standard applicants, any comment or opposition expressed after initial evaluation and “formal” objections were completed had no further impact, however for community applicants, ICANN’s miscarriage of the AGB rules had a direct impact on CPE scoring because of gaming.There is no such thing as informal objection in the AGB (as Steve Chan has confirmed), and I do not believe we should be creating such a thing. There are clearly defined times to submit public comment (for free) and there are clearly defined times to challenge applications via the objection process (at a cost). We should not be striping the transparency and predictability out of the process for applicants by allowing an undefined new category of “informal objection” that has no time limit or constraint.As I have pointed out on multiple occasion, all applicants should be treated equally in the process, but community applicants were not in the 2012 round, leaving them subject to an ICANN imposed additional period for people to game them in CPE by going after criteria 4 scoringHopefully that clarifies.JamieFrom: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PMTo: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "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: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Hi Jamie – I think transparency is the issue. If the new language says that RVCs that are adopted in response to a “formal” objection require public comment, then that language, in and of itself, creates a category of objection that is “not formal”. That could easily be a call or a letter from some party that says, “If you don’t adopt the following RVC, we are going to file an objection.” In that case, the RVC that is adopted should also be subject to an Application Change Request and public comment. A private “threat” like that would not be a matter of public comment.AnneFrom: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PMTo: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrccom<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6[EXTERNAL]Hey AnneI would venture to argue that informal objection is technically “public comment.” I do not support creating an undefined category of application input/intervention called “informal objection” that has no specific rules or timeline for submission. This does not add transparency to the process or predictability for applicants. Public comment and formal objections already have clearly defined rules and timelines.I continue to believe it was a miscarriage of the AGB to allow “letters of opposition” (a.k.a informal objection) to be accepted years after the public comment period was closed and the formal objection period was complete. There was certainly no reference in the AGB that this would be allowed or acceptable. It was ultimately a successful gaming tactic used against community applicants. Community applicants deserve the same level of predictability as all other applicants.JamieFrom: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 6:21 PMTo: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "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: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Section 2.3.2 on RVCs and PICs says in Recommendation xx (Rationale 4) that ICANN MUST allow RVCs to be added after the application submission date in order to respond to public comments, objection, GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. So obviously RVCs can be adopted in a context other than “formal objection”. That section then refers us to the Application Change Request section.Thus, in Section 2.4 Application Change Requests, it appears we may have to amend the following language in a.Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections (whether formal or informal), GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings * Changes associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below)From: Aikman-Scalese, AnneSent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PMTo: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6Right Rubens – just looking for the language that confirms that because the section on Objections now says in d. that this applies where RVCs are adopted in response to concerns raised in a FORMAL objection.From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens KuhlSent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PMTo: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6My take is that unless the RVC is already filed in the application, when it will be subject by comments as all applications, will trigger application change request which includes public comments.Why would that not be so ?RubensOn 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:Thanks Jamie. I’m looking for the language in the draft Final Report that confirms your understanding. As mentioned below, Subsection d. has some added language stating that RVCs adopted in response to “concerns raised in a formal objection” will be considered application changes.Maybe Jeff or staff can advise where we would find that RVCs adopted in response to concerns expressed by a party that has not yet filed such “formal objection” would also be subject to application change request and public comment. (It may be in the section on Registry Voluntary Commitments”, but I am just looking for confirmation that all RVCs, regardless of the stage in which they are proposed to address concerns, trigger application change request procedures and public comment on the RVCs.AnneFrom: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter@spimarketing.com>>Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PMTo: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6
by Jamie Baxter July 19, 2020

July 19, 2020

Hey Anne My interpretation of “formal objection” would be those that are paid for via a dispute resolution provider, not to be confused with any other objection expressed in public comment or other format, including the ICANN correspondence page. Jamie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 On Package 6, please see below: 1. re 2.6.1 re “Application Queuing”, the language shown below should be modified because the previous section is drafted as “more than 125” and the section below is drafted as “less than 125”. Language should be revised does not cover what happens if you get exactly 125 IDN applications: * If there are (delete “less than”) 125 or fewer applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be assigned priority numbersprocessed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 2. Section 2.8.1 – Objections I don’t understand why we would remove affirmations of Recommendation 2 and Recommendation 3 from this section. The fact that these Affirmations are affirmed elsewhere in the report does not change their relevance in relation to the subject of Objections. Please clarify whether these Affirmations are “in” or “out.” They don’t appear to be deleted but there are comments on the side saying they should be. Recommendation xx (rationale 3) Throughout this rationale, the word, “formal” has been inserted in front of the word, “objection”. What is the meaning/need for the insertion of “formal” before “objection”? Is there a thought that there are “informal” objection processes? This language also appears in Rationale 6 and there are NUMEROUS insertions of this reference in the Section on Deliberations. Is there some intended effect here with respect to Subsection d. which specifies that a change in Registry Voluntary Commitments that is made in response to a “formal objection” invokes an application change process? Is the idea that if there are RVCs that are agreed OUTSIDE the “formal objection” process (i.e. via an “informal” objection), those RVCs are somehow NOT subject to an application change process and related public comment? I thought we had established that all new RVCs need to be subject to an application change process and public comment. 3. Section 2.9.1 Community Applications – Subsection c. “New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable.” Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…>. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. 1. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…>): * Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. * Package 7 includes two report sections: * 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…>) - For this section, please limit “Can’t Live With” comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through “Can’t Live With” review as part of an earlier package. * 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…>) * Comments will be tracked here<https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>. 1. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…>): * Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item. * Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. * For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. * A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-…>. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> ________________________________ 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.

8 30

Reaction to Proposal 5 on auctions
by Jim Prendergast July 18, 2020

July 18, 2020

Thanks to Leadership and Staff for working to pull together Proposal 5. I am adding a link to it here for those who were not on the call. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ…> During the discussion on Thursday 16 July - there was a comment about the group being overly responsive to the Board's concerns about gaming of the system. For reference, the Board language is below, with my emphasis added: "Regarding question 2.7.4.e.2 on 'gaming' or abuse of private auction, the Board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications. This not only increases the workload on processing but puts undue financial pressure on other applicants who have business plans and financing based on their intention to execute the plan described in the application. In particular, we are concerned about how gaming for the purpose of financing other applications, or with no intent to operate the gTLD as stated in the application, can be reconciled with ICANN's Commitments and Core Values." Distilled to its essence - the Board is not comfortable with 1) applications submitted for the sole purpose of receiving a payout for losing private auctions nor are they comfortable with 2) gaming for the purposes of financing other applications. Two related but distinct concerns. It is imperative the group recognize the only way to completely eliminate the gaming of contention resolution to provide enrichment to applicants with no intention of operating a TLD or gaming to finance other applications is to ban all private resolutions. Not just private auctions, but all private resolutions. I am still in favor of a Vickery Auction as the most equitable and efficient way to accomplish what the Board is asking for. But as my Compromise Proposal indicated, we all have to learn to compromise. As currently drafted, Proposal 5 fails to adequately address both concerns the Board has. But It has good elements that can be built upon. Board Concern #1 - applications submitted for the sole purpose of receiving a payout for losing private auctions A lot of attention has been paid to the first concern. After all - that's where a large chunk of the tens of millions changed hands in the 2012 round. It's what drove earnings releases and blog headlines. I appreciate the Bona Fide requirements as put forth by Paul and that is why I incorporated them into my Compromise proposal. But on their own, they simply do not go far enough. So how can we make this stronger? ICANN has a responsibility to oversee this program in its entirety. Unlike 2012, it simply cannot encourage resolutions of contention sets and then turn a blind eye to how that it accomplished. Proposal 5 added some much needed disclosure requirements to private auctions. That will help. But the private auction process itself still needs be overseen by ICANN. If ICANN is going to stand by the results of these auctions, they should oversee them. As this group experienced firsthand - getting any information out of private auction providers is impossible. That alone is reason for ICANN oversee this effort. Additionally, how can we expect ICANN to enforce the Bona Fide requirements? We can't rely on the outside evaluators as listed in Proposal 5 as they will disappear once their project is done. This is the responsibility of ICANN Org, specifically compliance, to monitor this. Anything short of full ICANN oversight is merely suggestive. We need enhanced disclosure around JVs and other "creative forms of private resolutions." Why? As one observer noted to me, "A private auction is just a negotiation with binding bids." I'm not suggesting we need trade secrets but we do need to know full ownership, percentages of ownership and what other conditions are attached to the formation of the JV. For example., were other parties compensated for not participating in the JV and withdrawing? We can determine the exact information needed during implementation but for purposes of high level concepts, we should err towards more transparency rather than less. As mentioned on the call, one element of my Compromise Proposal which adds assurance is Competition Authority review. Paul suggested that mandatory referral may be difficult. That doesn't mean it should be dismissed. At a minimum ICANN should reserve the right to refer contention resolutions, whether through auction or other methods, to competition authorities. Following is suggested language based on the RSEP Policy to which all current and future registries abide. It is familiar and instructive to where the oversight policy should be. 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. With ICANN overseeing all the auctions as well as fulsome disclosure, this clause will likely not be triggered very often, if ever. However, for the protection of ICANN, it should have the ability to do so if a situation does arise that raises competition concerns. They cannot be seen as facilitating anticompetitive behavior and this provides a safety valve. Board Concern #2 - gaming for the purposes of financing other applications. Nothing in Proposal 5 addresses this concern. As crafted, Proposal 5 would return us to the wild west of 2012 where parties are off doing auctions shrouded in NDAs, rolling proceeds from losing one application to another and supported applicants or single applicants stand little chance against deep pockets and portfolio players. Sure we eventually will find out who paid how much but we have no assurances funds were not being rolled from one to the next. How do we accomplish this while addressing Susan's concern about without holding up contention sets? It's quite simple. 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. Again - ICANN oversight and collection of bids at one time is critical to satisfying the concerns of the Board. Anything less, is toothless. Thanks for making it this far. As I said on the outset - there are good elements in Proposal 5 but it comes up short - Without the reinforcements outlined above it will fail to meet the Board concerns and we risk having this sent back to us in a year's time. In summary, -Include competition authority oversight - Sealed bids submitted at a single point in time - ICANN oversight of auctions -Full transparency of all contention resolution Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699

3 2

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6
by Alexander Schubert July 17, 2020

July 17, 2020

Hi Justine,And you are right: while it might occur to many that the "adoption of category 1 restrictions" has mitigated all risks we have to have a closer look:If you look at the GAC laundry list (please correct me but I assume it is http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-2…) then those are very basic restrictions. Minimum restrictions. If someone were to create a .bank clone in Spanish but had only to adhere to those CAT1 restrictions - that would be a far cry from the trust level the Internet user enjoys from the .bank restrictions.If someone sets a high bar in regards to consumer trust (using a gTLD as "trust label") - then the Internet user gets used to assign special trust to for example .bank domains (which is the entire point of their enormous high level restrictions). Thus a similar string (e.g. in Spanish) should at minimum provide similar high consumer trust (restrictions). That doesn't only extend to direct translations.So at bare minimum should .bank be able to object such applications on such grounds; regardless whether both gTLDs are introduced in the same or different rounds. We are talking a lot about innovations, gTLDs as trust labels (all of the projects that I lead run under the flag of "Trust Label" for the Internet User) etc.; so once someone establishes such innovative concept - how do we enable them to defend it? In my mind not just with CAT1.Thanks,Alexander Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com> Date: 7/17/20 01:02 (GMT+02:00) To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 I think it's important that we include more context - whatever it may be - because the current paragraph doesn't explain WHY recommending adoption of Category 1 restrictions "has mitigated in the minds of many" the concerns regarding exact translations of Category 1 strings. Not in my mind, at least.Justine-----On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 22:53 Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: I haven't checked the Board resolution enacting the restrictions, but the original GAC advice said "The GAC considers that Safeguards should apply to broad categories of strings. For clarity, this means any application for a relevant string in the current or future rounds, in all languages applied for." Alan At 2020-07-15 10:40 AM, Justine Chew wrote: Jeff, I understand what you are saying to be what is in that paragraph I quoted. What I don't quite understand is how that concern has been mitigated by the adoption of the category 1 restrictions. Do the category 1 restrictions also apply to exact translations of category 1 strings? Thanks, Justine --- On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 22:31, Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> wrote: Justine, The short answer is that exact translations are allowed to be applied for now. Longer Answer is that the principal concern initially expressed by the regulated TLDs was that someone would apply for an exact translation of an existing regulated string but not apply the restrictions that are currently in the existing TLD. Before we discussed/recommended the adoption of the category 1 restrictions, this was a true concern. Now that we are recommending the adoption of the category 1 restrictions, that concern (although not totally gone) has been mitigated in the minds of many. So there was no need to establish a new class of objections for the existing regulated TLD registry. Hope that makes sense. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 8:30 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Jeff, Cheryl, I would like to seek clarification on one paragraph under part c. of Objections c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. The Working Group discussed a proposal that there should be grounds for a formal objection if an applied-for string is an exact translation of an existing TLD string that is in a highly regulated sector, and the applied-for string would not employ the same safeguards as the existing TLD, subject to the applicantâ€™s governing law. This proposal would potentially require creating a new type of objection. The rationale for this proposal is that end-users may be confused and assume that both strings have the same safeguards in place. A concern was raised that this proposal could potentially harm competition and discourage the use of innovative business models. The Working Group determined that because the Working Group agreed upon Category 1 restrictions for regulated strings, there is no need for the objection process. My question is what happens if there is an application for a string which is an exact translation of an existing TLD string that is in a highly regulated sector, i.e. one marked for Category 1 restrictions for regulated strings - how is such an applied-for string dealt with? Thanks, Justine --- On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 01:47, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org > wrote: Dear all, As a reminder, the deadline for Canâ€™t Live With comments on package 7 and a final check on package 6 is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. Details below. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org > Date: Friday, 10 July 2020 at 19:44 To: " gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 Dear all, The following are now available for your review in the production document. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for â€œCanâ€™t Live Withâ€ review (beginning on page 148): Â· Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely â€œcannot live with.â€ If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. Â· Package 7 includes two report sections: Â· 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed on 11 June) - For this section, please limit â€œCanâ€™t Live Withâ€ comments to the new text in the section, which is displayed in black. The text in grey has already gone through â€œCanâ€™t Live Withâ€ review as part of an earlier package. Â· 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) (last discussed on 18 June) Â· Comments will be tracked here. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118): Â· Please limit feedback to errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a â€œCanâ€™t Live Withâ€ item. Â· Please send this type of feedback to the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. Â· For package 6 sections, please do not raise new issues, introduce new â€œCanâ€™t Live Withâ€ items, or re-open deliberations. Â· A high-level summary of the â€œCanâ€™t Live Withâ€ input received is available here. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WGâ€™s consideration of that input is available here. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png" Content-ID: <17352e5a4654cff311> X-Attachment-Id: 17352e5a4654cff311 Content-Type: image/png; name="image004.png" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image004.png" Content-ID: <17352e5a4657745b42> X-Attachment-Id: 17352e5a4657745b42 _______________________________________________ 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.

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 20 July at 15:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund July 17, 2020

July 17, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Monday, 20 July 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Closed Generics – Update 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

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 16, 2020

July 16, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/lwBcC> (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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 July at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 16, 2020

July 16, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 16 July at 20:00 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/2020-07-16+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort: Model 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… ACTION ITEM: Include text before the bullet point of Auctions of Last Resort: “Contention sets that are resolved by private resolution will move forward to transition to delegation. The sealed bids would remain sealed and would be moot.” ACTION ITEM: Add a note in the “Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements” section that we need to determine the timing of disclosure. ACTION ITEM: Elaine Pruis and Jim Prendergast to suggest language to add in the proposal of oversight by a competition authority for private resolutions and auctions. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort: Model 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… Discussion: -- Opposition from Christopher Wilkinson to all auctions. Think this would result in complexity and cost for ICANN. -- Any costs would be rolled into application fee so ICANN would recoup. -- When will disclosures made and to whom? We didn’t include a timing. -- Didn’t explicitly state that if something is privately resolved then it wouldn’t go to auction. -- Questions: Would sealed bids be required and what is the timing of private auctions? Answer: Anything not specified is assumed to be the same as in 2012. Jim Prendergast’s model gave a short window to resolve these things. Don’t think we are specifying on private resolution is conducted; just the disclosure of the outcome. -- Sealed bids and aggressive time frames don't take into account outcomes from Objections, GAC Early Warning, Public Comments, etc. so they don't make sense in the context of private auctions. -- A tidying up comment: any reference to appeals holding up either auctions should include challenges - since we are using challenges against evaluations and appeals against objections / COI allegations. -- The bids can be submitted at the same time. Reveal could happen at staggered times. -- Add back in that a competition authority would have some oversight for private resolutions and auctions (as in Jim Prendergast’s proposal). Not sure if this is feasible though. -- Re: sealed bids – we are not dictating how the auctions work. -- For auction of last resort it seems a little skewed for those that can put their funds together in a JV. -- Question: Can an applicant withdraw their sealed bid for another reason other than being removed from the regular process i.e. they spent their auction funds and would avoid defaulting on payment? Answer: Anyone can withdraw their application at any time. We aren’t letting them change the amount. The only way to withdraw a bid is to withdraw the application, or accept a private resolution (so sealed bid isn’t revealed). Questions: -- Any form of deposit needed? If so, when and how much? At the time the bid is submitted, or similar to the 2012 practice of just prior to conducting the auction of last resort? Does 10% still make sense? Could be that the deposit would only made when the auction of last resort commences. -- To the extent any contention sets are shrunk, by having other applications removed from the process (e.g., withdrawal, losing objections, failing evaluation, losing in CPE, etc.), applicants will NOT be allowed to adjust their sealed bids. [One exception here could be if a subset of applicants in the contention set form a JV] – Doesn’t this give the JV some kind of advantage? Only where a JV is formed could the pool of applicants submit new bids. Do we need to specify what happens if a JV qualifies for Applicant Support re: the bid multiplier. -- Applicants in the contention set will be informed of the date of the auction. [Depending on the outcome of the deposit discussion, the deposit might be collected at this stage] ACTION ITEM: Include text before the bullet point of Auctions of Last Resort: “Contention sets that are resolved by private resolution will move forward to transition to delegation. The sealed bids would remain sealed and would be moot.” ACTION ITEM: Add a note in the “Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements” section that we need to determine the timing of disclosure. ACTION ITEM: Elaine Pruis and Jim Prendergast to suggest language to add in the proposal of oversight by a competition authority for private resolutions and auctions, for consideration. 3. AOB: 3a. Repeating affirmations and avoiding duplications -- First time we cite an affirmation we put the full text in, and in subsequent citations we reference back to the full text (rather than duplicating the text). -- Consider whether links can be included or the text duplicated. 3a. Can’t Live With Approach -- Reviewing at meetings, but now the review seems to be happening in email. -- Have to be able to do work over email to allow for those who have not been able to join a meeting.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6
by Alan Greenberg July 16, 2020

July 16, 2020

I haven't checked the Board resolution enacting the restrictions, but the original GAC advice said "The GAC considers that Safeguards should apply to broad categories of strings. For clarity, this means any application for a relevant string in the current or future rounds, in all languages applied for." Alan At 2020-07-15 10:40 AM, Justine Chew wrote: >Jeff, > >I understand what you are saying to be what is >in that paragraph I quoted. What I don't quite >understand is how that concern has been >mitigated by the adoption of the category 1 >restrictions. Do the category 1 restrictions >also apply to exact translations of category 1 strings? > >Thanks, > >Justine >--- > > >On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 22:31, Jeff Neuman ><<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> wrote: > >Justine, > > > >The short answer is that exact translations are allowed to be applied for now. > > > >Longer Answer is that the principal concern >initially expressed by the regulated TLDs was >that someone would apply for an exact >translation of an existing regulated string but >not apply the restrictions that are currently in >the existing TLD. Before we >discussed/recommended the adoption of the >category 1 restrictions, this was a true >concern. Now that we are recommending the >adoption of the category 1 restrictions, that >concern (although not totally gone) has been >mitigated in the minds of many. So there was no >need to establish a new class of objections for >the existing regulated TLD registry. > > > >Hope that makes sense. > > > >[] > > > > >[] > > >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 Justine Chew >Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 8:30 PM >To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: >Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review >of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 > > > >Jeff, Cheryl, > >I would like to seek clarification on one >paragraph under part c. of Objections > >c. New issues raised in deliberations since >publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. > >The Working Group discussed a proposal that >there should be grounds for a formal objection >if an applied-for string is an exact translation >of an existing TLD string that is in a highly >regulated sector, and the applied-for string >would not employ the same safeguards as the >existing TLD, subject to the applicantâs >governing law. This proposal would potentially >require creating a new type of objection. The >rationale for this proposal is that end-users >may be confused and assume that both strings >have the same safeguards in place. A concern was >raised that this proposal could potentially harm >competition and discourage the use of innovative >business models. The Working Group determined >that because the Working Group agreed upon >Category 1 restrictions for regulated strings, >there is no need for the objection process. > > >My question is what happens if there is an >application for a string which is an exact >translation of an existing TLD string that is in >a highly regulated sector, i.e. one marked for >Category 1 restrictions for regulated strings - >how is such an applied-for string dealt with? > >Thanks, >Justine >--- > > > > > >On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 01:47, Emily Barabas ><<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>emily.barabas(a)icann.org> wrote: > >Dear all, > > > >As a reminder, the deadline for Canât Live >With comments on package 7 and a final check on >package 6 is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. Details below. > > > >Kind regards, > >Emily > > > >From: Emily Barabas <<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>emily.barabas(a)icann.org> >Date: Friday, 10 July 2020 at 19:44 >To: >"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" ><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> >Subject: Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live >With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6 > > > >Dear all, > > > >The following are now available for your review >in the ><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…>production >document. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. >Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready >for âCanât Live Withâ review (beginning on ><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…>page >148): >Â· Please limit comments to items in the >revised sections that you absolutely âcannot >live with.â If there is text that you cannot >accept, please fill out the attached form and >send it to the WG by email. Please do not >provide your input in any other format. > >Â· Package 7 includes two report sections: > >Â· 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last >discussed on ><https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…>11 >June) - For this section, please limit >âCanât Live Withâ comments to the new text >in the section, which is displayed in black. The >text in grey has already gone through âCanât >Live Withâ review as part of an earlier package. > >Â· 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments >(RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) >(last discussed on ><https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…>18 >June) > >Â· Comments will be tracked ><https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw>here. > > >Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for >a final check (beginning on ><https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…>page >118): >Â· Please limit feedback to errors in >the edits, for example a revision that you >believe does not accurately reflect the outcome >of discussions about a âCanât Live Withâ item. > >Â· Please send this type of feedback to >the mailing list. Typo corrections can be sent directly to staff. > >Â· For package 6 sections, please do not >raise new issues, introduce new âCanât Live >Withâ items, or re-open deliberations. > >Â· A high-level summary of the >âCanât Live Withâ input received is >available ><https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>here. >And a detailed log with the outcomes from the >WGâs consideration of that input is available ><https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-…>here. > >Kind regards, > >Emily > > > > > >Emily Barabas > >Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support > >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 > ><http://www.icann.org/>www.icann.org > > > >_______________________________________________ >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: <17352e5a4654cff311> >X-Attachment-Id: 17352e5a4654cff311 > >Content-Type: image/png; name="image004.png" >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image004.png" >Content-ID: <17352e5a4657745b42> >X-Attachment-Id: 17352e5a4657745b42 > > >_______________________________________________ >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.

2 1