July 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

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 16, 2020

July 16, 2020

Hi,These RVCs: Do they have to be in the public interest?Is there a public interest goal?Could RVCs be used to game the system somehow?Thanks,Alexander Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Date: 7/16/20 20:41 (GMT+02:00) To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>, Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, 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 Anne, I never said delete the second sentence of that paragraph…so the whole paragraph would state: 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. Applicants must be able to submit RVCs at any time prior to the execution of a Registry Agreement; provided, however, that all RVCs submitted after the application submission date shall be considered Application Changes and be subject to the recommendation set forth in Section xx Application Changes Requests, including, but not limited to, public comment in accordance with ICANN’s standard procedures and timeframes. So how is that not clear…I have bolded it and added emphasis. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 1:31 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>; 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 Jeff, The Application Change Request section does NOT say that all RVCs are subject to public comment. You would have to add your language below to that section – but only IF the WG agrees that private negotiation of RVCs is ok. (I can’t remember but Kathy has a different recollection of this.) Anne From: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 9:32 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>; 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 [EXTERNAL] I am trying to distill all of these emails from the last 24 hours and here are my thoughts. 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. 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. 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:26 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>; 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 No – 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. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:16 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>; 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 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne And I don’t disagree with your concerns, however I thought Steve had pointed to where in the language your concern was covered. No? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 10:04 AM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, "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 Jamie, 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. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:56 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>; 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 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I 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 scoring. Hopefully that clarifies. Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 8:08 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, "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 Hi 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. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:01 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>; 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 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I 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. 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 6:21 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, "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 Section 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 WarningsChanges to Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early WarningsChanges associated with the formation of joint ventures (see Recommendation xx below) From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:53 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk(a)nic.br>; 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 Right 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> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM To: 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 My 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 ? Rubens On 15 Jul 2020, at 18:38, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)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. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:34 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(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 [EXTERNAL] Hey Anne I do not believe that all informal objection is weighted equally (or at the level of formal objection) – at least that was our experience in the 2012 round – therefore not all informal objection necessarily invokes an application change request. That said, I do see opportunities where informal objection may invoke an application change request, such as in CPE to address a “letter of objection” targeting points in criteria 4. It has been my understanding that any application change request that extends beyond administrative adjustments to an application goes out for public comment – which I believe is the catch net to address your concerns below. I have never assumed that change requests stemming from informal objection are exempt from public comment. Do I understand that correctly? Jamie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 5:07 PM To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com>, 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 Yes – Jamie – that would be my understanding. The question posed relates to the fact that the later paragraph says that RVCs developed in response to a “formal objection” invoke an application change request and require public comment. I hope we have not inadvertently created an exception to this requirement in relation to RVCs adopted in response to an “informal” objection. Anne From: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter(a)spimarketing.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(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 [EXTERNAL] 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. The deadline for comments is Wednesday 15 July at 23:59 UTC. Package 7 sections of the Report are now ready for “Can’t Live With” review (beginning on page 148): 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) - 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) Comments will be tracked here. Package 6 revisions of the report, now ready for a final check (beginning on page 118): 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. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’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 This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org 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. This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

2 1

ITI Webinars Next Week
by Julie Bisland July 16, 2020

July 16, 2020

Dear all, The ITI team is hosting two webinars next week to preview the new icann.org website. Please see below. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie The Information Transparency Initiative (ITI) team is hosting two webinars to provide a demo of preview.icann.org. ITI began in January 2018 with the goal of delivering increased and improved accessibility and findability of information on icann.org. The ITI Team completed the development of several content types for the preview website in May 2020. Join us for one of these two upcoming webinars to learn about the new icann.org. ITI Webinar 1 Monday 20 July 2020, 20:00 UTC (all other times [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yameyekf__;!!PtGJab4!vBh95li…>) Register [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJAkduypr…> ITI Webinar 2 Wednesday 22 July 2020, 14:00 UTC (all other times [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/ybafoc5j__;!!PtGJab4!vBh95li…>) Register [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJcudeGoq…>

1 0

Guardrails to prevent auction games by applicants enhanced with disclosure requirements
by McGrady, Paul D. July 16, 2020

July 16, 2020

Hi All, Below are the Guardrails (Sections 1, 2 A and B) which have been circulated before (no changes to those). As discussed on our call, I have enhanced the Guardrails with a proposed disclosure framework (new Section 2 C). As you can see, I have embraced the calls for early and public disclosure of private auction prices, parties, etc. You will note that I have not added in a disclosure requirement for non-auction private resolutions, for example, Joint Venture arrangements, settlement agreements, etc. These forms of private resolutions were not raised as a possible issue of concern by the Board in its letter and raise all sorts of concerns over business plans, trade secrets, etc. Any final version of a disclosure solutions needs to be tailored to the Board’s actual concerns and I encourage the WG to resist a general fishing expedition mechanism. I realize that there are still questions that need to be answered regarding the Guardrails + Early Disclosure proposal and I look forward to working with you all on our next call towards ironing out the remaining details and getting this issue wrapped up for the final report. Have a great night and talk to you all soon. Best, Paul ________ 1. The applicant has a bona fide intention to run the registry if awarded. The “examiners” would be able to issue additional questions if it appears that the business plan is rudimentary or if there is evidence that the applicant does not really have the needed intent. Applicants would be able to supplement the record to assure “examiners.” 2. The application is not being submitted solely for the purpose of being able to participate in private auctions. So, how would these terms be policed? A. If an applicant does not actually launch the registry if awarded or sells it in the aftermarket within 2 years of delegation, that will be noted for purposes of any future rounds and could create a rebuttal presumption of non-intent for that applicant. B. If an applicant only “sells” applications in private auctions and does not actually proceed with any to contracting, that will be noted for purposes of any future rounds and could create a rebuttal presumption that the applicant is only participating in the new gTLD program to speculate on registries. C. The applicants must adhere to the following disclosure framework: Private Auction Disclosure Framework (1) At the end of a private auction, the following information will be provided to ICANN within 72 hours by the “winner” of the private auction: · The name and contact information of the parties that participated in the auction. · The dollar amount paid by the “winner” of the auction. · Any other information that participants in an ICANN auction of last resort are required to disclose. (2) At the end of a private auction, the following information will be provided to ICANN within 72 hours by the “loser” of the private auction: · Any material concessions, other than withdrawal of the application, made by the loser of the auction. · Any other information that participants in an ICANN auction of last resort are required to disclose. (3) Within 72 hours, ICANN may disclose the above information in accordance in accordance with its obligations under data privacy laws and competition laws. Protections for Disclosing Applicants · The “winner” of the private auction is not required to disclose any proprietary information such as trade secrets, business plans, financial records, or personal information of officers and directors that has not already been publically disclosed in the underlying registry application. · ICANN must not use this information to adjust registry prices or in its negotiations with the “winner” of the private auction over proposed changes to the baseline registry agreement for the relevant registry. · There will be no disclosure requirements for non-auction private resolutions, for example, Joint Venture arrangements, settlement agreements, etc. To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

2 1

Applicant Support - Bid Credits, Multiplier concerns
by christa＠dottba.com July 16, 2020

July 16, 2020

Hello, Another attempt at raising the flag on the changes to Applicant Support. Bid Credit, multiplier or other mechanism could create an increase in the volume of AS applications from applicants who otherwise would not have considered AS because of new larger financial incentives. Concerns and comments that need to be addressed: 1. How AS Applicants are provided with sufficient time to gain sufficient auction knowledge, impact on business plans, raise funding, etc. 2. Do not consider financial benefits of the AS applicants entering into a JV with a third-party creating a potential opportunity for gaming - see my email from last week. 3. Implications on maximum values - low/mid/high all impact strategy and raise additional questions and concerns i.e. significant maximum values increased the financial benefits and potential for abuse 4. Consideration on the repayment of auction funds? What if they are wildly successful and recover all funds in say the first year? Consideration to future AS might be nice. 5. Repayment of auction 'funds' - Rationale 9 should state that repayment includes auction credits i.e. "shall require the applicant to repay the full amount of financial support received including auction bid credit, multiplier or other mechanism through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%)". 6. Implications on other contention set applicants who are impacted by the AS applicants who are financially incentivized to only participate in the Auction of Last Resort. The AS Applicant now holds the Trump card to use the Auction of Last Resort and thereby limiting everyone else in that contention set from the ability to use another auction method. See item #2 re: JV. There should not be a race to the AS Applicant to enter into a JV to gain the auction multiplier - if the credit no longer apply to this, we need to state it but again, it then changes the dynamics on resolving the contention set. In short, the multiplier has been added without the requisite consideration required to prevent the very concern everyone was trying to prevent in the 2012 round. The bid credits, multiplier needs further deliberation to carefully balance the needs of all stakeholders while ensuring we're not opening the doors to abuse and gaming. Cheers, Christa Christa Taylor CMO | <http://www.mmx.co/> MMX.CO M: +1 (604) 961-9460 Email: <mailto:christa@mmx.co> christa(a)mmx.co The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

3 2

Reminder: Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6
by Emily Barabas July 15, 2020

July 15, 2020

Dear all, As a reminder, the deadline for Can’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<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/>

4 4

A few additions to yesterday's post re a different approach to public interest closed generic strings.
by George Sadowsky July 15, 2020

July 15, 2020

All, I'd like to add one more criterion for comfort in chartering public interest closed generic string domains: "7. Registration fees and revenue in general should be set at a level to cover costs and provide a reasonable rate of return for the administration of the domain. Should assets build up over time for an unrelated reason, it should be required that they be periodically withdrawn and dedicated to an external effort in a manner related to the public interest objective for which the collective management of the domain enjoys rough consensus." More important, reflecting on my post of yesterday, it occurred to me that there were some general principles behind the detail that might be worth abstracting as guidelines for how we might think about setting ground rules for structuring closed generic domains to obtain the conduct of participants and effectiveness of behavior in the public interest that we might want to see. I suggest the following (again a rough approximation of what could be possible): A. The initial applicants for such a domain should all come from a base of organizations already involved in action with regard to the public interest issue to be addressed by the domain's name and purpose, and should constitute a large enough representative subset of that gro p to skeak with some authority about the substance, importance, and legitimacy of the issue. B. The financial arrangements governing the operation of the domain should provide a reasonable operational return to t he activities of the domain and should preclude any windfall gains to the organization. Rationale: This should serve to cater to the public service aspects of the activity rather than any significant financial gain. C. The rules governing the development of the domain should encourage competition among registrants to provide the best, most relevant and most useful information and services for beneficiaries who access information from the site. Competition should be directed to the area of substantive content and not to competitive structure or direct financial profit. Rationale: The primary purpose of the domain will be the substantive content that it provides. Competition among organizations is inevitable, so let's create a structure that focuses that competition on what's most important for the user: helpful and useful content. Is this too draconian? If the resulting domain is truly to be a public interest web site, then the incentive for organizations in creating one should be more in the centralization and enlargement of a more useful and more visible collection of helpful information, not hopes for large financial gain. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.301.968.4325 8300 Burdette Road, Apt B-472 Mobile: +1.202.415.1933 Bethesda MD 20817-2831 USA Skype: sadowsky george.sadowsky(a)gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com> http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ <http://www.georgesadowsky.org/>

9 11

Deadline Wed 15 July - "Can't Live With" Review of Package 7 and Final Check on Revised Package 6
by Emily Barabas July 15, 2020

July 15, 2020

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/>

3 5

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 16 July at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund July 14, 2020

July 14, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 16 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review 2.1 Auctions – Mechanisms of Last Resort: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… 3. 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. 4. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 14 July at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 14, 2020

July 14, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 14 July at 03:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-07-14+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Review Private Resolutions/Auctions: Hybrid Proposal 2+ and Proposal 4: ACTION ITEM: Leadership and staff should combine the elements Hybrid Option 2+ and Proposal 4 and add the transparency elements discussed during the meeting on 14 July. Closed Generics: ACTION ITEM: WG members who are interested in joining with George Sadowsky to develop a proposal on Closed Generics should contact George. Those who noted interested in the chat were Paul McGrady and Edmon Chung. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review Private Resolutions/Auctions: Hybrid Proposal 2+ and Proposal 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… Proposal from Paul McGrady: -- No consensus to abolish private auctions. -- Start with the status quo and AGB and just put some guardrails. -- When the applicant applies, they need to indicate in through the terms and conditions that they have a bona fide intention to run the registry if awarded it; the examiners can issue additional questions, if it appears that business plan is to rudimentary or if there's evidence that that didn't really have that bona fide intention. Applicants can support the record to assure the examiners and then I added on also several weeks ago, I believe that applicants should also affirm that they're not submitting the application solely for the purpose of being able to participate in a private auction. -- Consider also building in disclosure of purchase prices. -- If the applicant only sells applications and private auctions and does not actually proceed with any contracting that will be noted for purposes of any future rounds and could create a rebuttal presumption that the applicant is only participating in the New gTLD program to speculate on registries. Proposal from Jim Prendergast: -- A reasonable amount of time for people will settle or contentions in line with what you and others have asked for, whether it be through JV or other creative corporate structure things. You'd raised a concern with 90 days. Okay, fine. Take 120 the actual length of the period is less significant than the fact that you're forcing people to come to the table, instead of having this process drag out for years and years and years like it did in the 2012 round by accelerating a lot of this. You take out a lot of the waste in the program -- there were dozens, if not hundreds of applicants from the last round who paid $100,000 for evaluations of their applications that ultimately were never needed because they never stood a chance of operating a TLD -- by being able to withdraw their application for applicants who don't stand a chance of operating to have the ability to recoup more of their money in a more rapid fashion. There is still the element of the ICANN auction last resort. We need to retain that that portion. I know some folks in the like actually like the concept of the ICANN auction of last resort. Letter from the ICANN Board: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-langdon-orr… “These concerns mostly center on the issues of auctions of last resort and on private auctions. We take special note of the possible practice of participating in private auctions for the sole purpose of being paid to drop out. We also take note of the abuse that becomes possible in alterations to the change request mechanisms. The Board has concerns about whether, and in what ways, the availability of private auctions incentivizes applications for purposes other than actually using the string; and we are interested in how these incentives for abuse might be minimized.” -- There may not be evidence of a program, but there is a perception of a problem, particularly due to the lack of transparency in the last round. -- Regardless of the path we go down we have to ensure that everything is disclosed. What kind of transparency and data do we want to see? Discussion: -- Issues: transparency and the collection of data. -- Paul McGrady has lots of questions with Jim’s proposal – more work to be done on policy and implementation. -- Go back to some high level principles. -- Maybe they could be auction house style with everyone viewing the auction in real time. -- One aspect of disclosure could be could be the required disclosure of all teaming arrangements and others in bids, but how do we enforce that. -- If you look at broadband auctions in the US there are very strict disclosure requirements. -- Just because someone loses doesn’t mean that they had the intent to lose; they may have entered into the auction in good faith. -- We aren’t just talking about transparency for private auctions, but for any mechanism of private resolution, such as disclosures of joint ventures. -- Question: What is the definition of “full disclosure”? Answer: It's the material terms of any arrangement or agreement between the parties. -- We want to make sure there are enough disclosure requirements to mitigate against potential abuses. -- We don’t have a disclosure framework: How and when it would work; what kinds of things would be disclosed; what kinds of things would be confidential. We have a concept but no details. -- ICANN needs to know who is behind the applications that survive. -- Knowing the entities in a partnership is not the same as full disclosure. -- Seems we are conflating application updates with a full disclosure framework. -- Think about whether full disclosure needs to happen before the auction. -- We could say from a policy aspect that there should be disclosure of all material terms of any arrangement, financial or otherwise; we don’t need to fill in all of the details. -- Transparency and guardrails are important regardless of what mechanism is selected. -- We can discuss the timing elements but the difference here is 1) private auctions happening in the 2012 mode, with some disclosure. 2) auctions overseen by ICANN with disclosure. There needs to be a role for ICANN in overseeing settlements that involve auctions. Whether the funds go to losers or ICANN. -- Statement: Require the disclosure of all material information behind any financial or other arrangements made for the purpose of obtaining that TLD and we can include examples. Any arrangements that are made, financial or otherwise, for the purpose of obtaining the TLD should be disclosed. Could get public comment on this. ACTION ITEM: Leadership and staff should combine the elements Hybrid Option 2+ and Proposal 4 and add the transparency elements. 3. AOB: Closed Generics Proposal from George Sadowsky: -- A plan, whatever is an acceptable plan is, it must assume responsibility for accommodating generic strings for public benefits. -- What kind of conditions would you want to put on the process and the results to feel comfortable that you had really eliminated the issues of gaming and kind of competition and confidentiality and the like, so that the string can actually respond to public benefit objectives in a way that you would feel comfortable with. Proposal: A new kind of gTLD which is somewhat like the community TLDs of the previous round, but differs from them in very significant ways, in particular in terms of incentives. For example, you would not want financial incentives to be really large and dominant in the way in the decision for people to apply for these strings. You don't want to have it transformed into a string for something else, whatever that something else is. Working with like-minded colleagues who are already members of the working group for a short period of time [a week] might allow us to put forward a proposal not a formal proposal with all the I’s dotted and the T's crossed, but something that is that is articulate enough concise enough and a good description enough of the idea that it might be taken as a possible way out of the conundrum. ACTION ITEM: WG members who are interested in joining with George Sadowsky to develop a proposal on Closed Generics should contact George. Those who noted interested in the chat were Paul McGrady and Edmon Chung.

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Tuesday, 14 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew July 14, 2020

July 14, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 14 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/lQBcC> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Terri

1 0