August 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review
by Steve Chan Nov. 6, 2020

Nov. 6, 2020

Dear WG Members, As discussed and agreed on the 6 August WG call, we have compiled a consolidated list of materials for you all to review in advance of seeking to finalize the draft Final Report for public comment, as early as 13 August 2020. For review and feedback no later than Thursday, 13 August (and for discussion on the WG call that same day) Draft Final Report Change Analysis (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding):https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6P… Draft Final Report (minus Predictability Framework and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction)) attached and available here, on an ongoing basis as the document is updated: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report Per Emily’s email, comments on the Predictability Framework and the one new additional paragraph in the Closed Generics are due 11 August at 23:59 UTC. Review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPl…. Feedback form is attached. NEW! - The new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), comments due 12 August at 23:59 UTC – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…. Again, feedback form is attached. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar

17 50

Why meetings
by Kathy Kleiman Aug. 24, 2020

Aug. 24, 2020

Hi Jeff and Cheryl,Why are we planning WG meetings during the comment period? Now is the time for us to work with our SGs and constituencies, the community and the public to help them understand the complex materials that we (WG) shared and work to help them find, form and submit their comments. As volunteers, this is all that can reasonably (and responsibly) be expected of us. It is supposed to be quiet period in the WG. What is happening/ Tx, Kathy

5 4

Webinar in Support of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group’s Draft Final Report
by ICANN Policy Calendar Aug. 24, 2020

Aug. 24, 2020

Meeting: Webinar in Support of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group’s Draft Final Report Date/time: Monday, 14 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 1 hour Before joining the call: Please be sure you have read the Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/DwC-C Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/y5639mdm * Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/96228789659?pwd=SUNxZ1dGZGlPaVNHcmRNLzJrVHdQQT09 Passcode: E91YcT&9X^ The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group published<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-draft-final-…> its draft Final Report for public comment on 20 August 2020. This draft report is the culmination of several years of deliberations and numerous public consultations, in support of the large number of topics captured in the Working Group’s Charter. You can read our blog post about the Working Group reaching this milestone here<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/public-comment-on-the-gnso-new-gtld-subsequ…>. The Working Group has worked extremely hard to reach this point and is looking forward to considering feedback received as it seeks to complete its Final Report and deliver it to the GNSO Council. To aid in your review and understanding of the draft Final Report now open for public comment, the Co-Chairs have scheduled a webinar on Monday, 14 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC to present on a selection of the topics within the draft report, answer questions you may have, and provide context where it may be needed. * Or iPhone one-tap : US: +16699006833,,96228789659#,,,,,,0#,,8883615260# or +13462487799,,96228789659#,,,,,,0#,,8883615260# * Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 962 2878 9659 Passcode: 8883615260 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acEBw59hZz Webinar recordings will be published and circulated shortly after the end of the session. Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Meeting Invitation | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Webinar | Monday, 14 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 1 hour
by Terri Agnew Aug. 24, 2020

Aug. 24, 2020

Dear all, The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Webinar is scheduled on Monday, 14 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 1 hour. Before joining the call: Please be sure you have read the Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/DwC-C Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/y5639mdm * Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/96228789659?pwd=SUNxZ1dGZGlPaVNHcmRNLzJrVHdQQT09 Passcode: E91YcT&9X^ * Or iPhone one-tap : US: +16699006833,,96228789659#,,,,,,0#,,8883615260# or +13462487799,,96228789659#,,,,,,0#,,8883615260# * Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 962 2878 9659 Passcode: 8883615260 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acEBw59hZz Webinar recordings will be published and circulated shortly after the end of the session. Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Webinar
by ICANN Policy Calendar Aug. 24, 2020

Aug. 24, 2020

Meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Webinar Date/time: Monday, 14 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 1 hour Before joining the call: Please be sure you have read the Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/DwC-C Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/y5639mdm * Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/96228789659?pwd=SUNxZ1dGZGlPaVNHcmRNLzJrVHdQQT09 Passcode: E91YcT&9X^ * Or iPhone one-tap : US: +16699006833,,96228789659#,,,,,,0#,,8883615260# or +13462487799,,96228789659#,,,,,,0#,,8883615260# * Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 962 2878 9659 Passcode: 8883615260 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acEBw59hZz Webinar recordings will be published and circulated shortly after the end of the session. Thank you. Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report - Published for Public Comment
by Steve Chan Aug. 21, 2020

Aug. 21, 2020

Dear WG Members, I am pleased to inform you that the draft Final Report has been published for public comment: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-08-20-en. Congratulations to the Working Group on achieving this milestone! Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar

4 3

Deadline Wednesday 19 August: Final Check on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets
by Emily Barabas Aug. 20, 2020

Aug. 20, 2020

Dear all, The final text on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets is now available for your review here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…>. The edits based on the action items from the WG’s recent deliberations on 13 August<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-08-13+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> and August 17<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-08-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> are reflected in the redlines. The deadline for comments is Wednesday, 19 August at 23:59 UTC. A summary of the Can’t Live With comments and their resolution is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-…>. * 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. * Please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. Kind regards, Emily

3 2

Deadline Tuesday, 18 August: Final Check on Predictability and Closed Generics
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 19, 2020

Aug. 19, 2020

Dear all, The final text on Predictability and Closed Generics is now available for your review in the production document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPl…>. The edits based on the action items from the WG’s recent deliberations on 13 August<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-08-13+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> are reflected in the redlines. The deadline for comments is Tuesday, 18 August at 23:59 UTC. * 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. * Please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations. Kind regards, Julie

4 4

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 17 August at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 17, 2020

Aug. 17, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 17 August 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/2020-08-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: 1. “Can’t Live With” Comments on the new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): Re: “Applicants may mark portions of any such responses as “confidential” if the responses include proprietary business information and such portions will not be shared or communicated by the Evaluator [or ICANN as appropriate].” ACTION ITEM: Delete text (shown via strikethrough) in “Applicants may mark portions of any such responses as “confidential” if the responses include proprietary business information and such portions will not be shared or communicated by the Evaluator.” Add to the AGB terms and conditions section that confidentiality provisions that apply to ICANN should apply to only those who have a need to know including any third party contractors providing dispute or appeals services.” Re: “The potential non-exhaustive list of “Factors”...” ACTION ITEM: Change to “ [that ICANN may consider whether an application was submitted with a bona fide intention to operate the gTLD]” and add in “[The WG discussed the following] potential non-exhaustive list of “Factors”. Put all factors out for public comment. Re: “If an Applicant applies for [four] [five] [four] or more strings...” ACTION ITEM: Put “five” and “four” in brackets. Re: “If an applicant is awarded a top-level domain and sells [attempts to sell] [assigns] the TLD (separate and apart from a sale of all or substantially all of its non-TLD related assets) within (1) year, this may be a factor considered by ICANN in determining non-good faith intent for that applicant.” ACTION ITEM: Figure out a way to put all of the suggestions in brackets for public comment. Also include a question “on applicable penalty in the event of absence of bona fide intent i.e. where there are no other credible explanations for the existence of listed factors, and if not, why not?"” Re: [Additional text proposed by Elaine Pruis: If an applicant with multiple applications resolves contention sets by means other than private auctions and does not win any TLDs.] ACTION ITEM: Include in the list of factors for public comment. Re: “At the end of the String [Similarity] Evaluation period, Applicants in contention sets will be informed of the number of other applications in their contention set, but no other information regarding the other applications will be shared.” ACTION ITEM: Change to “At the end of the String Similarity Evaluation period, Applicants in contention sets will be informed of the number of other applications in their contention set, but no other information regarding the other applications will be shared. All applicants that wish to compete for their applied-for string in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort must submit a sealed bid for each relevant application (“Last Resort Sealed Bids”). Any applicant that does not submit a sealed bid [or withdraw a sealed bid] at this time will be deemed to submit a bid of zero.” Add “Failure to timely submit a sealed bid will result in disqualification to participate in the Auction of Last Resort if held." Re: “[Justine Chew suggested making the following edits (in bold) to the previous bullet point: To the extent any contention sets are shrunk, by having other applications removed from the process (e.g., withdrawal, losing objections, failing evaluation, Community Priority Evaluation identifying only Community-based Applications which prevailed, etc.), applicants will NOT be allowed to adjust their sealed bids. However, in the event of a partial resolution of a contention set through the formation of a business combination or joint venture and the corresponding withdrawal of one or more Applications, the remaining Application AND each of the other existing applications in the contention set will be allowed, but are not required, to submit a new Last Resort Sealed Bid]” ACTION ITEM: Accept the edits suggested by Justine Chew. Re: “auction of last resort” ACTION ITEM: Change to “ICANN Auction of Last Resort”. Make consistent throughout. Re: “Once payment is received [within the specified time period], the applicant may proceed to the Transition to Delegation.” ACTION ITEM: Accept the text in brackets. Re: “ [five (5) business days] of resolution and ICANN must, in turn, publish the same within 72 hours [three (3) business days] of receipt. This includes:” ACTION ITEM: Keep “72 hours” and see what comments come in. Re: “Protections for Disclosing Applicants: Except as otherwise set forth in the transparency requirements above, no participant in any private resolution process shall be required to disclose any proprietary information such as trade secrets, business plans, financial records, or personal information of officers and directors unless such information is otherwise required as part of a standard [normal] TLD application.” ACTION ITEM: Change “standard” to “normal”. Re: “The information obtained from the contention resolution process may not be used by ICANN for any purpose other than as necessary to evaluate the application, evaluate the New gTLD Program, or to otherwise comply with [applicable] law.” ACTION ITEM: Add text in brackets “applicable”. Re: “The Working Group discussed a number of possible alternatives to auctions of last resort for resolving contention [sets],” and “Therefore, the Working Group affirms the use of auctions as a method of last resort to resolve contention [sets],” ACTION ITEM: Adopt the change. Re: “By requiring all applicants to agree to the bona fide use clause, [some in] the Working Group believe...” ACTION ITEM: Adopt the change. Re: “Finally, some in the Working Group remain concerned that the practice of leveraging financial gains in one private auction to resolve other contention sets has not been addressed adequately. [A proposal that would have required sealed bids for private auctions submitted at the same time, which would have prevented the rolling of funds from one auction to another, was discussed but agreement was not possible.]” ACTION ITEM: Adopt concept, making clear that the proposal came from those that were concerned. Re: “Rationale for Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 3): The Working Group believes that second-price, sealed bid auctions are preferable to the ascending bid auctions used in the 2012 round [ICANN Auctions of Last Resort],” ACTION ITEM: Adopt the change – including the bracketed text. Re: “[Susan Payne proposed adding the following paragraph: Some in the Working Group have argued that requiring submission of sealed bids for auctions of last resort before the identity of the identity of other Applicants is known fails to recognize that the value of a TLD to an Applicant may be different depending on who the other potential owners of the TLD are and that applicants should know all the facts available when determining what is an appropriate level to bid.]” ACTION ITEM: Include additional text from Susan Payne – and in following sections. Re: “Rationale for Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 4):” ACTION ITEM: Adopt the suggested text in brackets. 2. Draft Final Report Change Analysis – Questions Highlighted in Yellow ACTION ITEM: Add the questions from the WG discussions on 17 August with respect to private resolutions – implications of not having a bona fide intent (Justine Chew’s comments). 4. Public Comment Survey Tool – Draft PDF ACTION ITEM: Staff will send the PDF of the survey form and the WG will have 24 hours to ask questions on the format (not the content). See the attached PDF. NOTE: This is only a draft; the final survey tool will be updated with the questions resulting from the meeting on 17 August, as well as to correct any possible typos. Note also that the format of the actual survey will differ slightly from the format of the PDF. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. “Can’t Live With” Comments on the new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…> -- start at page 2 Re: “Applicants may mark portions of any such responses as “confidential” if the responses include proprietary business information and such portions will not be shared or communicated by the Evaluator [or ICANN as appropriate].” JP9.4: Jim Prendergast proposed deleting the highlighted text. Rationale: "Similar to my previous point, evaluators are temporary hires. Once the evaluators are done evaluating, what information does ICANN have in order to be able to enforce bona fide intent long-term? If the “Factors” are a suspicion that the applicant didn’t meet that intent, and the evaluators are gone, who is going to raise that concern if ICANN hasn’t seen those concerns." -- Need to control the scope of sharing or build into terms and conditions. -- Those that do reviews should have access to certain information, but not sure that applies to confidential info. -- Looking at the last AGB, confidentiality clause. -- Might need language for the public comment period. -- Who at ICANN would be on the “need to know” list? -- Then let's limit Evaluator disclosure to ICANN to only those who need to know. Problem fixed. -- Wonder if this should be a general term & condition instead of specific to private settlement outcomes? -- Don’t think we should let the applicant designate anything it wants to be confidential. -- The AGB determines what is or isn’t confidential. -- Responses to public questions are never confidential. Responses to non-public questions are always confidential. The others are specified in their contexts. -- Amount of compensation would be confidential, but a change in the board would not be confidential as it isn’t deemed to be by the AGB. ACTION ITEM: Delete text (shown in strikethrough) in “Applicants may mark portions of any such responses as “confidential” if the responses include proprietary business information and such portions will not be shared or communicated by the Evaluator.” Add to the AGB terms and conditions section that confidentiality provisions that apply to ICANN should apply to only those who have a need to know including any third party contractors providing dispute or appeals services.” Re: “The potential non-exhaustive list of “Factors”...” -- Discussion on email, put out for public comments and include “potential” before Factors. -- Get rid of “non-good faith intent” – we are taking about bona fide intent. -- Make the factors Implementation Guidance that the IRT can consider. -- But still put out for public comment – but structure it that these are a potential list of factors that members of the WG discussed. Put them all in and see what comes back in public comment and decide after reviewing comments to either include as policy or Implementation Guidance. -- But my primary comment is "that ICANN may consider in determining whether or not an Applicant had a bona fide intention to operate a...” -- What about asking what are the consequences if the factors aren’t met? ACTION ITEM: Change to “ [that ICANN may consider whether an application was submitted with a bona fide intention to operate the gTLD]” and add in “[The WG discussed the following] potential non-exhaustive list of “Factors”. Put all factors out for public comment. Re: “If an Applicant applies for [four] [five] [four] or more strings...” EP9.1: Elaine Pruis proposes changing "five" to "four." Rationale: "Half of five is 2.5. Use a number that is divisible by 2 and results in a whole number. ACTION ITEM: Put “five” and “four” in brackets. Re: “If an applicant is awarded a top-level domain and sells [attempts to sell] [assigns] the TLD (separate and apart from a sale of all or substantially all of its non-TLD related assets) within (1) year, this may be a factor considered by ICANN in determining non-good faith intent for that applicant.” JC9.2: Justine Chew suggested changing "sells" to "attempts to sell" and also stated "Please include a request for input on penalty for identified occurrence of “no bona fide intent”." Rationale: "• An attempt to sell just the TLD is a better and more timely identifier of intention since “sells” implies an aftert-the-fact event. We should try to “catch”an intention as early as possible. Are we not asking the community for input on applicable penalty in the event of absence of bona fide intent i.e. where there are no other credible explanations for the existence of listed factors, and if not, why not?" ACTION ITEM: Figure out a way to put all of the suggestions in brackets for public comment. Also include a question “on applicable penalty in the event of absence of bona fide intent i.e. where there are no other credible explanations for the existence of listed factors, and if not, why not?"” Re: [Additional text proposed by Elaine Pruis: If an applicant with multiple applications resolves contention sets by means other than private auctions and does not win any TLDs.] EP9.3: Elaine Pruis proposes adding the bracketed text as a new bullet in this list. Rationale: "If ICANN isn’t privy to the material terms of settlements, some resolutions could purposely lose without any money changing hands or business combinations being made. Captures possible “paid (not necessarily in cash) to go away” settlements." ACTION ITEM: Include in the list of factors for public comment. Re: “At the end of the String [Similarity] Evaluation period, Applicants in contention sets will be informed of the number of other applications in their contention set, but no other information regarding the other applications will be shared.” “[Donna Austin proposed alternative text to the previous sentence: All applicants in a contention set will be required to submit a sealed bid for each application in a contention set at this time. This sealed bid will only become relevant if the contention set is resolved through an ICANN Auction of Last Resort. (“Last Resort Sealed Bids”).]” DA9.1: Donna Austin proposed replacing previous bullet with bracketed text. Rationale: "If it’s only applicants that wish to compete for their applied-for string in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort that submit a sealed bid at this point in the process, at what point would applicants who intend to resolve the contention set through private resolution, but end up in a contention set resolution via an ICANN Auction of Last Resort submit their sealed bid? It was my understanding that if one applicant in the contention set opts for the ICANN Auction of Last Resort that negates the preference for private resolution of all the other applicants in the contention set. " -- At what point do the others in the contention set know that it will be resolved by an ICANN auction of last resort and when do they submit their sealed bids? -- Change to: “Any applicant who wishes to contest the contention should submit a sealed bid, which will be held on file in case of an auction of last resort.” -- Any applicant who has not submitted a bid at this point in time will be deemed to have submitted a bid of zero. -- Also make it explicit that at this point an applicant can withdraw from the contention set. -- This is not the AGB. The team that writes the AGB can fill in these details. -- Add "Failure to timely submit a sealed bid will result in disqualification to participate in the Auction of Last Resort if held." ACTION ITEM: Change to “At the end of the String Similarity Evaluation period, Applicants in contention sets will be informed of the number of other applications in their contention set, but no other information regarding the other applications will be shared. All applicants that wish to compete for their applied-for string in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort must submit a sealed bid for each relevant application (“Last Resort Sealed Bids”). Any applicant that does not submit a sealed bid [or withdraw a sealed bid] at this time will be deemed to submit a bid of zero.” Add “Failure to timely submit a sealed bid will result in disqualification to participate in the Auction of Last Resort if held." Re: [Phil Buckingham proposed alternative text to the previous sentence: All applicants on finding themselves in a contention set (on Reveal Day) must submit an additional private ICANN last resort sealed bid for each application ( Last Resort Sealed Bids) within 7 days (in the event that the contention set ends up being resolved by the Final ICANN auction of Last Resort , after all other options have failed). ] PB9.2: Phil Buckingham proposed replacing the previous sentence with bracketed text. Rationale: "Agree with Donna’s comment . We cannot have a situation ( as happened last time) whereby only one applicant refused to go to a private auction and thereby forced an ICANN last resort takes all auction. Have Added a time limit when it needs to be done. " -- Radically different from what the WG has discussed. Could be submitted as a comment in the public comment period. Re: All applications shall be evaluated and are subject to other application procedures (e.g., Initial Evaluation, Extended Evaluation, Objections, GAC Early Warning/Advice, Community Priority Evaluation).” CT9.6: Question from Christa Taylor: "'How are the needs of Applicant Support applicants being considered? i.e. date of the auction, deposit, education, etc.? These references in the process should be included." -- Don’t think any of this changes. It is a good question in terms of communication plans. Re: “all applicants (including both the existing members of the contention set as well as the new members) will be allowed, but are not required, to submit a new Last Resort Sealed Bid.” JP9.5: Jim Prendergast proposed eliminating the opportunity for new bids and forcing parties to rely on previously submitted bids. Rationale: "As I have pointed out, the proposal as written falls short in addressing Board concerns with gaming. The submission of new bids provides more gaming incentives. While waiting for the string confusion objections to come through on this contention set, the applicant could be losing other contention sets in the meantime and building up a bigger bid for this set. Instead of preventing this behavior, allowing new bid submissions actually expands the opportunity for this activity. " -- Good to file a comment on this. Re: “However, in the event of a partial resolution of a contention set through the formation of a business combination or joint venture and the corresponding withdrawal of one or more Applications, the remaining Application AND existing members of the contention set will be allowed, but are not required, to submit a new Last Resort Sealed Bid.” CT9.5: Christa Taylor suggested adding a reference an LOI which can be provided to ICANN as evidence. Rationale: "Confusing. If applicants enter into a JV or business combination before the TLD is acquired, all parties will be able to submit a new bid provided that one applicant has withdrawn their application? This is difficult to do without first acquiring the asset." -- Add “or the intention of forming a business combination”? -- Christa will check for the reference. Re: “[Justine Chew suggested making the following edits (in bold) to the previous bullet point: To the extent any contention sets are shrunk, by having other applications removed from the process (e.g., withdrawal, losing objections, failing evaluation, Community Priority Evaluation identifying only Community-based Applications which prevailed, etc.), applicants will NOT be allowed to adjust their sealed bids. However, in the event of a partial resolution of a contention set through the formation of a business combination or joint venture and the corresponding withdrawal of one or more Applications, the remaining Application AND each of the other existing applications in the contention set will be allowed, but are not required, to submit a new Last Resort Sealed Bid]” JC9.3: Justine Chew suggested making the edits in bold to the paragraph above. Rationale: "• An attempt to account for possibility of CPE limiting only Community-based applications which prevailed which can proceed to an auction. Just avoiding use of the phrase “existing members of the contention set” and making it clear that each of the other existing applications may submit a new bid. (word-smithing)" -- These aren’t substantive changes. Only for clarity. ACTION ITEM: Accept the edits suggested by Justine Chew. Re: “auction of last resort” DA9.2: Comment from Donna Austin: "I believe that where ‘auction of last resort’ is used we mean ICANN Auction of Last Resort. Rather than use the terms interchangeably it would be best if the same term can be used for consistency and remove possibility for confusion." ACTION ITEM: Change to “ICANN Auction of Last Resort”. Make consistent throughout. Re: “Once payment is received [within the specified time period], the applicant may proceed to the Transition to Delegation.” JC9.4: Justine Chew suggested adding the bracketed text, and additional new bullet in brackets. Rationale: "• A time limit for payment needs to be mentioned. Query: Is there a reason why we have not specified what would happen if an applicant which succeeded in an auction does not pay within the specified time period? Consequence suggested." ACTION ITEM: Accept the text in brackets. Re: “ [five (5) business days] of resolution and ICANN must, in turn, publish the same within 72 hours [three (3) business days] of receipt. This includes:” CT9.7: Christa Taylor proposed alternate timeframes (in brackets). Rationale: "72 hours does not provide the applicant with sufficient time to meet all of the settlement terms & conditions, legal agreements, funding requirements, share registrars, etc. No reference to working days. " ACTION ITEM: Keep “72 hours” and see what comments come in. Re: “Protections for Disclosing Applicants: Except as otherwise set forth in the transparency requirements above, no participant in any private resolution process shall be required to disclose any proprietary information such as trade secrets, business plans, financial records, or personal information of officers and directors unless such information is otherwise required as part of a standard [normal] TLD application.” JC9.6: Justine Chew suggested changing "standard" to "normal." Rationale: "Use of “a standard TLD application” – in the AGB “standard application” is specifically distinguished from “community-based application”, so we don’t mean to exclude any community-based applications from transparency requirements." ACTION ITEM: Change “standard” to “normal”. Re: “The information obtained from the contention resolution process may not be used by ICANN for any purpose other than as necessary to evaluate the application, evaluate the New gTLD Program, or to otherwise comply with [applicable] law.” JC9.7: Justine Chew suggested adding the word "applicable." Rationale: "Word missing?" ACTION ITEM: Add text in brackets “applicable”. Re: “The Working Group discussed a number of possible alternatives to auctions of last resort for resolving contention [sets],” and “Therefore, the Working Group affirms the use of auctions as a method of last resort to resolve contention [sets],” JC9.8: Justine Chew suggested adding the word "sets" after "contention" ACTION ITEM: Adopt the change. Re: “By requiring all applicants to agree to the bona fide use clause, [some in] the Working Group believe...” JP9.6: Jim Prendergast proposed adding the bracketed text. Rationale: "There wasn’t broad agreement in the WG that this effort fully mitigated concerns." ACTION ITEM: Adopt the change. Re: “Finally, some in the Working Group remain concerned that the practice of leveraging financial gains in one private auction to resolve other contention sets has not been addressed adequately. [A proposal that would have required sealed bids for private auctions submitted at the same time, which would have prevented the rolling of funds from one auction to another, was discussed but agreement was not possible.]” JP9.7: Jim Prendergast proposed adding the bracketed text. Rationale: "I think its important to mention the group considered sealed bid proposal as a viable solution to this practice but could not reach agreement." -- In the dependent clause change "which would have" to :"which may have" or just strike the dependent clause as the commentary on the deliberations that it is.  ACTION ITEM: Adopt concept, making clear that the proposal came from those that were concerned. Re: “Rationale for Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 3): The Working Group believes that second-price, sealed bid auctions are preferable to the ascending bid auctions used in the 2012 round [ICANN Auctions of Last Resort],” DA9.3: Donna Austin proposed adding the bracketed text. Rationale: "It’s unclear whether this refers only to ICANN Auctions of Last Resort or private resolution auctions—I have assumed ICANN Auctions of Last Resort, but it would be helpful if this is explicit." ACTION ITEM: Adopt the change – including the bracketed text. Re: “because [this method eliminates collusion and bid rigging; it is the preferred method used by governments to allocate critical resources; bidders are forced to value the TLD in absolute terms; and] second price auctions reduce the risk of “bidding wars” that can occur in ascending bid auctions.” EP9.5: Elaine Pruis proposes adding the text in brackets if Susan Payne's proposed text against second-price, sealed bid auctions is accepted/included. Rationale: "IF Susan Payne’s language arguing the counterpoints against second-price, sealed bid auctions is accepted/included, THEN the benefits of second-price, sealed bid auctions should be expounded upon in this section." -- Keep the original text. Re: “[Susan Payne proposed adding the following paragraph: Some in the Working Group have argued that requiring submission of sealed bids for auctions of last resort before the identity of the identity of other Applicants is known fails to recognize that the value of a TLD to an Applicant may be different depending on who the other potential owners of the TLD are and that applicants should know all the facts available when determining what is an appropriate level to bid.]” SP9.2: Susan Payne suggested adding a new paragraph. Rationale: "The text for this rationale implies that all in the working group support the whole of the recommendation. This is not the case, particularly with respect to the timing of bid submission. A number of WG members have pointed out that the value of a TLD to a bidding party can vary, depending on who else is in the contention set, and so do not favour bid submission being required before this information is available. Whilst this is not a view supported by everyone, the draft report does not currently reflect that there is this divergence. " ACTION ITEM: Include additional text from Susan Payne – and in following sections. Re: “Rationale for Implementation Guidance xx (Rationale 4):” ACTION ITEM: Adopt the suggested text in brackets. 3. Draft Final Report Change Analysis – Questions Highlighted in Yellow (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding): https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1Kg… ACTION ITEM: Add the questions from the WG discussions on 17 August with respect to private resolutions – implications of not having a bona fide intent (Justine Chew’s comments). 4. Public Comment Survey Tool – Draft PDF ACTION ITEM: Staff will send the PDF of the survey form and the WG will have 24 hours to ask questions on the format (not the content). 5. Schedule: -- Post for comment the Draft Final Report by 21 August. -- Begin meetings on 03 September. -- Close comment period at the end of September. -- Leadership will send a list of possible topics to discuss during the public comment period.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 17 August 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Aug. 17, 2020

Aug. 17, 2020

It is our pleasure Anne 😊 All the best, Terri From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Monday, August 17, 2020 at 12:21 PM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 17 August 2020 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Terri. We really appreciate all your help! From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 9:44 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 17 August 2020 at 15:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 17 August 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/lgGNC> (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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 17 August 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Aug. 17, 2020

Aug. 17, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 17 August 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/lgGNC> (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

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review
by Alexander Schubert Aug. 15, 2020

Aug. 15, 2020

I think we can do this easier:At submission the system generates an automated, random 16 digit number: which is being revealed to the applicant. The programming effort is zero: real random numbers are available on the Internet at no to little cost (physically generated, real random numbers: not CPU generated).That number may become handy in all kinds of unintended incidents later. Among them: what if two bids are identical? Two zero Dollar bids are identical bids. The higher random 16 digit number wins - the second highest bid has to be paid (which is either US $0 or whatever the identical bid amount was).We could use these numbers for prioritization as well. I don't see why the Californian State Government should be in a position to dictate ICANN whether or not it may use randomization for application queuing. It's not a lottery - it's a preempted randomization of application processing. How would that be subject to scrutiny by the State Government? Those who don't want to be prioritized can opt out either during the application submission or at any point thereafter by simply logging into the application system and unticking a box (can't be reverted, though).AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Donna(a)registry.godaddy Date: 8/15/20 02:18 (GMT+02:00) To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review  That doesn’t work for me Rubens. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 3:59 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review Notice: This email is from an external sender. If applicant didn't submit a sealed bid in the allowed timeframe, we can assign 0 to its bid value. If the applicant is the only survivor of the contention set, it gets the TLD, even with a 0 bid. If more than one applicant didn't submit a bid, then all should be terminated, the TLD not allocated in that procedure and the TLD made available in a subsequent procedure. Rubens On 14 Aug 2020, at 19:16, Donna(a)registry.godaddy wrote: Sorry for setting hares racing—my comments inline below—I think this is a drafting issue: From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 12:20 PM To: Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review Notice: This email is from an external sender. All, I wanted to reply to a particular thread on the E-mail list that we did not get to yesterday during our call. I think we have a couple of issues here all stemming from misunderstandings (which could be a text issue that we can fix). I believe Donna read the original text in a way that it was not intended (but again that could be a drafting issue); andI believe Phil B. misread Donna’s comment to mean something I don’t think Donna intended; andRubens and Justine commented on Phil’s misreading of Donna’s comment. So, let me try to add some clarity. On Donna’s original point. The language states: “At the end of the String Evaluation period, Applicants in contention sets will be informed of the number of other applications in their contention set, but no other information regarding the other applications will be shared. Any applicants that wish to compete for their applied-for string in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort must submit a sealed bid for each relevant application (“Last Resort Sealed Bids”). Donna took that to mean that to mean that Applicants could force other applicants to resolve their contention sets through private auctions (even if one applicant did not want to). DA: No I didn’t take it to mean that at all. My point was, as noted in my issues document: If it’s only applicants that wish to compete for their applied-for string in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort that submit a sealed bid at this point in the process, at what point would applicants who intend to resolve the contention set through private resolution, but end up in a contention set resolution via an ICANN Auction of Last Resort submit their sealed bid? It was my understanding that if one applicant in the contention set opts for the ICANN Auction of Last Resort that negates the preference for private resolution of all the other applicants in the contention set. For example: you have six applicants that have applied for the same string. Two submit sealed bids because they want to compete for the string in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort. Four don’t submit a sealed bid because they prefer private resolution. At what point will the ‘four’ be informed that the contention set will be resolved via an ICANN Auction of Last Resort (because If one party does not agree, the contention set will go to an ICANN Auction of Last Resort) and they will need to submit a sealed bid if they wish to continue? That was not the intent. An ICANN Auction of Last Resort is voluntary as well. You cannot force an applicant to participate in an ICANN Auction. The Intent of that sentence was that an applicant after finding out that there were other applicants for the string could decide that it wanted to withdraw it application. Or if it were a community based applicant, it could decide to stay in until CPE, but if it didn’t qualify, not compete in an ICANN Auction (meaning essentially it would be withdrawing its application at that point). DA: If that’s the intent of the sentence then it needs to explicitly say that. Donna’s proposed new language, however, states: “All applicants in a contention set will be required to submit a sealed bid for each application in a contention set at this time. This sealed bid will only become relevant if the contention set is resolved through an ICANN Auction of Last Resort. (“Last Resort Sealed Bids”). i. This doesn’t work either because it does not allow for applicants to withdraw and/or does not let a community applicant have the option of going through CPE and then, only if not successful, withdrawing. ii. Sure an applicant can submit a sealed bid of $1.00 which essentially would be like withdrawing anyway, but there still should be a choice. Therefore, my proposal would be to keep the language as is, but add a bullet point to Recommendation CC (Rationale 2); that makes it clear that a contention set may only be ultimately resolved through private resolution if ALL applicants in the contention set agree. If one party does not agree, the contention set will go to an ICANN Auction of Last Resort. DA: But that doesn’t address my concern about at what point applicants that did not submit a sealed bid will be required to do so? Does this make sense? I hope it clears some things up. If not, I am sure we will discuss on Monday anyway. Thanks. Jeff <image002.png> 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: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 11:23 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review I fully support Rubens' position on this. Justine ----- On Thu, 13 Aug 2020, 10:46 Rubens Kuhl, <rubensk(a)nic.br> wrote: Cannot live with rationale. Agree with (b) Donna’s comment . We cannot have a situation ( as happened last time) whereby o

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 17 August at 15:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 14, 2020

Aug. 14, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Monday, 17 August 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. “Can’t Live With” Comments on the new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…> -- start at page 2 3. Draft Final Report Change Analysis – Questions Highlighted in Yellow (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding): https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1Kg… 4. Public Comment Survey Tool – Draft PDF (to be provided) 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 on Thursday, 13 August 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 13, 2020

Aug. 13, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 13 August 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/lAGNC> (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 Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 August at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 13, 2020

Aug. 13, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 13 August 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/2020-08-13+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: 1. Comments on the Draft Final Report Public Comment Survey: ACTION ITEM: Provide a draft PDF for WG members to see during the meeting on 17 August. 2. Predictability Framework: Possible Policy Level - New Proposals that May Have Policy Implication E. Description: These are new mechanisms that may be considered to be within the remit of policy development. Examples include: -- The development of a new contract specification (e.g., public interest commitments); ACTION ITEM: Leadership team to consider if there is a way to include this example as something that does not require involvement of the SPIRT because it is clearly policy. Consider a footnote in this section. 3. Predictability: a. SPIRT: Conflicts of Interests: ACTION ITEM: Update the document with new text from Kathy Kleiman and suggested edits from Anne Aikman-Scalese. b. Closed Generics: Proposals: ACTION ITEM: Add links to proposals with titles and authors. Leadership to look at moving it closer to beginning of deliberations section. MT8.1: Marc Tractenberg proposed edits to the previous paragraph (in bold). Rationale: "The proposed wording limits comments to the three proposals. It should also solicit other proposals from the community, if any" ACTION ITEM: Adjust the text so that we aren’t directly asking for new proposals. 4. Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Affirmation xx with modification (Rationale 1): ACTION ITEM: Add suggested text in brackets. Re: Recommendation xx (Rationale 2): ACTION ITEM: Adopt with additional text deleted. Re: “All contention sets resolved through private resolution shall adhere to the transparency requirements set forth in the Transparency Section [Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements] in the relevant recommendation.” ACTION ITEM: Adopt text in brackets. Re: Recommendation xx (Rationale 2): Applications must be submitted with a bona fide (“good faith”) intention to operate the gTLD. Applicants must affirmatively attest to a bona fide use [intent] clause for any and all applications that they submit. ACTION ITEM: Add the new text: “Applicants must affirmatively attest to a bona fide intention to operate the gTLD..” Re: “clause for any and all applications that they submit.” CT9.2: Christa Taylor proposed removing "any and." Rationale: "All covers everything." ACTION ITEM: Add the suggested text. Re: “Evaluators [and ICANN] must be able to ask clarifying questions to any applicant it believes may not be submitting an application with a bona fide intent. Evaluators [and ICANN]...” ACTION ITEM: Add the text in brackets. 5. Comments on the Draft Final Report Change Analysis (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding): https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1Kg… ACTION ITEM: WG members should review the questions highlighted in the above document. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Comments on the Draft Final Report -- Preamble (minus Predictability Framework and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction)) attached and available here, on an ongoing basis as the document is updated: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report Public Comment Survey: -- If the WG finalizes the language of the draft Final Report Change Analysis on 13 August then a PDF could be ready to send by 17 August. ACTION ITEM: Provide a draft PDF for WG members to see during the meeting on 17 August. What is the WG doing during the Public Comment Period: -- Getting a head start on some areas still under discussion. -- Leadership will send a list of topics. Preamble: -- Trying to avoid getting the same comments as on the Initial and Supplemental reports. -- “Respondents are discouraged from repeating input that has been provided in previous public comment periods, as this feedback has been extensively discussed and taken into account in the development of the draft Final Report.” -- Includes a list of New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Initial Report -- Topics are renumbered, but in order, starting at number one, to simplify. Discussion: -- WG members reserve the right to reiterate comments made before if they have not been taken into account. -- There is a strong interdependence between WT5 and Closed Generics: We have never discussed how "Closed Generics" (outside of Brand Spec-13) would be governed in regards to Geo terms. We always said either a string is protected by only being used by a brand - or it was open for registration. With Closed Generics all these assurances are suddenly evaporate into air. So if we allowed closed generics we have to go back to WT5. -- We will come back to this issue. 3. Comments on the Predictability Framework and the one new additional paragraph in the Closed Generics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPl… Can’t Live With Comments: -- Re: “The GNSO Council shall be responsible for oversight of the SPIRT” and -- Re: “All recommendations are subject to the review and oversight of the GNSO Council, who maintains the discretion on whether or not to adopt the recommendations.” -- Re: SPIRIT Role CW8.1: Christopher Wilkinson proposes Deleting references to GNSO Council throughout and replacing with alternative decisional entity. Rationale: "GNSO Council is not credible as arbitrator in this context (a) committed in principle to their 2007 and 2012 policies which have never been endorsed by the PDP, (b) dominated by incumbent interests and ( c) perceived conflicts of interest. Inappropriate for any one of the SO/AC to rule over a multi-stakeholder entity." CW8.2: Christopher Wilkinson proposes deleting references to GNSO Council throughout and replacing with alternative decisional entity. Rationale: "GNSO Council is not credible as arbitrator in this context (a) committed in principle to their 2007 and 2012 policies which have never been endorsed by the PDP, (b) dominated by incumbent interests and ( c) perceived conflicts of interest. Inappropriate for any one of the SO/AC to rule over a multi-stakeholder entity." CW8.3: Christopher Wilkinson states "complete redraft required." Rationale: "The purpose appears to be to denigrate and emasculate any input from any SO/AC other than GNSO. This is not acceptable." Discussion: -- As this is a PDP the GNSO Council is the decisional authority. -- As to Predictability Framework, the GNSO Council powers referred to in the intro to that section are contained in the ByLaws of ICANN. -- Changing the decision-making structure of the GNSO is out of scope for the PDP WG. -- This concern can be filed as a public comment. Possible Policy Level - New Proposals that May Have Policy Implication E. Description: These are new mechanisms that may be considered to be within the remit of policy development. Examples include: -- The development of a new contract specification (e.g., public interest commitments); KK8.1: Kathy Kleiman proposed replacing this highlighted example with "The development of changes to the rights protections mechanisms which protect trademark owners in the new gTLD process);" Rationale: "I don’t recognize this example: The development of a new contract specification (e.g., public interest commitments); I thought the example we had used of a clear policy issue throughout our discussions was an intellectual property change" Discussion: -- Didn’t include this example (RPMs) because it was so clearly policy. -- A change to the RPMs Policy would go straight to the GNSO, not to the SPIRT. -- Find a way to put that example in the text. ACTION ITEM: Leadership team to consider if there is a way to include this example as something that does not require involvement of the SPIRT because it is clearly policy. Consider a footnote in this section. SPIRT: Conflicts of Interest: [New text proposed by Kathy Kleiman in addition to the two bullets above]: In the issue of full transparency to other members of the SPIRT and to the public, members of the SPIRT agree to disclose on a regular and ongoing basis that an issue being debated and discussed [addressed] by the SPIRT involves an application of which a SPIRT member has a direct interest, including as applicant, and/or through their firm, company or client. This disclosure shall be open, transparent and on the public report of the SPIRT meeting, and a “Statement of Involvement or Direct Interest” should start every SPIRT meeting.] KK8.2: Kathy Kleiman suggests adding new text (bracketed below). Of the highlighted bullets, she states "This does not reflect the clear agreement of the group. What we agreed is that SPIRT members are likely to be making decisions on matters that impact a) their own applications or b) their firms’ applications, their clients’ applications or other applications in which [as to which] they have a direct interest. We discussed and agreed that the SPIRT member herself/himself is in the best position to know that this direct interest is taking place – and to disclosure *on a regular and ongoing basis.* Note: we further agreed that recusal is not a requirement, but disclosure on a regular and going basis is (as agreed by the WG)." Discussion: -- Concept is what we discussed. -- Don’t created a new “Statement of Involvement or Direct Interest” document. -- Take on Anne Aikman-Scalese’s edits. ACTION ITEM: Update the document with new text from Kathy Kleiman and suggested edits from Anne Aikman-Scalese. Closed Generics: KK8.3: Kathy Kleiman proposed moving this paragraph higher and adding to (in clear bullet points), the three - titles, - authors, and - links to the 3 new proposals on Closed Generics discussion. Rationale: "Where are the three proposals? Shouldn’t we be listing them out, with their titles and authors, and links, to give comments an incentive and interest to find them? This new paragraph is five pages down in the Closed Generic discussion. In light of all the work that it reflects, and the hope we have for it providing some solid input into the WG for next steps – isn’t this much too far down? (A bit like burying the magic key in a place that no one will find it?)" ACTION ITEM: Add links to proposals with titles and authors. Leadership to look at moving it closer to beginning of deliberations section. Closed Generics: Proposals: ACTION ITEM: Add links to proposals with titles and authors. Leadership to look at moving it closer to beginning of deliberations section. MT8.1: Marc Tractenberg proposed edits to the previous paragraph (in bold). Rationale: "The proposed wording limits comments to the three proposals. It should also solicit other proposals from the community, if any" New text in Bold from Marc: “as well as any other proposals members of the community may with respect to the availability of closed generic strings.Any feedback is appreciated. The Working Group is particularly interested to hear from the community about which proposals, if any, they believe warrant further consideration by the Working Group, and why or if there are any other proposals that members of the community may have with respect to the availability of closed generic strings.” Discussion: -- Now we are asking for new proposals. Would appear to change the paragraph. -- See if there’s a way to reword it so that we aren’t directly asking for new proposals. ACTION ITEM: Adjust the text so that we aren’t directly asking for new proposals. Re: “Establish an objections process modelled on community objections.” MC8.1: Marc Tractenberg proposed removing this sentence. Rationale: "This language does not accurately capture our proposal/option. We proposed an option with no additional conditions for closed generics but did not propose that there should be any objections process based on community application objections" Re: “Divergent views were expressed on these options...” CW8.4: Christopher Wilkinson suggests adding: "One member stated that the extreme privatisation of generic words in any language (such as in ‘closed generics’ as currently defined) would not be acceptable internationally. Furthermore, the current composition of the PDP is not representative of the interests of languages and scripts, world-wide, other than English." Rationale: "The report is incomplete." Re: “Some Working Group members felt that it may not be possible to define the public interest, but it may be possible to entrust an entity to judge whether a proposed Closed Generic is or is not in the public interest.” MC8.2: Marc Tractenberg proposed editing the highlighted text to read: "Some Working Group members felt that it is not possible to define the public interest in any way that can be meangfully applied to new gTLDs. Some other Working Group members believed that it may be possible to entrust an entity to judge whether a proposed Closed Generic is or is not in the public interest." Rationale: "You have not captured the view of some working group members including myself, Kurt, Mike, and Paul (and even Alex to some extent) that it simply is not possible to define the public interest. We did not say and do not agree that it would be possible to entrust an entity to judge whether a proposed Closed Generic is or is not in the public interest and we do not agree this is possible" Discussion: -- Make it clear with Marc concerning Option 4. 4. Comments on the new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…> a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Affirmation xx with modification (Rationale 1): Re: “The revision to part i) specifies that any private resolution of contention must be in accordance with the Application Guidebook and supporting documents, including the Application Change request process [and Terms and Conditions].” JP9.1: Jim Prendergast proposed adding the bracketed text. Rationale: "We’ve made several updates to what will be included in the Ts&Cs regarding disclosure and this should be referenced here." Discussion: -- Addition is clearer. ACTION ITEM: Add suggested text in brackets. Re: Recommendation xx (Rationale 2): Consistent with the Application Change processes set forth under Topic 20: Application Change Requests, the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) must reflect that applicants will be permitted to creatively resolve contention sets in a multitude of manners, including but not limited to business combinations or other forms of joint ventures and private resolutions (including private auctions). All private resolutions reached by means of forming business combinations or other joint ventures resulting in the withdrawal of one or more applications are likely to result in material changes to the surviving application and to the extent they do, must follow the Application Change processes set forth under Topic 20 as all material changes require; material changes may require reevaluation of some or all of the new resulting application. JP9.2: Jim Prendergast proposed deleting the highlighted text. Rationale: "Material changes may not always be the result in a private resolution settlement. The terms of a business combination may not meet the requirements for terms of “material changes”. Also, the use of the words “likely” and “to the extent they do” don’t present a value add to this statement. They actually introduce an opportunity for applicants to subjectively determine if they must follow the application change process." Discussion: -- Think there is already a safeguard there. -- We already say, “as all material changes require”. -- WG wanted that this would go through the change request anyway. ACTION ITEM: Adopt with additional text deleted. Re: “All contention sets resolved through private resolution shall adhere to the transparency requirements set forth in the Transparency Section [Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements] in the relevant recommendation.” CT9.1: Christa Taylor proposed changing "Transparency Section" to "Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements." Rationale: "Update reference." ACTION ITEM: Adopt text in brackets. Re: Recommendation xx (Rationale 2): Applications must be submitted with a bona fide (“good faith”) intention to operate the gTLD. Applicants must affirmatively attest to a bona fide use [intent] clause for any and all applications that they submit. JC9.1: Justine Chew proposed replacing "use" with "intent" here and elsewhere. Rationale: "Query: The first sentence refers to “bona fide” intention to operate the gTLD while in the next sentence refers to “bona fide use”. We have proceeded to try to describe what “bona fide” is not but have we been defined what “use” is? In the TLD Rollout section, didn’t we say that we don’t have an agreed definition of “use”?" ACTION ITEM: Add the new text: “Applicants must affirmatively attest to a bona fide intention to operate the gTLD..” Re: “clause for any and all applications that they submit.” CT9.2: Christa Taylor proposed removing "any and." Rationale: "All covers everything.” ACTION ITEM: Accept the change. Re: “Evaluators [and ICANN] must be able to ask clarifying questions to any applicant it believes may not be submitting an application with a bona fide intent. Evaluators [and ICANN]...” JP9.3: Jim Prendergast proposed adding "and ICANN" in two places. Rationale: "Referencing the “Factors”, each of these factors are post-evaluation or post-delegation. Requiring the evaluators to consider these factors to determine bona fide intent is pointless and irrelevant. These factors, as written, are suited for ICANN’s consideration post-evaluation/ delegation. Need consistency in the document as to who should consider these factors. At a minimum, ICANN should be involved in the process from the beginning, not just outside evaluators." Discussion: -- Jim’s changes make sense. -- Re: “intention to operate the gTLD” versus “use” – not sure there is a difference. -- Re: “lacking a bona fide use intent.” Need to consider better wording. -- intention to operate the gTLD ACTION ITEM: Add the text in brackets. Start here for the meeting on Monday: Re: “Applicants may mark portions of any such responses as “confidential” if the responses include proprietary business information and such portions will not be shared or communicated by the Evaluator.” JP9.4: Jim Prendergast proposed deleting the highlighted text. Rationale: "Similar to my previous point, evaluators are temporary hires. Once the evaluators are done evaluating, what information does ICANN have in order to be able to enforce bona fide intent long-term? If the “Factors” are a suspicion that the applicant didn’t meet that intent, and the evaluators are gone, who is going to raise that concern if ICANN hasn’t seen those concerns." And at the “The non-exhaustive list of “Factors”” 5. Comments on the Draft Final Report Change Analysis (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding): https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1Kg… ACTION ITEM: WG members should review the questions highlighted in the above document.

1 0

Fwd: Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review
by Phil Buckingham Aug. 12, 2020

Aug. 12, 2020

Hi Steve, Please find enclosed one of my comments on proposed changes to auctions. Many thanks, Phil Phil Buckingham Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Phil Buckingham <phil(a)dotadvice.co.uk> > Date: 12 August 2020 at 23:47:51 BST > To: gnso-secs(a)icann.org > Cc: steve.chan(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review > > Hi Steve, > Please find one of my ( two) comments on proposed changes to auctions. > Unfortunately I have no access to a laptop or word ! > Re recommendation xx Rationale 2 > The non exhaustive list of Factors may include , but are not limited to : > > If an applicant applies for 5 or more strings that are within contention sets and private auctions for more than fifty percent ( 50%) ....... > This may be a factor considered by ICANN > > Can’t live with Rationale > Half of five is 2 .5 . Use a whole number ! Applicant need to prove its use of funds in its contention sets . This will be required by the Financial Evaluators for a re evaluation anyway ! > Proposed change of text : > If an applicant applies for 5 or more strings that are within contention sets and participated in 3 private auctions for which the applicant is the losing bidder and receives proceeds from the successful bidder it MUST send to the evaluators a detailed reconciliation statement of its auction fund receipts and expenditure immediately on completion of its final contention set resolution . > > In addition this may be considered a factor by the evaluators & ICANN in determining non good faith intent for all of its applications and in doing so might stop all its applications continuing to delegation. > > Thanks > > Phil Buckingham > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 12 Aug 2020, at 19:54, Pruis, Elaine via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Please find attached my comments and proposed changes on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets. >> >> Elaine Pruis >> Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy >> epruis(a)verisign.com >> 703.948.4672 >> <image001.png> >> >> >> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> >> Date: Friday, August 7, 2020 at 11:36 AM >> To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review >> >> Dear WG Members, >> >> As discussed and agreed on the 6 August WG call, we have compiled a consolidated list of materials for you all to review in advance of seeking to finalize the draft Final Report for public comment, as early as 13 August 2020. >> >> For review and feedback no later than Thursday, 13 August (and for discussion on the WG call that same day) >> Draft Final Report Change Analysis (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding):https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6P… >> Draft Final Report (minus Predictability Framework and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction)) attached and available here, on an ongoing basis as the document is updated: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report >> >> Per Emily’s email, comments on the Predictability Framework and the one new additional paragraph in the Closed Generics are due 11 August at 23:59 UTC. Review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPl…. Feedback form is attached. >> >> NEW! - The new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), comments due 12 August at 23:59 UTC – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…. Again, feedback form is attached. >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. >> >> Best, >> Steve >> >> >> Steven Chan >> >> Policy Director, GNSO Support >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 >> >> >> Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org >> Skype: steve.chan55 >> Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 >> >> Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ >> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar >> <Issues Sheet - SubPro Draft Final Recommendations - 12 Aug 20Auctions Pruis.docx> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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.

1 0

Very High Level Proposal on Closed Generics - PERSONAL PROPOSAL
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 12, 2020

Aug. 12, 2020

This proposal is being sent out by me personally and NOT the Leadership Team (who hasn't even seen this yet). It is not an indication of where I think we are, but just a VERY HIGH LEVEL approach to solicit comments. I appreciate all of the proposals that have come in recently on how to deal with Closed Generics, but I wanted to try a much higher level proposal that attempts to take points from a number of previous proposals and extract some of the points where I thought we had some agreement. The more in the weeds we get, the more it appears we get stuck. I, at one time, also had a lot of details in my original proposal, but I stripped them all out. We need to recognize that there is no definition of public interest. The only real viable ones you can find in legal dictionaries or other treatises and other documents is usually circular - namely public interest is that which the public deems it to be. So, I tried to go back to the basics: ******************************************************************** Background The GAC issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD Program through its Beijing<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Final_GAC_Communique…> Communiqué dated 11 April 2013. In the Beijing Communiqué, the GAC advised the Board that, "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal". As part of its response to the GAC Advice, ICANN solicited comments from the community on this issue. Comments from the community expressed a diversity of views on how, and whether the Board should implement the GAC advice. Ultimately, on 21 June 2016, the ICANN Board passed a resolution<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06…> "requesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue." Proposal for our Draft Final Report The Implementation Review Team must create a Framework for Evaluating Closed Generic applications to determine whether those applications "serve a legitimate public interest goal." In order to serve a legitimate public interest goal, the following criteria, at a minimum, must be satisfied: * The TLD must serve a broad base of end users above and beyond the interests of the individual registry operator. For purposes of this statement, end users mean those toward which the content and use of the TLD is directed. End Users do not mean domain name registrants. * The TLD must serve a demonstrated and legitimate need of that broad base of end users. * A governance council of "end users" must be established to ensure the TLD continues serving its legitimate public interest ("Governance Council"). The following factors should be used by the IRT to create such a Framework and determining whether the proposed Closed Generic application "serves a public interest goal." · Why is the selected string necessary for your registry / Why did you choose this string at the exclusion of others? · How does the proposed closed registry serve the public interest? · How does the proposed mission and purpose of the registry support such use and why must it be a closed model? · What is the likely effect on competition of awarding the proposed closed registry for the same or similar goods and/or services? o Are there other strings already delegated that serve the Applicant's industry which can be utilized by competitors? o If not, are there reasonable alternatives to the string that may be utilized by other entities in the Applicant's industry in the then-current round or if proposed during a subsequent round? · Who are the intended "users" or beneficiaries of the TLD? · What are the benefits to those users or beneficiaries of the TLD? · What will the governance of the TLD be and who will constitute the Governance Council? Rules * If there are more than one other application for the same or a confusingly similar string (eg., there is a contention set for the string), then none of those applications will be allowed to be a Closed Generic. * A Public Interest Panel shall be appointed by the ICANN Board to evaluate whether the application and the proposed use of the Closed Generic TLD serves a legitimate public interest goal. * All commitments made by the TLD Applicant in demonstrating its use will serve a public interest goal must be incorporated into the Registry Agreement as Public Interest Commitments. * The Closed Registry may not modify any Public Interest Commitments unless those changes are approved by the Governance Council and the ICANN Board after a public comment period. * In the event the Registry is assigned to a third party (either by Agreement or by operation of law), all of the terms and conditions imposed on the original registry must be absorbed by the new registry including the Public Interest Commitments. * A Closed Generic may at any time be converted to an Open (or Open Restricted TLD) at any time, provided that at the time of such conversion, the Registry must follow all of the rules applicable to Open TLDs, including the launch of a Sunrise Process, Trademark Claims, etc. In addition, the Registry must give up the use of all names other than the 100 names reserved under the Registry Agreement for the operation of the TLD. [cid:image001.png@01D669B6.4448BBB0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com

6 7

Updated Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 06 August 2020
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 12, 2020

Aug. 12, 2020

**Updated agenda wiki page hyperlink below** Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 06 August 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/kAGNC> (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 Andrea _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!PtGJab4…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!PtGJab4!os…>). 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.

1 0

Closed Generics - WE HAVE THEM ALREADY
by Alexander Schubert Aug. 11, 2020

Aug. 11, 2020

In that regard a question, as it seems we already have a ton of closed generics that clearly violate Spec-13 and Spec-11 (unless I misinterpret the registry agreements): In the 2017 Registry Agreement (“RA”; see https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approve…) it says in Spec 11 (at the very end): Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others. Looking at the SPEC-13 registries I spot tons of these terms. A simple test is to conduct a google picture search, and see what pops up: is it consistently a product or the target brand? Or: Is it clearly a good, service or thing – and there is no synonym existing? * .windows (glas panes with a frame: there is literally no other term existing) * .case (typically a mobile phone protection; all pics show mobile phone cases) * .silk (you see only pictures of “silk”, there is no synonym existing) * .visa (the permission to visit another country; most pics show VISA Cards, but quite a lot of U.S. visas, too; and the only matching term as generic word) * .caravan (there is no real other word, maybe “camper”, photos show generic caravans) * .gmo (which all the world understands a “Genetically Modified Organism” – and that’s what pic search shows) Leaving aside all these (as one could argue they aren’t goods or services, but many of them are “things” or “groups”): .mango, .apple, .orange, .smart, .dish, .frontier, .fox, .fire, .crown, .duck, .sling, .total, .next, .mint, .seat, .monster, .off, .open, .pioneer, .prime, .progressive, .ram, .raid, .target, .vanish, .brother, .boots, .seek, .shell, .sharp, .active, .seven, .canon, .mini, .sky, .chrome, .ice, .nexus, In that regard: Does this WG attempt to crack down on the abuse of Spec-13/Spec-11? How do we want to avoid that a registry based on a “a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things” will exclude the public from registering domains? This is obviously something that already went south in the 2012 round – and one might expect that this only gets worse in the coming round. As “outsiders” will enter the ICANN rounds we should make it very clear in the applicant guidebook that while brands may operate closed registries; but they should carefully consider whether they violate Spec-11. I assume that some “clever people” will register generic term based trademarks (you can register a generic term based TM in almost all jurisdictions as long as the goods and services described are far away from the generic term meaning - or you buy an unused one: most gerneric terms are registered multiple times in many countries); then apply for .crypto (example) as Spec-13 registry; then provide there “innovative services” off of a Spec-13 closed generic TLD. Likely innovative services won’t rely on name server registrations – but rather provide the entire enchilada and value chain inhouse: a domain name, registry provided name servers, registry provided hosting, etc; nothing that would conflict with Spec-13. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Dienstag, 4. August 2020 18:35 To: Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com>; jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Very High Level Proposal on Closed Generics - PERSONAL PROPOSAL On the .book example. That was delegated 4 ½ years ago and has 1 domain registered. Not exactly innovating. At least not yet. Maybe the operator is hoping rules on closed generic would be retroactive? But I don’t think that’s possible under the charter of this group. Someone correct me if I am wrong on this. And I’m sure book publishers would argue all sorts of other issues they see with the current RO operating it as a closed generic. Plenty of lawsuits and settlements to sift through if so inclined. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 9:45 PM To: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Very High Level Proposal on Closed Generics - PERSONAL PROPOSAL Hi Jeff: As Marc has just indicated, I think we owe a duty to ICANN to provide them with an implementable policy. I don’t think it is acceptable to leave very difficult or intractable problems with an implementation team, or else we will spend another extended period on what is already an embarrassingly long duration between rounds. As you know, my original point of view was that the public interest test is not workable.We do not have workable definitions for public interest, a generic word, or a single-registrant TLD. To draw a parallel, the Community Priority Examination was a failure in that it could not be applied evenly, nor did it result in the hoped-for public benefit. The Public Interest test, with its additional unknown dimensions, presents multiples of that difficulty. The model you present here confirms and heightens these concerns. As I read each defitioniton and criteria set you propose, I wonder, “How do you test for that,” and “what could be the scoring for that”? From someone who spend days and days inn a conference room weighing many ersatz applications against CPE criteria and scoring regimes, I can say that this cannot be effectively done. To flesh out your plan into actionable criteria would take another extended period, the criteria will not lead to consistent results, and the scheme, when finally implemented will not achieve the hoped-for goals. All these will denigrate the reputation of the ICANN policy-making process generally as well as the ICANN model. There were four categories inn the previous round. All were problematic, none were as complex as this. Those who are speaking against this new, additional categorization are not for an “anything goes” or “no strings attached” approach. I think I can speak for others and say we want to develop a policy that will serve ICANN and the ICANN model well. On the other side of the issue, I agree with Marc that we would be better off banning closed-generics rather than attempting to implement this test. However, I am more bullish on their worth and am afraid we would be effectively banning innovation with such a prohibition. If we are not here to encourage some type of innovation, why are we here? ICANN has created with its contracts an environment that restricts TLD usage to the same, tired operating model. Closed generics would cause a reconsideration of gTLD rules in a way that encourages innovation. For example, closed generics would cause ICANN to reconsider the existing fee structure and just that fee structure has been an effective ban to innovation. Who has a better chance to utilize .book, an innovative firm that has the wherewithal to experiment, present innovative approaches and improve upon them, or some schmo that will seek to maximize domain registrations with discounts and flash sales? I vote for innovation. In any event, I think it is important that the final report indicates, so the GNSO Council and Board know, that we discussed these issues and the described the potential perils of the public interest approach so that they can take advantage of the analysis and thought product done to date. Thanks very much, Kurt On Aug 3, 2020, at 3:38 PM, Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > wrote: Jeff, While I appreciate your effort I cannot support a proposal that is complex, creates more ICANN bureaucracy. and will undoubtedly result in more disputes because it does not rely on any objective criteria. I also don’t see any reason why if there is more than one other application for the same or a confusingly similar string (eg., there is a contention set for the string), then none of those applications will be allowed to be a Closed Generic. That is like saying if there is a contention set that no Community Applications are permitted. As it is obvious by now, I strongly believe that closed generics should be permitted and that there is no reasonable justification to exclude them or put a public interest or other restriction on them and will advocate for this outcome as best I can. However, if that does not come to pass I think it would be better to have no closed generics than an public interest restriction that cannot be implemented and will only result in disputes, uncertainty, and delay in the next round. Generally and overall, I believe that if we want to have any hope that the next round will be successful in any way, that we should be seeking simpler solutions that are easier and more realistic to implement and are based on objective criteria and avoiding more complex and subjective solutions, especially those that require the creation of new panels and other structures, at all costs. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 <mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> trac(a)gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com <image002.jpg> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 3:51 PM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Very High Level Proposal on Closed Generics - PERSONAL PROPOSAL *EXTERNAL TO GT* This proposal is being sent out by me personally and NOT the Leadership Team (who hasn’t even seen this yet). It is not an indication of where I think we are, but just a VERY HIGH LEVEL approach to solicit comments. I appreciate all of the proposals that have come in recently on how to deal with Closed Generics, but I wanted to try a much higher level proposal that attempts to take points from a number of previous proposals and extract some of the points where I thought we had some agreement. The more in the weeds we get, the more it appears we get stuck. I, at one time, also had a lot of details in my original proposal, but I stripped them all out. We need to recognize that there is no definition of public interest. The only real viable ones you can find in legal dictionaries or other treatises and other documents is usually circular – namely public interest is that which the public deems it to be. So, I tried to go back to the basics: ******************************************************************** Background The GAC issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD Program through its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27…> Beijing Communiqué dated 11 April 2013. In the Beijing Communiqué, the GAC advised the Board that, "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal". As part of its response to the GAC Advice, ICANN solicited comments from the community on this issue. Comments from the community expressed a diversity of views on how, and whether the Board should implement the GAC advice. Ultimately, on 21 June 2016, the ICANN Board passed a <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/board-material/r…> resolution “requesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue.” Proposal for our Draft Final Report The Implementation Review Team must create a Framework for Evaluating Closed Generic applications to determine whether those applications “serve a legitimate public interest goal.” In order to serve a legitimate public interest goal, the following criteria, at a minimum, must be satisfied: * The TLD must serve a broad base of end users above and beyond the interests of the individual registry operator. For purposes of this statement, end users mean those toward which the content and use of the TLD is directed. End Users do not mean domain name registrants. * The TLD must serve a demonstrated and legitimate need of that broad base of end users. * A governance council of “end users” must be established to ensure the TLD continues serving its legitimate public interest (“Governance Council”). The following factors should be used by the IRT to create such a Framework and determining whether the proposed Closed Generic application “serves a public interest goal.” * Why is the selected string necessary for your registry / Why did you choose this string at the exclusion of others? * How does the proposed closed registry serve the public interest? * How does the proposed mission and purpose of the registry support such use and why must it be a closed model? * What is the likely effect on competition of awarding the proposed closed registry for the same or similar goods and/or services? o Are there other strings already delegated that serve the Applicant’s industry which can be utilized by competitors? o If not, are there reasonable alternatives to the string that may be utilized by other entities in the Applicant’s industry in the then-current round or if proposed during a subsequent round? * Who are the intended “users” or beneficiaries of the TLD? * What are the benefits to those users or beneficiaries of the TLD? * What will the governance of the TLD be and who will constitute the Governance Council? Rules * If there are more than one other application for the same or a confusingly similar string (eg., there is a contention set for the string), then none of those applications will be allowed to be a Closed Generic. * A Public Interest Panel shall be appointed by the ICANN Board to evaluate whether the application and the proposed use of the Closed Generic TLD serves a legitimate public interest goal. * All commitments made by the TLD Applicant in demonstrating its use will serve a public interest goal must be incorporated into the Registry Agreement as Public Interest Commitments. * The Closed Registry may not modify any Public Interest Commitments unless those changes are approved by the Governance Council and the ICANN Board after a public comment period. * In the event the Registry is assigned to a third party (either by Agreement or by operation of law), all of the terms and conditions imposed on the original registry must be absorbed by the new registry including the Public Interest Commitments. * A Closed Generic may at any time be converted to an Open (or Open Restricted TLD) at any time, provided that at the time of such conversion, the Registry must follow all of the rules applicable to Open TLDs, including the launch of a Sunrise Process, Trademark Claims, etc. In addition, the Registry must give up the use of all names other than the 100 names reserved under the Registry Agreement for the operation of the TLD. <image004.png> Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Rjhvan6Ae…> http://jjnsolutions.com _____ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com> postmaster(a)gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information. _______________________________________________ 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> 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.

7 6

REMINDER: Deadline tomorrow 11 August - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Predictability and new paragraph in Closed Generics
by Emily Barabas Aug. 11, 2020

Aug. 11, 2020

Dear all, As a reminder, the deadline to submit “Can’t Live With” comments on Predictability and the new paragraph in Closed Generics is tomorrow, Tuesday 11 August at 23:59 UTC. Please find details below. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 5 August 2020 at 19:47 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Deadline Tuesday 11 August - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Predictability and new paragraph in Closed Generics Dear all, The leadership team is releasing the revised draft recommendations on the Predictability Framework for your review. The one new additional paragraph in the Closed Generics section (at the end of sub-section C) is also included for your review. 1. There are two topics in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPl… * 2.2.2 Predictability * 2.7.3 Closed Generics – Most of this revised section has previously gone out for review and is therefore published in grey text. Please limit comments to the one new paragraph at the end of sub-section c, which is published in black text. 1. Please limit comments to items 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. 1. Deadline for comments is Tuesday 11 August at 23:59 UTC 1. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ…>

3 2

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 13 August at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 11, 2020

Aug. 11, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 13 August 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Comments on the Draft Final Report (minus Predictability Framework and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction)) attached and available here, on an ongoing basis as the document is updated: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report (if applicable) 3. Comments on the Predictability Framework and the one new additional paragraph in the Closed Generics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPl… (if applicable) 4. Comments on the new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…> (if applicable) 5. Comments on the Draft Final Report Change Analysis (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding): https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1Kg… (if applicable) 6. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Feedback on Auctions section
by Susan Payne Aug. 11, 2020

Aug. 11, 2020

Thanks Steve Please find my feedback form on the Auctions section. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude | Valideus 28-30 Little Russell Street London WC1A 2HN United Kingdom D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 E: susan.payne(a)comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> | www.valideus.com<http://www.valideus.com> [cid:image001.jpg@01D66FE0.01E79540] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: 07 August 2020 16:36 To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review Dear WG Members, As discussed and agreed on the 6 August WG call, we have compiled a consolidated list of materials for you all to review in advance of seeking to finalize the draft Final Report for public comment, as early as 13 August 2020. * For review and feedback no later than Thursday, 13 August (and for discussion on the WG call that same day) * Draft Final Report Change Analysis (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding):https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6P… * Draft Final Report (minus Predictability Framework and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction)) attached and available here, on an ongoing basis as the document is updated: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report * Per Emily’s email, comments on the Predictability Framework and the one new additional paragraph in the Closed Generics are due 11 August at 23:59 UTC. Review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPl…. Feedback form is attached. * NEW! - The new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), comments due 12 August at 23:59 UTC – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxg…>. Again, feedback form is attached. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 06 August at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 7, 2020

Aug. 7, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 06 August 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/2020-08-06+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Draft Final Report: ACTION ITEM: Send email listing all documents for the WG to consider to finalize the Report. Public Comment Survey Tool: ACTION ITEM: Change the radio button to: “[Do not support certain aspects, or all, of the Output(s)” Private Resolutions Discussion – Model 6: ACTION ITEM: Re: Other Forms of Private Resolution -- Add a couple sentences to deliberation section to say that some working group members proposed adding this disclosure requirement (“All material terms of any arrangement between applicants to privately resolve a contention set (financial or otherwise) must be disclosed to ICANN [and the community]”) and include the rationale, while others opposed it. ACTION ITEM: Re: “The information obtained from the contention resolution process may not be used by ICANN for any purpose other than as necessary to evaluate the application in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Applicant Guidebook.” Amend the text to include “for any purpose other than is necessary to evaluate the application, the new gTLD or to otherwise comply with the law.” ACTION ITEM: Leadership and staff to revise Model 6 based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 06 August and send the text for review on 07 August. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Donna Austin is now with GoDaddy. 2. Final Report Structure and Public Comment Survey (Demo) Schedule: -- If we finish Private Resolution today, then we will cancel Monday’s meeting to allow time to review documents. -- Finalize everything by 14 August. Draft Final Report Change Analysis: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1Kg…   -- Show substantive differences, but also where there are minor changes. -- Also note where there are no changes. -- Send an omnibus email indicating all of the documents that the WG should review. Public Comment Survey Tool: Demonstration: -- Requirement to enter email and name/affiliation is standard procedure for the public comment forum. -- Encourage using the Word form document to enter changes and then cut and paste into the Google form (but can save progress also in the Google form). -- Staff will assist if access/use of Google is not possible. -- The instructions describe the 5 outputs in the draft Final Report: (a) Affirmation, (b) Affirmation with Modification, (c) Recommendation, (d) Implementation Guidance, and/or (e) No Agreement. -- The survey is asking for input on those outputs. -- Each topic has its own section with the option to save at the end of each section. -- The topics follow the order in the draft Final Report. -- There is a reference to the page number for that topic in the Final Report and we’ll explore whether we can include a link to the document. (Subsequent testing shows that links do work.) -- The demo focused on the first five topics as an example. -- The Description of Difference text is the same as that in the “Draft Final Report Change Analysis” document that is out for review by the WG. The introduction to each topic includes the following text: “The below description of difference is intended to serve as a resource for readers to better understand which report topics have evolved significantly from the Initial Report to the draft Final Report. The differences are listed in a descriptive fashion and readers should review the full set of Outputs for the relevant topic as a package, to better understand the full context of the Outputs and changes made.” -- The demo highlighted the various types of differences: 1) minor (including brief description); 2) substantive (including brief description); 3) no substantive differences (so no description of changes). -- The survey questions are the same for each topic. Responses that support, can live with, or have no opinion are not followed by a comment box (although text can be provided as comments); responses that can’t live with (or do not support, see discussion below), or where there is information or interests that the WG has not considered should include comments in the boxes provided. -- There are open text boxes at the end of the survey that may be used to provide input on recommendations that the WG didn’t consider, or any other comments. Discussion: -- There will be a webinar to demonstrate the survey tool after the public comment period begins. -- Any request for an extension beyond the 40-day public comment period will be considered by the leadership team in coordination with support staff. -- Question: Can we comment when we support or can live with the outputs? Answer: You can but there won’t be a text box associated with that response. The survey is designed to focus on whether there are recommendations that people can’t live with or can support, with the focus on getting comments where there is no support or people can’t live with something. -- More than one person can access the Google survey form at the same time, but we recommend using the Word form to capture the input and then cutting and pasting it into the Google form. -- The numbering of the topics matches that used in the Final Report, which is simplified from the numbering we have been using in the production document. -- Question: Why use “Can’t live with” instead of “Do not support”? Answer: That follows the format we’ve been using, but it doesn’t have to. We can use “Do not support” and also include “or all” of the Outputs. ACTION ITEM: Change the radio button to: “[Do not support certain aspects, or all, of the Output(s)” -- What sort of comment would be applied to a “Yes, we support this” that that would add further benefit to the evaluation of any of the or assessment of any of the comments coming in? There will be lots of comments coming in and how do we avoid subjective analysis? Can we put them into clear categories? -- Some groups might want to explain why they can live with a recommendation – why they are willing to compromise. Also, if there isn’t that option the comments will all be negative. Not necessarily reflective of the support. -- The radio buttons for support and can live with will show the support – they don’t need to have comments associated with them to be counted. And we won’t use the donut charts which can sometime mischaracterize the level of support. -- Could consider whether to include a text box after the support and can live with option to say why they were willing to compromise, but have to think about how to avoid that becoming a subjective analysis. But we are trying to have a simple approach and keep people tight with their responses. We also don’t have much time for analysis and deciphering comments where people indicated support but then commented. -- Helpful to know why someone supported something or conditionally supported something. -- Nothing is preventing someone from entering text in the text boxes. We are just trying to organize this in a way that is easy to analyze. This is supposed to be a Final Report and we organized the survey to get comments on the aspects that people do not support. -- Question: Can we get access to the Google spreadsheet that this the output from the Google form and then provide our response in the form of a spreadsheet for staff to input? Answer: Staff would not be able to easily integrate that type of input into the Google spreadsheet without a great deal of manipulation. It wouldn’t be technically feasible. 3. Continued Private Resolutions Discussion – Model 6 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qdNbLO1-EfXdQosA7fK1ugQtaaMzwof2-viKCQ…) Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements -- What we added in here was a recommendation from arm Paul to put in a time frame of when the stock would be disclosed. New text: “In the case of a private auction or an ICANN auction of last resort, all parties in interest to any agreements relating to participation of the applicant in the private auction or ICANN Auction of Last Resort must be disclosed to ICANN within 72 hours of resolution and ICANN must, in turn, publish the same within 72 hours of receipt.” -- Also added a footnote on the contact information: “Contact Information will be subject to the same publication rules as contact information was treated in the application process.” -- Added from the previous list: “The value of the Applicant Support bidding credits or multiplier used, if applicable.” Other Forms of Private Resolution Deleted: “All material terms of any arrangement between applicants to privately resolve a contention set (financial or otherwise) must be disclosed to ICANN [and the community]” -- Comment from Elaine Pruis: “all material terms of any arrangement” has been replaced with “material information regarding changes to the ...applications” – these are not the same thing. Have we discussed and agreed to this substitution? -- This was hotly contested on the call where we last discussed this. Some were very much opposed to disclosing anything. -- This sentence required disclosure of all kinds of sensitive information. -- There are all kinds of deals that could be made that could impact the overall outcome of the program and we’re remiss to not ask people to tell us, or tell the community or the public what arrangements have been made in order to resolve a contention. ACTION ITEM: Re: Other Forms of Private Resolution – Add a couple sentences to deliberation section to say that some working group members proposed adding this disclosure requirement (“All material terms of any arrangement between applicants to privately resolve a contention set (financial or otherwise) must be disclosed to ICANN [and the community]”) and include the rationale, while others opposed it. Re: “The information obtained from the contention resolution process may not be used by ICANN for any purpose other than as necessary to evaluate the application in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Applicant Guidebook.” -- There was a debate on competition authority review and that ICANN Org had the right to do that, so we didn’t need language stating that. -- Comments from Justine Chew: I generally disagree with the sub-bullets here. Disclosure is not only required for proper evaluation but also the source of data to support better policy making. If protection is to be afforded to disclosing applicants, then limit to just non-disclosure by ICANN/evaluator of information exactly of the kind not made public in the application form. -- We can put some other something else in there to allow for the use of the information for the evaluation of the program, not just the application. -- Comments from Paul McGrady: So maybe, just maybe, we could say for any purpose other than is necessary to evaluate the application, the new gTLD or to otherwise comply with the law. ACTION ITEM: Re: “The information obtained from the contention resolution process may not be used by ICANN for any purpose other than as necessary to evaluate the application in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Applicant Guidebook.” Amend the text to include “for any purpose other than is necessary to evaluate the application, the new gTLD or to otherwise comply with the law.” Factors to Consider in Determining of Non-good faith Intent. -- Comment from Paul McGrady: “Consider deleting the highlighted text as it is redundant with the intro paragraph for this section. If you decide to keep this redundant language, propose change from "non-good faith Intent" to "whether or not an applicant breached the Terms and Conditions in the Applicant Guidebook"” -- Not having the requisite bona fide good faith intent is a breach of the terms and conditions. -- Don't think that these are really good proxies or factors for determining no bad faith or not good faith. We should not seek complicated subjective solutions, we should see simpler, objective solutions. -- That was why we had this compromise to determine non-good faith intent. If we can’t agree on these factors then we don’t have a compromise. If you can’t have controls on private resolution then you are arguing for not allowing it. -- Let’s get public comment on the proposal and see if there are other factors we can include. -- Maybe we need to work backwards from the reasons that some want to ban private auctions. -- Don’t think we should use “non-good faith” as a term. -- Make the factors examples rather than exclusive factors and tie them to the T&C rather than "non-good faith" (whatever that is). -- How about "noncompliance with the bona fide intention" requirement instead of "non-good faith intent"? -- “For which there is no reasonable good faith explanation”. -- Question: At what point would ICANN be making this determination? Answer: After the fact. Very late in the process. -- So why not just say that if there is reasonable evidence that the applicant does not have the good faith intent to operate the TLD the ___consequences occur. ACTION ITEM: Leadership and staff to revise Model 6 based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 06 August and send the text for review on 07 August.

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 06 August 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Aug. 6, 2020

Aug. 6, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 06 August 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/wAGNC> (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 Andrea

1 0

Deadline Tuesday 11 August - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Predictability and new paragraph in Closed Generics
by Emily Barabas Aug. 5, 2020

Aug. 5, 2020

Dear all, The leadership team is releasing the revised draft recommendations on the Predictability Framework for your review. The one new additional paragraph in the Closed Generics section (at the end of sub-section C) is also included for your review. 1. There are two topics in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPl… * 2.2.2 Predictability * 2.7.3 Closed Generics – Most of this revised section has previously gone out for review and is therefore published in grey text. Please limit comments to the one new paragraph at the end of sub-section c, which is published in black text. 1. Please limit comments to items 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. 1. Deadline for comments is Tuesday 11 August at 23:59 UTC 1. Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ…>

1 0