August 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

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