August 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

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

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 06 August at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Steve Chan Aug. 4, 2020

Aug. 4, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 06 August 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest Final Report Structure and Public Comment Survey (Demo) Continued Private Resolutions Discussion – Model 6 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qdNbLO1-EfXdQosA7fK1ugQtaaMzwof2-viKCQ…) AOB For agenda item 2, please find a link to an analysis that the Co-Chairs/staff worked on to help identify where there is substantial change between the Initial Report/Supplemental Initial Report and where things are now in the draft Final Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1Kg…. As Jeff noted on the 04 August call, the goal of the analysis is to present a factual account of what has changed, without introducing judgment or bias into the descriptions. This analysis is closely related to the structuring of the public comment approach. Also related to the draft Final Report, please find the attached draft Preamble. If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. 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

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 04 August at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Steve Chan Aug. 4, 2020

Aug. 4, 2020

Dear WG Members, In respect of agenda item 4, please find the link for Model 6: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qdNbLO1-EfXdQosA7fK1ugQtaaMzwof2-viKCQ…. Jeff’s intention for this new model was to take into consideration recent discussions on Model 5 and incorporate those discussions accordingly. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, July 31, 2020 at 1:30 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 04 August at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Tuesday, 04 August 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest Final Report Structure and Public Comment Survey Closed Generics (new proposals due Monday, 03 August at 23:59 UTC) Review Private Resolutions – Model 6 (link TBD) AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

4 3

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 4 August at 3:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Aug. 4, 2020

Aug. 4, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 4 August at 3:00 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/2020-08-04+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Kind regards, Emily Action Items: Closed Generics ACTION ITEM: Add paragraph to the Closed Generics section of the report about the new proposals that have been submitted. Auctions/Private Resolutions ACTION ITEM: In this sentence: “To the extent any contention sets are shrunk, by having other applications removed from the process (e.g., withdrawal, losing objections, failing evaluation, losing in CPE, etc.)” remove “losing in CPE.” Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest * No updates. 1. Final Report Structure and Public Comment Survey * On Thursday’s call, there will be demonstration of the public comment survey tool. On today’s call, we will go over the concepts at a higher level. * There have been many opportunities for the public to comment already in this PDP. The role of this upcoming public comment period is to get input on new information included in the report. We also want any new information that commenters want to provide the WG. * We do not intend to have commenters repeat comments from previous comment periods. * Google survey form will be used. * Pros – easy for users to put information in and save work, allows us to ask specific questions with specific choices, process results quickly for review, commenters don’t have to answer all questions in the form. * Cons – we can’t prevent people from entering whatever information they want in text boxes, there is a 2000 character limit in each comment box. * It will be possible to download the form so they can review the questions ahead of time. It will also be possible to submit the comments in Word for those unable to use the form. * There will be a space at the end of the form for general comments. * There were some complaints from those submitting comments through Google forms for the RPMs public comment. * Submitted responses will be displayed in a Google Sheet that is publicly available. * Google form will focus on asking about areas where there is a substantive difference between the Initial Report and the draft Final Report. For each section of the report, we will describe the difference in the Google Form. Commenters will choose one of several options indicating level of support and will be able to explain their response in a text box. * Before Thursday, the leadership team will provide a summary of what has changed from the Initial Report to draft Final Report. * Concern flagged about discouraging comments on things that are “decided.” There is a lot that the community has not seen before. * Response – We are trying to encourage comments on the new areas, and not looking for commenters to repeat old arguments. But when everyone sees this as one coherent document, if something jumps out, they will have an opportunity to comment. There will be a free text box for each section of the report and box for more general comments at the end. * Preamble will be shared with the group which will explain the approach. * Comment – We need to make sure to discuss how SO/AC comments will be treated vs. individual comments. * Response – This is something that will be especially important as we consider changes to make in response to comments. Don’t want to discourage comments from individuals, they can provide valuable information. Pre-determining how we handle to comments could discourage individuals from commenting. 1. Closed Generics * We gave a deadline to receive proposals by Monday, 03 August at 23:59 UTC * George provided a revised proposal on list. We have the paper previously submitted by Kurt. Jeff sent a new proposal to the mailing list. * At this point, we don’t have agreement on any one proposal. We have had many discussions on this topic and requested input through two public comments. * Leadership believes we should still publish for public comment the text that has previously agreed for the draft Final Report. * We will publish the proposals separately and ask commenters to provide comments on these proposals as part of the public comment period. We want to make sure people can access, review, and respond to these proposals without giving them special status in the report. * Would it be possible in the text itself to point out that it is important to converge on goals or principles as a starting point to develop proposals? * How could we frame this most effectively in the public comment question – perhaps, are any of these proposals heading down a path that that community wants to the WG to follow? Perhaps we can frame this in terms of goals, while not limiting commenters from saying what they want to say about the proposals. * Comment – It’s better not to lead community in any direction. We should just let commenters respond to the proposals as they choose. * Concern about lack of balance in the proposals, different level of detail. Concern that the WG has not yet discussed the proposals in detail. * One Working Group member expressed support for George’s proposal and noted that it would be helpful in the case of geographic names. * The Working Group will discuss all of the proposals while the rest of the community is commenting on the draft Final Report, including the proposals, but the report needs to go out for public comment. This is a compromise approach to accomplish both goals. * Question – Do we have a working definition of closed generics? * Response – We are using the definition in the Registry Agreement. * How are we going to present these proposals in the report in a way that we can get something useful back from the community? Is the question for the community, are there parts of these proposals that we can put together that can be acceptable to all? It is not clear how we are going to get to a place where everyone can get behind a solution. * Ultimately, if there is a considerable number of comments indicating that we should work on one of these proposals further, this may provide an indication that we should give this one more shot. * Comment – We should include some framing language about the goals in the public comment and make sure those responding to the public comment know where to focus their attention. The report section should be revised to include the new proposals. * We will add a paragraph on the new proposals in the Closed Generics section of the report and draft questions for the public comment. ACTION ITEM: Add paragraph to the Closed Generics section of the report about the new proposals that have been submitted. 1. Review Private Resolutions – Model * Model 5 has been revised with outcomes of the previous discussion, as understood by the leadership team. It is now called Model 6. * Redlines are the adjustments that have been made based on areas where there appeared to be agreement. Changes that were substantive and do not appear to have full support remain as comments in the document. * Review of Overview text. In second sub-bullet point, proposal from Paul to include [non-auction] in the first sentence. Jeff’s suggests not including this, to be more clear. No objections raised to Jeff’s suggestion. * Clarification – Does the private resolution of the contention sets refer to a resolution that involves all parties in contention or just a sub-set? * Response – Private resolution could involve just a sub-set or could involve all members of a contention set. * Question – What does partnership mean in sub-bullet 1? What is intended to be included in this definition? * Response – Partnership here does not mean a legal partnership. It means a combination or joint venture, anything that results in a combination of applications that results in one or more withdrawl of an application. * Section on transparency of information -- If a settlement has been reached, this should be disclosed. If it results in a settlement but is not something that requires an application change request, it still needs to be disclosed. This needs to be clarified in the text. * If there is some combination because of a private resolution that would ordinarily result in an application change request, you have to file an application change. * Comment -- Isn’t this superfluous, if the change request is required anyway? * Response – The text is meant to reinforce the concept. * Comment – Text needs to be clarified that the JV might not resolve the contention set. It could involve only a sub-set of applicants in the contention set. Members are encouraged to send proposed revisions to the list. * Concern – It would not be possible to meet disclosure requirements under the language in this proposal without disclosing trade secrets. * In this sentence: “To the extent any contention sets are shrunk, by having other applications removed from the process (e.g., withdrawal, losing objections, failing evaluation, losing in CPE, etc.)” losing in CPE will not shrink the contention set. This should be removed. ACTION ITEM: In this sentence: “To the extent any contention sets are shrunk, by having other applications removed from the process (e.g., withdrawal, losing objections, failing evaluation, losing in CPE, etc.)” remove “losing in CPE.” * Further discussion might be needed – suggestion to add language that if there are multiple CPE applicants and some fail, only one CPE applicant is remaining, it reduces the contention set. * Response – this will resolve the contention set. * For further discussion: “In the event of a partial resolution of a contention set through the formation of a joint venture and the corresponding withdrawal of one or more Applications, the partnership or joint venture must choose between the various Last Resort Auction Bid.” Original text suggested that new bids could be submitted by all parties. * On the next call, start on Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements. * Request – For Thursday, can the leadership team point out in the document where int is addressing Board’s concerns about using proceeds from one auction to fund another auction to fund another application? 1. AOB * None

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Tuesday, 04 August 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Aug. 4, 2020

Aug. 4, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 04 August 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/jgGNC> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Terri

1 0

Submission of final version of PICG nTLD proposal
by George Sadowsky Aug. 3, 2020

Aug. 3, 2020

Dear Jeff, Attached is the final version of our "like-minded group" containing our proposal for a new class of ngTLD domains to address the issues raised by the issues of defining how closed generic strings can work for the public interest. We understand that our proposal will be submitted as a part of the Subsequent Procedures Working Group's imminent submission of its work product to date for public comment. I am submitting both .docx and .pdf versions of the proposal. Best regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.301.968.4325 8300 Burdette Road, Apt B-472 Mobile: +1.202.415.1933 Bethesda MD 20817-2831 USA Skype: sadowsky george.sadowsky(a)gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/

1 0