January 2021 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call
by Kathy Kleiman Jan. 10, 2021

Jan. 10, 2021

Dear Jeff and Cheryl, It’s been a difficult week in the US and the world, including those of living in the Washington DC area. Thank you for the additional time to complete my response to the Consensus Call. I join my fellow Working Group members in appreciation of your leadership of this long-running WG and its dynamic and robust discussions on many important topics for New gTLDs. We will leave ICANN with new gTLD structures and processes clearer and more robust than those we found. I must rise, however, in opposition to Recommendations 9.9 and 9.10 in Topic 9 on RVCs and private PICs. I strongly oppose the inclusion of both recommendations in our report to Council, and respectfully submit that they have neither Consensus nor Strong Support across the WG or Community. Specifically, private PICs (now RVCs) and the PICDRP were never created by the GNSO or a PDP; they were imposed by a former ICANN CEO hoping to create a mechanism for addressing calls from the GAC for a place in the ICANN-New gTLD Registry Agreement to address Early Warnings and GAC Advice (the GAC was seeking ways to limit access to a gTLD (for sensitive and highly-sensitive strings) and ways to open gTLDs (for those creating exclusive access to generic TLDs in dozens of businesses and industries)). Happily, the use of private PICs/RVCs for GAC Advice and GAC Early Warnings is now embodied in our Recommendation 30.7. Ditto for the idea of using a private PICs/RVC to settle a formal objection. Recommendation 31.16 creates the opportunity for an applicant “to amend an application or add Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVC)s” to end an objection; the recommendation then requires the change to proceed through the Application Change Request process and into public comment for all to see, review and comment on. Excellent. This leaves Recommendations 9.9 and 9.10 for the “kitchen sink” – the range of private and potentially abusive commitments that a registry might make in its own interests or on behalf of special interests adopt in potential violation of a) the scope and mission of ICANN, b) our Human Rights Core Value, c) fundamental rights for registrants, including Freedom of Expression and due process, c) and respect for the GNSO, our PDPs and the policies we arrive at through our consensus processes. Recommendations 9.9 and 9.10 continue the process of undermining ICANN processes, policies and bylaws started in 2013 and 2014. Some private PICs were appalling and abusive then; it will undermine ICANN’s integrity and independence to go forward in a similar manner now. ICANN cannot act outside its scope and mission, nor can ICANN authorize someone else to act on its behalf outside its scope and mission. These two recommendations are outside our scope and mandate, and respectfully, outside the agreement of this WG. __ ____ Accordingly, I oppose the inclusion of Recommendations 9.9 and 9.10 as recommendations from this WG to the GNSO Council. _I notify the Co-Chairs of my intent to file a Minority Statement by the upcoming deadline pursuant to GNSO Working Group Guidelines._ I wish to thank my fellow WG members for our discussions and debates. May 2021 be a happy and healthy year for you and your family. As for me, Inauguration Day in the US cannot come soon enough. Best regards, Kathy

1 0

Thank you for all your responses
by Jeff Neuman Jan. 9, 2021

Jan. 9, 2021

All, I just wanted to thank everyone for your responses to the Consensus call and to let you know that we are reviewing them now. Also, we wanted to let you know that one person did request an extension until tomorrow for personal confidential reasons and SubPro Leadership approved that extension. So, you should be seeing one more response tomorrow. Have a great rest of the weekend and look for our assessment late on Monday (Tuesday for some) after the Leadership team has a chance to meet and discuss. Also a reminder that we will go over those results on Tuesday at 20:00 UTC. The call is scheduled for two hours, but we will meet for as long as we need to answer all of your questions and celebrate our final milestone. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image001.png@01D6E69C.E1CA3360] 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

1 0

GoDaddy Registry input to Consensus Call
by Donna＠registry.godaddy Jan. 9, 2021

Jan. 9, 2021

Dear Jeff, Cheryl and WG Members Please find attached GoDaddy Registry input to the Consensus Call. We would like to thank all working group members for their dedication and contribution to this effort and to Jeff, Cheryl and the leadership team and staff for your tireless efforts and leadership. Kind regards Donna Austin, Raymond Zylstra, Gemma Keegan, Quoc Pham GoDaddy Registry

2 1

Phil Buckingham's Consensus Call Response to the Subsequent Procedures PDP Final Report , 22 December 2020
by Phil Buckingham Jan. 9, 2021

Jan. 9, 2021

Dear Jeff, Cheryl, Steve, Emily, Julie, Firstly, I would personally like to thank you all for your leadership, dedication and drive over the past five + years , in this humungous effort , to enable us all in reaching this milestone. Secondly, it's been a real pleasure working with the very best in our industry. For clarity, I am responding to the consensus call in my own personal capacity, drawing on my own personal opinions formulated over the last five years of attendances. Like many of you in the core team I was heavily involved on behalf of many applicants in the processes , procedures and problems of the first Round. I now have to ask myself , whether these problems, whether policy or implementation issues have now been addressed and rectified. I am particularly pleased we have now found a solution(s) to singles and plurals, COI, financial business models. Topic 35: Auctions Recommendation 35.4 ICANN Auction of Last Resort Like many in the community , I found it extremely unacceptable that over $1 billion profit was made from resolving 234 contention sets, including $234,000 for ICANN in its last resort takes all auction in Round 1. I am now in agreement that Topic 35 and its recommendations and implementation guidelines addresses the complex issues and problems around contention set resolutions. However , whilst I agree with the ICANN Auction Last Resort models using the second price auction method, I cannot see how it would work in the ( unlikely) event of (two or more) Spec 13 closed brands finding themselves in a contention set Valuing a TLD at the best of times is extremely difficult , made more so , in a sealed bid very early in the application process , without any prior knowledge of other applicants in a contention set. Spirt Chartering Whilst I am in total agreement with all the points raised under Spirt Chartering , I feel it does not go far enough and doesn't integrate with the workings of the ICANN.org Round 2 Team. I would most certainly like to serve on this SPIRT team. If not work full time in the ICANN.org team. As a Segway , further implementation advice needs to be given, as to the setting up of a new division, self funded, ring fenced within ICANN.org. Within that division/ cost centre needs to be the appointment of four key F/T employees to head up this new BOLD division. They would be collectively be responsible for the Budget , Operations , Legal and Delegation for the next Round. My suggestion , recommendation would be they would all have a permanent seat on the SPIRT team. I trust this is food for thought as many of us move on to the Operational and Implementation phase of Round 2. Best regards, Phil Phil Buckingham -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Emily Barabas Jan. 9, 2021

Jan. 9, 2021

Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

17 18

FINAL REMINDER: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Jeff Neuman Jan. 8, 2021

Jan. 8, 2021

All, Thank you for the responses we have thus far. Just as a reminder, your response is due by : TODAY, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Also, please keep in mind as you respond that the Co-Chairs and the Working Group have been working in good faith throughout the process to ensure that all perspectives have been taken into account in the Final Report. The Consensus Call is not a new request for input or comments, and should not be used to raise new issues that have not been previously discussed by the Working Group. We look forward to your responses. Sincerely, Cheryl and Jeff Co-Chairs, SubPro [cid:image003.png@01D6E5A2.D1A7DC30] 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 From: Jeff Neuman Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 11:42 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Reminder #2: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC All, Just to follow up, we want to ask that everyone be as specific as possible with the areas that they do not support. For example (and I am intentionally picking extreme examples here): 1. Lets say, for whatever reason, I do not support the recommendation that "Evaluation scores on all questions be limited to a pass/fail scale (0-1 points on)", but I do support all of the other recommendation/implementation guidance in Topic 27. Rather than stating that "I do not support Topic 27", you should state "I Support all of the recommendations in Topic 27 except for Recommendation 27.2 because I believe that........" 1. Lets say that I do not support having an Applicant Support Program at all. But if there is an Applicant Support Program the recommendations / implementation guidance in the Working Group Final Report make sense. That is important information! So, rather than saying I do not support all of Topic 17, you should expressly state that "I do not support having an Applicant Support program, but if there is an Applicant Support program, then I would support the recommendations / implementation guidance in Topic 17." For the record I do support the program, I am just using an extreme example. Bottom line is that we ask you to be as specific as possible with the areas of non-support. Thanks. Jeff Neuman [cid:image005.png@01D6E5A2.D1A7DC30] 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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 9:41 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Reminder: FW: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Happy New Year everyone! I hope you all were able to enjoy some time off with your loved ones (even if it was via Zoom as was the case for the Neuman Family). Just wanted to send this reminder that the due date is quickly approaching for the end of the Consensus Call: Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Welcome back and we are nearly there!!!!! Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image006.png@01D6E5A2.D1A7DC30] 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 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Susan Payne Jan. 8, 2021

Jan. 8, 2021

Dear All Thanks to WG leadership, Cheryl and Jeff, all the work track leads, Emily, Steve and all our support staff, and to the WG members who have devoted so many hours to this herculean effort. Like, I imagine, many others, the recommendations from the PDP do not always reflect my preferred outcomes but can, to the most part, be accepted as a suitable compromise. A number of other WG members have already voiced their opposition to recommendation 35.4 regarding the use of second price sealed bids for ICANN Auctions of Last Resort, to which I add my objections. I do not believe that any problem has been identified for which a second price, sealed bid process would provide a solution and, like Kurt, I am concerned that the WG, without the benefit of expertise in this complex field, is making a recommendation favouring a specific type of auction operation without there having been any real assessment of the impact. If there are to be second price sealed bid auctions, however, I am strongly opposed to the timing for the submission of those bids reflected in recommendation 35.4. Requiring applicants to submit a bid so early in the process and without the benefit of all relevant information is unfair, does not allow applicants to properly assess the appropriate level of their bid, and does not allow for changing circumstances with the passage of time between bid and auction. The submission of bids before applicants know whether any of the other contention set applicants will fail evaluation, a LRO or other Objection process, or otherwise withdraw, means that bids are based, potentially, on a false understanding of the number of applicants in the contention set. The identity of the other applicants in the contention set is also directly relevant information for an applicant in determining what they should bid. This is particularly so where an applicant is a dotBrand. From the brand owner applicant's perspective this is not a commodity and there is not, necessarily, a single price they are willing to pay since there are numerous risk-based factors that have to be weighed-up, including the identity of the other applicants, their past history (positive or negative) in this space, the type of business model they are proposing, the existence, or lack, of measures they propose to apply to safeguard against confusion with the brand, and so on. Furthermore, this appears to have been proposed as the solution to a theoretical rather than an actual problem, i.e. collusion and bid rigging, there being no evidence presented that this actually occurred. Many thanks Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude | Valideus 28-30 Little Russell Street London WC1A 2HN United Kingdom D: +44 20 7421 8255 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:image002.jpg@01D6E614.7BB76800] ________________________________ 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 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland;Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Brian Winterfeldt Jan. 8, 2021

Jan. 8, 2021

Dear Co-Chairs, Staff, and Fellow Working Group Members, Attached please find our responses to the Consensus Call. We look forward to reviewing the Co-Chairs’ proposed consensus designations in due course. Congratulations to all for reaching this milestone. Best regards, Brian and Griffin ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b…]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b…]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 Washington, DC 20006<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> griffin(a)winterfeldt.law<mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
by Pruis, Elaine Jan. 8, 2021

Jan. 8, 2021

Dear Jeff, Cheryl, Steve, Emily, and Julie, Thank you for your leadership and support on this incredibly complex PDP. I actively contributed to the development of the new gTLD program and the 2012 AGB. After that I implemented on 200 new gTLDs. When I first read about the SubPro PDP, I thought about how difficult addressing the many pain points from the previous policy and AGB might be. Thank you to WG members for your years of dedication to developing better policies and procedures for future rounds. I think we got it 85% right, which is a fair bit better than the last time around. Attached please find my few statements of non-support. Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 [signature_90803440] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1dymtmts4f-NSFStApEFJZxEyQcHt_KF2Bt9i8Pi1qRAi8…>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1KLG2hxjufVpXR5FTOYyl0arw3nn6SkSalPOPFX5ljh4oR…> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

1 0

Additional time
by Kathy Kleiman Jan. 8, 2021

Jan. 8, 2021

Hi Jeff and Cheryl,In light of the events of week, including in the US, Hong Kong and the UK, I would like to request an extension of today's deadlines until at least Sunday night. This active list has been very quiet, and the events of the day may tell us why. A little extra time under the extraordinary circumstances will not hurt ICANN, and will help those of us trying to continue our participation. Best, Kathy

2 1