- Gnso-newgtld-wg - lists.icann.org

SubPro Working Group Self-Assessment
by Emily Barabas 14 May '21

14 May '21

Dear Working Group Members, Thanks to those who have completed the Working Group Self-Assessment for SubPro. Please find attached a summary of the survey results. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

SubPro Report Put out by Board for Comment
by Jeff Neuman 26 Apr '21

26 Apr '21

FYI. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-gtld-subsequent-procedures-final… Comment Period ends on June 1st. This is for informational purposes only. Nothing for this group to do. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image001.png@01D73A99.279BFAE0] 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

Deadline tomorrow, 20 April - SubPro Working Group Self-Assessment
by Emily Barabas 19 Apr '21

19 Apr '21

Dear Working Group members, As a reminder, tomorrow is the last day to complete the SubPro Working Group Self-Assessment: https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/2fp6dk4mud6k5. If you have not already done so, please provide feedback about your experience participating in this Working Group. You input is important to help the GNSO continue to improve the way it organizes and operates working groups going forward. Thanks to those who have already responded! Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 13 April 2021 at 14:46 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Reminder - Deadline 20 April - SubPro Working Group Self-Assessment Dear Working Group Members, Thanks to those who have completed the Working Group Self-Assessment for SubPro. Your input is appreciated! For those who have not yet had a chance to complete the survey, please take a few minutes provide your feedback: https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/2fp6dk4mud6k5. The survey is scheduled to close one week from today, on Tuesday 20 April at 23:59 UTC. If you have any questions or need assistance, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 30 March 2021 at 14:44 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Your input requested - SubPro Working Group Self-Assessment Dear Working Group Members, On 26 March 2014, the GNSO Council approved a process and questionnaire for Working Groups to conduct Self-Assessments when their work has been substantially finished. The goal is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs, Processes, and Outputs, ultimately leading to continuing improvements. The SubPro Working Group has been identified to participate in this process the details of which are provided below: * The survey tool is hosted by ClickTools at this link: https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/2fp6dk4mud6k5. Please do not share this link with anyone other than Working Group members. * Background information and instructions are contained within the instrument. There is no login requirement, so you will not need user credentials. * This questionnaire is organized into 31 questions divided into six short sections. Simply answer the questions (most use a 1-7 rating scale) on each page and, when you reach the end, click “Submit.” If you receive a “Thank You” response, your feedback was successfully populated. * There is no option in this survey instrument to save and continue later. If you would like to browse the questions in advance, they are published on the ICANN Community Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/nTXxAg. * The survey should take approximately 15 minutes depending upon the number of comments you choose to provide. * The survey will be open for three weeks and will close on Tuesday 20 April at 23:59 UTC. A member of the GNSO policy support staff will monitor the completion process and be available to provide technical assistance if needed. If you are having difficulty with the survey and need assistance, you can email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Confidentiality: We will be asking you for identifying information to ensure that each response is valid. Your individual responses will not be accessible by anyone other than the the ICANN GNSO Policy Support Staff. The aim is not to disclose or publish responses in a way that could be matched to your identity. Once the survey period has closed, staff will produce a report summarizing the findings. This report will be shared with the Working Group and the GNSO Council. It may also be shared with the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as potentially other interested parties. Thanks for your willingness to provide feedback about the Working Group and your participation in it. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Reminder - Deadline 20 April - SubPro Working Group Self-Assessment
by Emily Barabas 13 Apr '21

13 Apr '21

Dear Working Group Members, Thanks to those who have completed the Working Group Self-Assessment for SubPro. Your input is appreciated! For those who have not yet had a chance to complete the survey, please take a few minutes provide your feedback: https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/2fp6dk4mud6k5. The survey is scheduled to close one week from today, on Tuesday 20 April at 23:59 UTC. If you have any questions or need assistance, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 30 March 2021 at 14:44 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Your input requested - SubPro Working Group Self-Assessment Dear Working Group Members, On 26 March 2014, the GNSO Council approved a process and questionnaire for Working Groups to conduct Self-Assessments when their work has been substantially finished. The goal is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs, Processes, and Outputs, ultimately leading to continuing improvements. The SubPro Working Group has been identified to participate in this process the details of which are provided below: * The survey tool is hosted by ClickTools at this link: https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/2fp6dk4mud6k5. Please do not share this link with anyone other than Working Group members. * Background information and instructions are contained within the instrument. There is no login requirement, so you will not need user credentials. * This questionnaire is organized into 31 questions divided into six short sections. Simply answer the questions (most use a 1-7 rating scale) on each page and, when you reach the end, click “Submit.” If you receive a “Thank You” response, your feedback was successfully populated. * There is no option in this survey instrument to save and continue later. If you would like to browse the questions in advance, they are published on the ICANN Community Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/nTXxAg. * The survey should take approximately 15 minutes depending upon the number of comments you choose to provide. * The survey will be open for three weeks and will close on Tuesday 20 April at 23:59 UTC. A member of the GNSO policy support staff will monitor the completion process and be available to provide technical assistance if needed. If you are having difficulty with the survey and need assistance, you can email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Confidentiality: We will be asking you for identifying information to ensure that each response is valid. Your individual responses will not be accessible by anyone other than the the ICANN GNSO Policy Support Staff. The aim is not to disclose or publish responses in a way that could be matched to your identity. Once the survey period has closed, staff will produce a report summarizing the findings. This report will be shared with the Working Group and the GNSO Council. It may also be shared with the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as potentially other interested parties. Thanks for your willingness to provide feedback about the Working Group and your participation in it. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Your input requested - SubPro Working Group Self-Assessment
by Emily Barabas 30 Mar '21

30 Mar '21

Dear Working Group Members, On 26 March 2014, the GNSO Council approved a process and questionnaire for Working Groups to conduct Self-Assessments when their work has been substantially finished. The goal is to provide Chartering Organizations, such as the GNSO Council, important information about how well its Working Groups are functioning through an examination of their Inputs, Processes, and Outputs, ultimately leading to continuing improvements. The SubPro Working Group has been identified to participate in this process the details of which are provided below: * The survey tool is hosted by ClickTools at this link: https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/2fp6dk4mud6k5. Please do not share this link with anyone other than Working Group members. * Background information and instructions are contained within the instrument. There is no login requirement, so you will not need user credentials. * This questionnaire is organized into 31 questions divided into six short sections. Simply answer the questions (most use a 1-7 rating scale) on each page and, when you reach the end, click “Submit.” If you receive a “Thank You” response, your feedback was successfully populated. * There is no option in this survey instrument to save and continue later. If you would like to browse the questions in advance, they are published on the ICANN Community Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/nTXxAg. * The survey should take approximately 15 minutes depending upon the number of comments you choose to provide. * The survey will be open for three weeks and will close on Tuesday 20 April at 23:59 UTC. A member of the GNSO policy support staff will monitor the completion process and be available to provide technical assistance if needed. If you are having difficulty with the survey and need assistance, you can email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Confidentiality: We will be asking you for identifying information to ensure that each response is valid. Your individual responses will not be accessible by anyone other than the the ICANN GNSO Policy Support Staff. The aim is not to disclose or publish responses in a way that could be matched to your identity. Once the survey period has closed, staff will produce a report summarizing the findings. This report will be shared with the Working Group and the GNSO Council. It may also be shared with the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as potentially other interested parties. Thanks for your willingness to provide feedback about the Working Group and your participation in it. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Treatment of Minority Statements in the Final Report
by Pruis, Elaine 20 Jan '21

20 Jan '21

HI Emily, Would you confirm the minority reports will be annexes in the report itself, not just attachments? Thanks Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 [signature_453059993] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 12:26 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Treatment of Minority Statements in the Final Report 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 all, Please see attached. This updated version with the Minority Reports included as full text will be sent to Council shortly. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Date: Wednesday, 20 January 2021 at 19:42 To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Treatment of Minority Statements in the Final Report Just to confirm that we are producing another version that has all of the minority reports actually attached and will submit that to the Council. [cid:image001.png@01D6EF6A.675D06D0] 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> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:11 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Treatment of Minority Statements in the Final Report Jim, This is exactly what the co-chairs mentioned during the calls that was going to happen. So, there should be no surprise. And by the time (or times) this was mentioned I heard no objections. Rubens On 20 Jan 2021, at 13:08, Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> wrote: Cheryl and Jeff I’m forwarding the email that delivered the Final Report to the GNSO Council. I didn’t think much of the timing then but it was sent before the deadline for Minority Statements elapsed. Many of the statements were submitted prior to transmittal but not all. I began to think about this more and when I looked at the section of the report that contained the Minority Statements I was surprised to see this: <image001.png> When presented this way, minority statements are significantly diminished as the reader has to navigate to an external web page to read them. The RPMs WG included minority statements in the Final Report. And because the EPDP Phase 2 was pressed to get the report to the Council, they included some in the Final report, but also gave an extended date for others to submit theirs. Once those came in, there was an amended Final report with all contained in the report. By way of this email I am requesting all the minority statements that were submitted be fully included in an updated version of the Final Report and that be sent to Council as the version of record. Apologies in advance to staff for the additional work but minority statements are an important part of the work of the group and should be as easily accessible as other parts of the report. As Council meets tomorrow and the Board ends their workshop this weekend with a session on Sub Pro, I welcome a timely response and resolution. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 3:18 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Dear Councilors, Please find attached the Final Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, which will be discussed under agenda item 6 of the 21 January GNSO Council meeting. Below, you will find a message from the Working Group Co-Chairs regarding the Final Report. Kind regards, Emily Dear Council Members, The Working Group for the PDP on Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs (SubPro) proudly submits its Final Report to the GNSO Council for consideration. We are happy to report that all but one of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. Annex C of the Final Report provides further detail about the Consensus designations for specific outputs under each topic. Within each of the outputs within the topics that received less than Full Consensus, to the extent there were more than one Output for that Topic, the table in Annex C sets forth those outputs within the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is “Consensus.” That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 had “Full Consensus”, but Output 2.3 had Consensus. The PDP Working Group Leadership would like to draw the Council’s attention to a few of the items which may require future thought and/or discussion. 1. Mitigating DNS Abuse. As you are aware, by Letter dated 27 April 2020, the SubPro PDP Working Group referred the issue of DNS Abuse in all gTLDs back to the GNSO Council. As stated in that letter, and repeated in Recommendation 9.15, the Working Group acknowledges ongoing important work in the community on the topic of DNS abuse and believes that a holistic solution is needed to account for DNS abuse in all gTLDs as opposed to dealing with these recommendations with respect to only the introduction of subsequent new gTLDs. In addition, recommending new requirements that would only apply to the new gTLDs added to the root in subsequent rounds could result in singling out those new gTLDs for disparate treatment in contravention of the ICANN Bylaws. Therefore, this PDP Working Group is not making any recommendations with respect to mitigating domain name abuse other than stating that any such future effort must apply to both existing and new gTLDs (and potentially ccTLDs). 1. Closed Generics. The Working Group had “Full Consensus” on the fact that we were unable to come to an agreement on what, if anything, should be done with respect to Closed Generics in subsequent rounds (see Topic 23). This topic was debated for may hours, was the subject of several requests for comments by the community, and had multiple proposals that were discussed, debated and ultimately dismissed. The fact is that there are compelling arguments both for and against allowing them in subsequent rounds, and no right or wrong answer. The Working Group believes that if this issue were to be considered in future policy work, it should also involve experts in the areas of competition law, public policy, and economics. In addition, it should be performed by those in the community that are not associated with any past, present, or expectations of future work in connection with new gTLD applications or objections to new gTLD applications. Absent such independence, any future work is unlikely to result in an outcome any different than the one achieved in this Working Group. 1. Public Interest Commitments / Registry Voluntary Commitments. Although the substantive proposals in Topic 9 garnered Consensus regarding PICs and RVCs, the ICANN Board raised some questions in its comments to the Draft Final Report about whether requiring PICs/RVCs in subsequent rounds (other than those that were grandfathered) are in line with the 2016 ICANN Bylaws. This issue, we believe, is not one that can be answered by a PDP Working Group, but rather by the ICANN Board itself with input from the entire community. Therefore, those recommendations should be read in a manner that assumes that in fact PICs and RVCs can be implemented in the contracts and enforced by ICANN. There is some discussion of this in Topic 9, and proposed ways to implement those PICs/RVCs in a manner that we believe would be compliant, but this may need further discussion within the community as a whole (Not in a PDP). If for any reason the PIC/RVC Recommendations cannot be implemented with the current Bylaws, the community may either want to engage in a discussion to revise the Bylaws, or alternatively, revise the recommendations to ensure that they are enforceable. 1. Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets. Topic 35 was the only topic to receive the overall designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. · Although many of the elements in those recommendations did get Consensus support, there was not consensus on: (a) whether the auctions of last resort should be done as a sealed bid auction where bids are submitted towards the beginning of the process, or (b) whether private auctions should be allowed to resolve contention sets. · There was consensus on allowing other forms of private resolution, such as combining applications, creating new ventures, etc. · But there was no consensus on whether private auctions, where each losing applicant splits the proceeds from the winning bid, should continue to be allowed in subsequent rounds. Our plan is to hold a webinar for the Council and community to attend to discuss these matters further. The webinar will be held prior to the February Council meeting. On behalf of the entire Working Group, we would like to thank the 200+ members of the group for the thousands of hours of meetings, Adobe Connect and Zoom Calls, and In-Person meetings over these past four to five years. We also want to thank not just all of the Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups that actively participated, but also the ALAC and GAC for all of their input, dedication and support. Finally, we could not have done this without the support and expertise or Steve, Julie and Emily from ICANN Org. Sincerely, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr SubPro PDP Chairs Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1evDvIODodem7drO8FQrEsglPtfz4PQtwcUPsv1kjCcvy7S…> <Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 Jan 2021.pdf>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1E6Zz0CfdtRSpLR7hU00ro9HpK2gVjthxxRGnpl46wx0XD…> _______________________________________________ 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://secure-web.cisco.com/15621QCXBnFUgp5CdaVSbLlBzuN6kxG7yFdIv5CBQQp98U…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1pf36iB4i0e2mcm5QvpfvhkgQ9yZ_9r_UjQYE_2EzQ4HDY…>). 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._______________________________________________ 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<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1wk5V3aLFVwelxafhUGW5InIVz4MU3-k8RjrN_E1nwlgv4…> _______________________________________________ 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://secure-web.cisco.com/15621QCXBnFUgp5CdaVSbLlBzuN6kxG7yFdIv5CBQQp98U…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1pf36iB4i0e2mcm5QvpfvhkgQ9yZ_9r_UjQYE_2EzQ4HDY…>). 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.

2 3

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Treatment of Minority Statements in the Final Report
by Jim Prendergast 20 Jan '21

20 Jan '21

Thanks Jeff and Emily. > On Jan 20, 2021, at 2:26 PM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > Please see attached. This updated version with the Minority Reports included as full text will be sent to Council shortly. > > Kind regards, > Emily > > From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> > Date: Wednesday, 20 January 2021 at 19:42 > To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Treatment of Minority Statements in the Final Report > > Just to confirm that we are producing another version that has all of the minority reports actually attached and will submit that to the Council. > > [cid:image001.png@01D6EF6A.675D06D0] > 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> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 1:11 PM > To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Treatment of Minority Statements in the Final Report > > > Jim, > > This is exactly what the co-chairs mentioned during the calls that was going to happen. So, there should be no surprise. > And by the time (or times) this was mentioned I heard no objections. > > > Rubens > > > > > On 20 Jan 2021, at 13:08, Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> wrote: > > Cheryl and Jeff > > I’m forwarding the email that delivered the Final Report to the GNSO Council. I didn’t think much of the timing then but it was sent before the deadline for Minority Statements elapsed. Many of the statements were submitted prior to transmittal but not all. > > I began to think about this more and when I looked at the section of the report that contained the Minority Statements I was surprised to see this: > > <image001.png> > When presented this way, minority statements are significantly diminished as the reader has to navigate to an external web page to read them. > > The RPMs WG included minority statements in the Final Report. And because the EPDP Phase 2 was pressed to get the report to the Council, they included some in the Final report, but also gave an extended date for others to submit theirs. Once those came in, there was an amended Final report with all contained in the report. > > By way of this email I am requesting all the minority statements that were submitted be fully included in an updated version of the Final Report and that be sent to Council as the version of record. Apologies in advance to staff for the additional work but minority statements are an important part of the work of the group and should be as easily accessible as other parts of the report. > > As Council meets tomorrow and the Board ends their workshop this weekend with a session on Sub Pro, I welcome a timely response and resolution. > > Jim Prendergast > The Galway Strategy Group > +1 202-285-3699 > > From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas > Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 3:18 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > Subject: [council] Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG > > Dear Councilors, > > Please find attached the Final Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, which will be discussed under agenda item 6 of the 21 January GNSO Council meeting. > > Below, you will find a message from the Working Group Co-Chairs regarding the Final Report. > > Kind regards, > Emily > > > Dear Council Members, > > The Working Group for the PDP on Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs (SubPro) proudly submits its Final Report to the GNSO Council for consideration. > > We are happy to report that all but one of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. Annex C of the Final Report provides further detail about the Consensus designations for specific outputs under each topic. Within each of the outputs within the topics that received less than Full Consensus, to the extent there were more than one Output for that Topic, the table in Annex C sets forth those outputs within the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is “Consensus.” That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 had “Full Consensus”, but Output 2.3 had Consensus. > > The PDP Working Group Leadership would like to draw the Council’s attention to a few of the items which may require future thought and/or discussion. > > > 1. Mitigating DNS Abuse. As you are aware, by Letter dated 27 April 2020, the SubPro PDP Working Group referred the issue of DNS Abuse in all gTLDs back to the GNSO Council. As stated in that letter, and repeated in Recommendation 9.15, the Working Group acknowledges ongoing important work in the community on the topic of DNS abuse and believes that a holistic solution is needed to account for DNS abuse in all gTLDs as opposed to dealing with these recommendations with respect to only the introduction of subsequent new gTLDs. In addition, recommending new requirements that would only apply to the new gTLDs added to the root in subsequent rounds could result in singling out those new gTLDs for disparate treatment in contravention of the ICANN Bylaws. Therefore, this PDP Working Group is not making any recommendations with respect to mitigating domain name abuse other than stating that any such future effort must apply to both existing and new gTLDs (and potentially ccTLDs). > > > 1. Closed Generics. The Working Group had “Full Consensus” on the fact that we were unable to come to an agreement on what, if anything, should be done with respect to Closed Generics in subsequent rounds (see Topic 23). This topic was debated for may hours, was the subject of several requests for comments by the community, and had multiple proposals that were discussed, debated and ultimately dismissed. The fact is that there are compelling arguments both for and against allowing them in subsequent rounds, and no right or wrong answer. The Working Group believes that if this issue were to be considered in future policy work, it should also involve experts in the areas of competition law, public policy, and economics. In addition, it should be performed by those in the community that are not associated with any past, present, or expectations of future work in connection with new gTLD applications or objections to new gTLD applications. Absent such independence, any future work is unlikely to result in an outcome any different than the one achieved in this Working Group. > > > 1. Public Interest Commitments / Registry Voluntary Commitments. Although the substantive proposals in Topic 9 garnered Consensus regarding PICs and RVCs, the ICANN Board raised some questions in its comments to the Draft Final Report about whether requiring PICs/RVCs in subsequent rounds (other than those that were grandfathered) are in line with the 2016 ICANN Bylaws. This issue, we believe, is not one that can be answered by a PDP Working Group, but rather by the ICANN Board itself with input from the entire community. Therefore, those recommendations should be read in a manner that assumes that in fact PICs and RVCs can be implemented in the contracts and enforced by ICANN. There is some discussion of this in Topic 9, and proposed ways to implement those PICs/RVCs in a manner that we believe would be compliant, but this may need further discussion within the community as a whole (Not in a PDP). If for any reason the PIC/RVC Recommendations cannot be implemented with the current Bylaws, the community may either want to engage in a discussion to revise the Bylaws, or alternatively, revise the recommendations to ensure that they are enforceable. > > > 1. Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets. Topic 35 was the only topic to receive the overall designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. > > · Although many of the elements in those recommendations did get Consensus support, there was not consensus on: > (a) whether the auctions of last resort should be done as a sealed bid auction where bids are submitted towards the beginning of the process, or > (b) whether private auctions should be allowed to resolve contention sets. > > · There was consensus on allowing other forms of private resolution, such as combining applications, creating new ventures, etc. > > · But there was no consensus on whether private auctions, where each losing applicant splits the proceeds from the winning bid, should continue to be allowed in subsequent rounds. > > Our plan is to hold a webinar for the Council and community to attend to discuss these matters further. The webinar will be held prior to the February Council meeting. > > On behalf of the entire Working Group, we would like to thank the 200+ members of the group for the thousands of hours of meetings, Adobe Connect and Zoom Calls, and In-Person meetings over these past four to five years. We also want to thank not just all of the Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups that actively participated, but also the ALAC and GAC for all of their input, dedication and support. Finally, we could not have done this without the support and expertise or Steve, Julie and Emily from ICANN Org. > > Sincerely, > > Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr > SubPro PDP Chairs > > > Emily Barabas > Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 > www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> > > > <Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 Jan 2021.pdf>_______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > _______________________________________________ > 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._______________________________________________ > 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) 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Treatment of Minority Statements in the Final Report
by Jim Prendergast 20 Jan '21

20 Jan '21

Cheryl and Jeff I’m forwarding the email that delivered the Final Report to the GNSO Council. I didn’t think much of the timing then but it was sent before the deadline for Minority Statements elapsed. Many of the statements were submitted prior to transmittal but not all. I began to think about this more and when I looked at the section of the report that contained the Minority Statements I was surprised to see this: [cid:image001.png@01D6EF19.2079EA90] When presented this way, minority statements are significantly diminished as the reader has to navigate to an external web page to read them. The RPMs WG included minority statements in the Final Report. And because the EPDP Phase 2 was pressed to get the report to the Council, they included some in the Final report, but also gave an extended date for others to submit theirs. Once those came in, there was an amended Final report with all contained in the report. By way of this email I am requesting all the minority statements that were submitted be fully included in an updated version of the Final Report and that be sent to Council as the version of record. Apologies in advance to staff for the additional work but minority statements are an important part of the work of the group and should be as easily accessible as other parts of the report. As Council meets tomorrow and the Board ends their workshop this weekend with a session on Sub Pro, I welcome a timely response and resolution. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 3:18 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Dear Councilors, Please find attached the Final Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group, which will be discussed under agenda item 6 of the 21 January GNSO Council meeting. Below, you will find a message from the Working Group Co-Chairs regarding the Final Report. Kind regards, Emily Dear Council Members, The Working Group for the PDP on Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs (SubPro) proudly submits its Final Report to the GNSO Council for consideration. We are happy to report that all but one of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. Annex C of the Final Report provides further detail about the Consensus designations for specific outputs under each topic. Within each of the outputs within the topics that received less than Full Consensus, to the extent there were more than one Output for that Topic, the table in Annex C sets forth those outputs within the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is “Consensus.” That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 had “Full Consensus”, but Output 2.3 had Consensus. The PDP Working Group Leadership would like to draw the Council’s attention to a few of the items which may require future thought and/or discussion. 1. Mitigating DNS Abuse. As you are aware, by Letter dated 27 April 2020, the SubPro PDP Working Group referred the issue of DNS Abuse in all gTLDs back to the GNSO Council. As stated in that letter, and repeated in Recommendation 9.15, the Working Group acknowledges ongoing important work in the community on the topic of DNS abuse and believes that a holistic solution is needed to account for DNS abuse in all gTLDs as opposed to dealing with these recommendations with respect to only the introduction of subsequent new gTLDs. In addition, recommending new requirements that would only apply to the new gTLDs added to the root in subsequent rounds could result in singling out those new gTLDs for disparate treatment in contravention of the ICANN Bylaws. Therefore, this PDP Working Group is not making any recommendations with respect to mitigating domain name abuse other than stating that any such future effort must apply to both existing and new gTLDs (and potentially ccTLDs). 1. Closed Generics. The Working Group had “Full Consensus” on the fact that we were unable to come to an agreement on what, if anything, should be done with respect to Closed Generics in subsequent rounds (see Topic 23). This topic was debated for may hours, was the subject of several requests for comments by the community, and had multiple proposals that were discussed, debated and ultimately dismissed. The fact is that there are compelling arguments both for and against allowing them in subsequent rounds, and no right or wrong answer. The Working Group believes that if this issue were to be considered in future policy work, it should also involve experts in the areas of competition law, public policy, and economics. In addition, it should be performed by those in the community that are not associated with any past, present, or expectations of future work in connection with new gTLD applications or objections to new gTLD applications. Absent such independence, any future work is unlikely to result in an outcome any different than the one achieved in this Working Group. 1. Public Interest Commitments / Registry Voluntary Commitments. Although the substantive proposals in Topic 9 garnered Consensus regarding PICs and RVCs, the ICANN Board raised some questions in its comments to the Draft Final Report about whether requiring PICs/RVCs in subsequent rounds (other than those that were grandfathered) are in line with the 2016 ICANN Bylaws. This issue, we believe, is not one that can be answered by a PDP Working Group, but rather by the ICANN Board itself with input from the entire community. Therefore, those recommendations should be read in a manner that assumes that in fact PICs and RVCs can be implemented in the contracts and enforced by ICANN. There is some discussion of this in Topic 9, and proposed ways to implement those PICs/RVCs in a manner that we believe would be compliant, but this may need further discussion within the community as a whole (Not in a PDP). If for any reason the PIC/RVC Recommendations cannot be implemented with the current Bylaws, the community may either want to engage in a discussion to revise the Bylaws, or alternatively, revise the recommendations to ensure that they are enforceable. 1. Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets. Topic 35 was the only topic to receive the overall designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. * Although many of the elements in those recommendations did get Consensus support, there was not consensus on: (a) whether the auctions of last resort should be done as a sealed bid auction where bids are submitted towards the beginning of the process, or (b) whether private auctions should be allowed to resolve contention sets. * There was consensus on allowing other forms of private resolution, such as combining applications, creating new ventures, etc. * But there was no consensus on whether private auctions, where each losing applicant splits the proceeds from the winning bid, should continue to be allowed in subsequent rounds. Our plan is to hold a webinar for the Council and community to attend to discuss these matters further. The webinar will be held prior to the February Council meeting. On behalf of the entire Working Group, we would like to thank the 200+ members of the group for the thousands of hours of meetings, Adobe Connect and Zoom Calls, and In-Person meetings over these past four to five years. We also want to thank not just all of the Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups that actively participated, but also the ALAC and GAC for all of their input, dedication and support. Finally, we could not have done this without the support and expertise or Steve, Julie and Emily from ICANN Org. Sincerely, Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr SubPro PDP Chairs Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

9 8

REMINDER: Call for Volunteers to Develop Response to the Board's Questions
by Julie Hedlund 19 Jan '21

19 Jan '21

Dear WG members, This is a reminder of the Call for Volunteers per the following action item from the meeting on 12 January. (See Action Items and Notes below.): Response to the ICANN Board’s questions ACTION ITEM: WG members to respond by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 15 January by notifying staff if interested in joining a group to develop the response. Thus far the following WG members have volunteered: Sophie Hey, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Paul McGrady, Jeff Neuman, Jim Prendergast, and Elaine Pruis. Please let us know ASAP if we have missed anyone, or if you would like to volunteer, by replying to this message. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 5:00 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 January 2021 20:00 UTC Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting on 12 January 2021 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/2021-01-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie == Notes and Action Items: Action Items: Topic 21.1: Geographic Names ACTION ITEM: Change designation to “Consensus”. Topic 29: Name Collisions ACTION ITEM: Change designation to “Consensus”. AOB: Response to the ICANN Board’s questions ACTION ITEM: WG members to respond by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 15 January by notifying staff if interested in joining a group to develop the response. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Discussion of Consensus Designations See attached Consensus Call Responses See attached Consensus Designations Also see the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2021-01-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Minority or other statements due by Monday, 18 January 23:59 UTC. Methodology for Consensus Designations: From Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines: Standard Methodology for Making Decisions – see: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g… The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:[1] * Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. · Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.[2] · Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. -- Auctions topic Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets – Only one where the outputs couldn’t be designated as Consensus, instead Strong Support but Significant Opposition. -- In looking at responses looked at number of objections, diversity (different groups/entities), representation. -- Strong Support but Significant Opposition is not consensus, but does indicate support. -- Leadership has tried to be conservative in making the Consensus Designations. Full Consensus: -- For those items for which no comments/objections were filed, those were considered “Full Consensus”. Details: Topic 2: Predictability Full Consensus on 2.1, 2.2, 2.4-2.8; Consensus on 2.3 Topic 3: Applications Assessed in Rounds Full Consensus on 3.1-3.5, and 3.7; Consensus on 3.6 Topic 4: Different TLD Types Full Consensus on 4.2 and 4.3; Consensus on 4.1 Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments Full Consensus on 9.1-9.8, 9.13, and 9.14; Consensus on 9.9-9.12 and 9.15 Full Consensus on the importance of ongoing important work in the community on the topic of DNS abuse and a holistic solution is needed to account for DNS abuse in all gTLDs; Consensus on referring the topic outside of the SubPro PDP and Consensus on the inclusion of ccTLDs in the process. Discussion: -- Some members said we could have discussed the rationale more. When looking at the group as a whole a small minority of members opposed the recommendations. Any member who did not objection was considered as supporting the recommendation. -- If you look at the active members, the leadership considered that all of the recommendations had Consensus. -- Elaine Pruis has stated that she doesn’t not support all of the outputs under Topic 9. -- Even if we look at all of Topic 9 and the responses we still would have Consensus. If we looked at one level down that would be Strong Support but Significant Opposition. -- Need to be careful revising opinions after the end of the Consensus Call. -- Option to submit a minority statement/report. Topic 12: Applicant Guidebook Full Consensus on 12.1-12.8; Consensus on 12.9 and 12.10 Full Consensus on the fact that the Guidebook be translated into at least the 6 UN languages and that the translated versions should be publishes at or as close as possible in time to the English version. There is Consensus on the fact that "other translated version, including in the 6 UN languages must be available no later than two (2) months prior to the commencement of the application submission period." The reason this is not Full Consensus is due to the fact that a couple of members commented that the translated versions should be made available earlier than two (2) months prior to commencement of the application submission period. Topic 15: Application Fees Full Consensus on 15.2-15.6; Consensus on 15.1 and 15.7 Topic 17: Applicant Support Full Consensus on 17.2, 17.3, 17.5-17.14; Consensus on 17.1, 17.4, 17.15-17.18 - In general, Full Consensus on 17.1 and having the applicant support program, except to the extent that it has language related to the bid credit/multiplier - Full Consensus on the restrictions on assignments if Bid Credits/Multipliers are applied - Full Consensus on giving unsucessful applicants for Applicant Support the ability to keep their application alive by paying the remainder of the fee. - However, there is only Consensus on the gaming exception to being able to keep application alive; more specifically who can evaluate gaming and how that evaluation would be done. Topic 18: Terms & Conditions Full Consensus on 17.2, 17.3, 17.5-17.14; Consensus on 17.1, 17.4, 17.15-17.18 Full consensus that there be appeals/challenge mechanisms, but Consensus on whether the Ts and Cs should have a covenant not to sue even with those Appeals/challenge mechanisms. Topic 21: Reserved Names Full Consensus on 21.1-21.3 and 21.5-21.6; Consensus on 21.4 Agree as Consensus; only opposition is to 21.4 reserving "PTI". 21.1-21.3 and 21.5-21.6 Full Consensus Topic 21.1: Geographic Names Note objection from Christopher Wilkinson provided during the Consensus Call. ACTION ITEM: Change designation to “Consensus”. Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations Full Consensus on 24.1-24.2; Consensus on 24.3-24.6 Consensus Full consensus on not allowing plurals/singulars. Just consensus on whether plurals/singulars should be allowed if intended use is different. Topic 27: Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services Full Consensus on 27.1-27.17, and 27.18(i) and (ii); Consensus on 27.18(iii). The only element that was opposed by one member was allowing incumbent registry operators use their incumbency to automatically qualify financially during an evaluation of another TLD. Topic 29: Name Collisions Note objection from Anne Aikman-Scalese to 29.2 provided during the Consensus Call. ACTION ITEM: Change designation to “Consensus”. Topic 30: GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Full Consensus on 30.1, 30.5, and 30.7-30.19 ; Consensus on 30.2, 30.4 and 30.6. There was only one member that opposed the language on GAC Advice and removal of the "strong presumption" Topic 34: Community Applications Full Consensus on 34.2, 34.3, 34.5-34.10, 34.13-34.22; Consensus on 34.1, 34.4, 34.11 and 34.12 Although one person objected to giving Communities any priority, Leadership determined that many of the other elements had full consensus if Communities were given priority. In other words, although that member objected to communities in general, if there were communities, then a number of the outputs would be supported. Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets Consensus on 35.1-35.3, and 35.5; Strong Support but Significant Opposition on 35.4 Consensus on the notion on resolving contention sets through the means of an ICANN auction of last resort and that Communities should receive priority to resolve contention sets., In addition, there seemed to be consensus on private resolution of contention sets. There was significant opposition to using a sealed bid process, especially to the timing of the submission of a bid. Discussion: -- With the number of respondents that have opposition could this be “Divergence”. -- Many WG members did not respond and this was taken as support. -- Option to challenge the designation and/or file a Minority Statement/Report. -- If a WG member just objected to one part of a recommendation it was not understood that they objected to all of the recommendation, or recommendations in a topic. -- Consider keeping the leadership notes in the Final Report. -- The table of Consensus Designations is a public document for reference as it is posted to the wiki, so the leadership notes are accessible. Topic 41: Contractual Compliance Full Consensus on 41.1; Consensus on 41.2 3. AOB: Response to the ICANN Board’s questions -- WG members should let Staff know if they wish to work on a response to the Board. ACTION ITEM: WG members to respond by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 15 January by notifying staff if interested in joining a group to develop the response. ________________________________ ________________________________ [1] The designations “Full consensus,” “Consensus,” and “Strong support but significant opposition” may also be used to signify levels of “consensus against” a particular recommendation if the consensus position of the Working Group warrants it. If this is the case, any “Minority View” will be in favor of the particular recommendation. It is expected that designations of “consensus against” will be rare and Working Groups are encouraged to draft (and revise) recommendations so that a level of consensus can be expressed “for” rather than “against” a recommendation. However, it is recognized that there can be times when a “consensus against” designation is both appropriate and unavoidable as a practical matter. A “consensus against” position should be distinguished from a position of “Divergence” (or “No Consensus”), which is applied where no consensus has emerged either for or against a recommendation (i.e., the consensus level of the Working Group cannot be described as “Full consensus,” “Consensus” or “Strong support but significant opposition” either for or against a recommendation). [2] For those that are unfamiliar with ICANN usage, you may associate the definition of ‘Consensus’ with other definitions and terms of art such as rough consensus or near consensus. It should be noted, however, that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, all reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term ‘Consensus’ as this may have legal implications.

1 0

Minority Statement on RVCs/private PICs
by Kathy Kleiman 19 Jan '21

19 Jan '21

Hi Cheryl, Jeff and the SubPro WG, Attached please find the Minority Statement on RVCs/private PICs that I submit on behalf of myself, Elaine Pruis, Jessica Hooper, George Sadowsky and Jim Prendergast. Best, Kathy Kathryn KleimanGlushko-Samuelson IP Law ClinicAmerican University Washington College of Law

2 1