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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 25 February 0300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 25, 2020

Feb. 25, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 25 February 0300 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-02-25+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: a. 2.2.5 Applications Submission Limits ACTION ITEM: Edit the rationale. The goal is not to put the rationale into the recommendation or affirmation language. We think we can soften the language of the rationale a bit to keep in mind the summation of the three different positions. But, at the end of the day, the affirmation is still the affirmation that no limits should be placed on the applications. b. 2.3 Role of Application Comment ACTION ITEM: Re: Affirmation xx (rationale 1): Ruben Kuhl will suggested revised language to the WG on the email distribution list. ACTION ITEM: Add a second affirmation that says there will be an opportunity to comment on submitted applications via the public comment process. Also, expand rational #1 accordingly. Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4): The [Implementation Review Team] community should develop guidelines about how public comments are to be utilized or taken into account by the relevant evaluators and panels, and these guidelines should be included in the AGB. The AGB should also be clear to what extent different types of comments will or will not impact scoring. ACTION ITEM: Change “community” to “Implementation Review Team” to be more specific. Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. ICANN67 Status Update – See the FAQs at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann67-faq-2020-02-24-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> -- SO and AC Chair met last week and also will meet today to discuss the schedule and are seeking feedback from the community. -- The PDP meetings will be held in the remote format. We are seeking 5.5 hours (as originally planned) of meetings. -- Encourage GAC participation to have fruitful community discussions and reduce impact of GAC advice on some of these topics. -- Need to be able to show in our Final Report that there has been full community dialogue on these issues. -- Helpful if your groups could put in a word of support for participation in these remote sessions. -- Virtual meeting hours are likely to be from 1400 to 2200 UTC. -- Since people will not be traveling we will put back on the schedule the WG meeting on 05 March as well as the meetings on 16 and 19 March. 3. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… a. 2.2.5 Applications Submission Limits Affirmation xx: The Working Group believes that there should continue to be no limits placed on the overall number of applications or the number of applications a particular entity may submit. This affirms the existing implementation as no limits were placed on the number of applications in total or from any particular entity in the 2012 application round. Discussion: -- Comment from Kathy Kleiman: “This was the subject of huge discussion and disagreement; it seems entirely too simple a statement for our more complicated conclusion: some applicants want unlimited applications and other members of the Community are very concerned...pure invocation of the Neuman Rule??” -- So when we say that there's a recommendation or an affirmation. We're not saying that everybody in the community agrees that or that there's unanimity certainly we've heard some members of the community state that they thought that there should be some submission limits. But if you go back to Work track 1 that discussed this issue as well as the comments to the initial report there was a minority view that there should be submission limits. I think there was one proposal for a particular number, though there was no evidence provided as to why that was the number selected overall in total due to both the enforceability aspect as well as the overwhelming comments in support of no limits. This is why we believe the affirmation comes out here. -- What really belongs here was that there was severe disagreement on this and there was considerable discussion about how to put in some kind of reasonable limits of parents subsidiaries, etc. -- Put this back into the deliberations: “The working group could not come up with a consensus on application limits or non-limits.” -- Cannot support the text as it stands. T text as it stands, as well as the case in 2012 facilitates concentration and the registry registrar businesses. -- I think we are being inconsistent in how we are handling situations where we could not come to closure. This is an instance where the WG could not come to consensus. -- When we had the initial discussions we felt that there should be limits but there was no practical way to do it – too difficult to verify. That doesn’t get reflected here. -- If you look at the comments from Subgroup A this is not an area where there was strong disagreement. Christopher Wilkinson was opposed and so was the Public Interest Registry. It was not just the Registries that supported it, but also the Registrars and the Business Constituency, as well as the Brand Registry and the IPC. This is pretty strong support with a minority view. We haven’t had a consensus call so we are not using the word consent. -- Shouldn’t go back to just the comments as that doesn’t reflect the discussion in the WG. -- On the question of whether we need to reflect the minority opinions, those could be left to a minority report or minority statement. -- If we reworded this paragraph to be more like what we stated in the initial report, namely that although some members of the community supported the notion of putting limits into place the working group concludes, however, that there are no effective fair and or feasible mechanisms to enforce such limits therefore no limit should be imposed on either the number of applications in total, or the number of applications from any particular entity. -- Don’t want to replicate the deliberations from the Initial Report because we are trying not to have a 400-500-page report. -- Don’t agree to change the wording except perhaps to tack on a clause that there was a minority of people who disagreed. -- Seems like there are at least three schools of thought: 1) Those that favor having no limitations. 2) Those that might favor having limitations or would favor having limitations, but don't see a feasible equitable way to do it, and therefore, are unsatisfied with going with the status quo and then 3) those that oppose the status quo and believe that there are feasible equitable ways or at least a possibility and haven't gotten to the point where they want to give up on that idea and therefore, continue to support that. -- So if you add up the two first two schools of thought together, you end up with the conclusion. So perhaps what needs to be said is that there were a number who did not support limitations and others who could not find a way to implement limitations and therefore supported the status quo and others that objected, and that taking the two first two groups together the recommendation is that to keep the status quo. ACTION ITEM: Edit the rationale. The goal is not to put the rationale into the recommendation or affirmation language. We think we can soften the language of the rationale a bit to keep in mind the summation of the three different positions. But, at the end of the day, the affirmation is still the affirmation that no limits should be placed on the applications. b. 2.3 Role of Application Comment -- Comments from Kathy Kleiman: “Don’t we have need affirmation here: As was the case in the 2012 round, Community members will continue to be given the opportunity to comment on submitted applications via a Public Comment process where their comments are visible to other members of the Community, Applicants, and those processing the Applications (including ICANN and third parties) can review and consider the comments.” -- Let’s see if that comment is reflected in the recommendations and if not we’ll come back to that. -- But there's no affirmation that says that there will be an opportunity to comment on submitted applications via public comment process. ACTION ITEM: Add a second affirmation that says there will be an opportunity to comment on submitted applications via the public comment process. Also, expand rational #1 accordingly. Affirmation xx (rationale 1): As was the case in the 2012 round, applicants should continue to be given the opportunity through Clarifying Questions to respond to comments that might impact scoring Discussion: ACTION ITEM: Re: Affirmation xx (rationale 1): Ruben Kuhl will suggested revised language to the WG on the email distribution list. Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4): The [Implementation Review Team] community should develop guidelines about how public comments are to be utilized or taken into account by the relevant evaluators and panels, and these guidelines should be included in the AGB. The AGB should also be clear to what extent different types of comments will or will not impact scoring. Discussion: -- Comment from staff: “Does the WG want to provide any more specific guidance on what should those new rules and guidelines be? Also, suggest removing this sentence originally in the high-level agreement as it appears to repeat the second affirmation above: "In addition, to the extent that public comments are to be taken into account by the evaluators, panels, etc., applicants must have an opportunity to respond to those comments." If different from the affirmation above, we may want to rephrase to be more explicit.” ACTION ITEM: Change “community” to “Implementation Review Team” to be more specific. Recommendation xx (rationale 5): Applicants should have a clear, consistent, and fair opportunity to respond to the public comments on their application prior to the consideration of those comments in the evaluation process. Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5): Applicants should be given a fixed amount of time to respond to the public comments on their application prior to the consideration of those comments in the evaluation process. Discussion: -- Comment from Kathy Kleiman: “Should applicants modify their applications in response to public comment, there should be a way to directly notify the Commenters of this change-to-the-application -- as they are all identified per earlier Recommendation. (Commenters may want to re-comments e.g., to support the change or to argue it does not fully address the concern.)” -- The applicant should have a clear, consistent fair opportunity to respond to the public comments on their application prior to the consideration of these comments in the evaluation process. -- Let's say the applicant modifies their application in response to the public comment. Then what what I'm suggesting is that there should be a way to directly notify the commenters of the change to the application. -- The recommendation is that should applicants modify their applications into response to public comment there should be a way to directly notify the commenters of the change to the application so that there's an opportunity to review it and further comment. -- Let's take that apart because there's a couple different components in there. So if an applicant changes their application the separate change process would kick in and that would automatically kick in the new comment period on the change. So I'm not sure we need to affirmatively state that the public comment period itself needs to have almost like a reply period but maybe an acknowledgement that if an applicant changes their application as a result of the public comments, then please see the change process section so we have a tie a tie in between the two. -- Question: Is this a proposal for a reply period, or that a change to the application would initiate the change process? Answer: The proposal is that initial commenters should know that there's been a change and that there's a new comment period that's open so that they know where to go. It’s not a reply, but it’s a notice. -- Perhaps that could be as an overall comment when we talk about the usable system and being searchable perhaps include something there about notifications about specific applications as kind of a implementation guidance. Rationale for Recommendation xx and Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): In the 2012 round, in order to submit a comment, a user first needed to create an account by providing name, email address, and optionally affiliation. The system sent an email to the email address provided and affirmative confirmation from the email address needed to be received by the system before an account was created. This functionality verified that there was a person attached to the email account. The Working Group raised concern, however, that this system did not verify that the person creating the account was who he or she claimed to be. The Working Group noted commenters could potentially misrepresent who they were or who they represented and “game” the system to disadvantage certain applicants. Recognizing that evaluation panelists perform due diligence in considering application comment, and the challenge of confirming the true identity of all contributors to public comment, the Working Group nevertheless encourages ICANN to seek opportunities to verify the identity of commenters in a meaningful way to reduce the risk of gaming and to require applicants to disclose any relationship with an applicant for the sake of transparency. Discussion: -- Comment from Kathy Kleiman: “Note: if the commenter cannot be identified, evaluation panelists can always take this into account. It's possible someone might not want their comments to a .POLICE or .KGB gTLD to be identified back to them :-)” -- Re: this recommendation on identifying commenters: There were concerns expressed that competitors and those that may not have the best of intentions may have been filing comments in order to harm other applications. So, requiring someone to state their affiliations was deemed an important part of the recommendations for members of the working group when we had those discussions. -- Concerns about the feasibility of identifying commenters, but that is why we have this as Implementation Guidance, so that ICANN Org can determine the best way to do it. We say that they should seek opportunities to verify. -- Don’t see any reason to change the direction on transparency. -- Nothing in hear prevents someone from submitting an anonymous comment. Next Steps: Review the Work Plan at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96k… -- We will try to move up some topics for next Thursday and for the meetings in the week following ICANN67. -- For this Thursday, 27 February and next Monday, 02 March we’ll cover Applicant Reviews.

1 0

ICANN67 FAQs
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 25, 2020

Feb. 25, 2020

Dear All, Please find the ICANN67 FAQs posted here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann67-faq-2020-02-24-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Feb. 25, 2020

Feb. 25, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/LwVxBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Andrea

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 21, 2020

Feb. 21, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Tuesday, 25 February 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5…: * 2.2.5 Applications Submission Limits (page 7) * 2.3 Role of Application Comment (page 38) 3. AOB Please prepare for the following topics for future meetings: Thursday, 27 February at 20:00 UTC and 02 March at 15:00 UTC: 2.7.7 Applicant Reviews: Technical/Operational, Financial and Registry Services If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

New Thread on Closed Generics
by Jeff Neuman Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

All, I am in London, so my hours are a little off from what they normally are, but I see there has been some excellent discussion on this topic. I know there has been a lot of discussion about what happens if we can’t all agree on a topic and the application of what has been called the “Neuman Rule” (which by the way is flattering 😊). But that said, I want us to try an exercise of thinking about this issue from a fresh lens and trying to see if there are any scenarios in which a so-called closed generic could be applied for and accepted. IF we keep reverting to the conversation of what will be the situation if we don’t agree, then that may serve as an impediment to all of us working to think about this issue in a collaborative creative way. Yes, we will eventually have to deal with that important question for this and some other issues. I am not denying that. But the optimistic side of me still believes firmly in the multi-stakeholder model and that if we put our collective minds together on this and other solutions, we may reach some surprising and satisfying results. So, I want to again put up the GAC Advice because I think it is important here: “For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal." The GAC did not advise an outright ban. Nor did they define the criteria for what they considered would “serve a public interest goal.” The Working Group in its Initial Report provided some potential options for public comment. Alan has presented a additional proposal (Thank you Alan!). The main question for next call is for those that have been advocating the complete ban is whether or not there is any scenario that they can envision an application for excusive registry access could “serve a public interest goal. If the answer is no from a substantial amount of people, then we will end the discussions. If the answer is yes, then we can continue the discussions and yes, discuss this in a face to face. But if the answer is no, then having a face to face meeting on this will not be productive. The answer to the above question should in no way depend on what the status quo was or is. ********************************************** DISCLAIMER: There are some the believe I (or Cheryl) have an interest in seeing this go in one direction or another. But the truth is that the leadership does not. My company may have a position, but they understand that I am not acting on behalf of my company here and in fact, I have not been a part of the comments they have been or will be developing. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> [cid:image002.jpg@01D5E709.93238C40] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

4 5

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 20 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 20 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/KwVxBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 20 February 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 20 February 1500 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-02-20+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Call for proposals on how to address closed generics to be discussed in one of the remote PDP ICANN67 sessions. Deadline is 29 February 2020. Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkR… 2.7.3 Closed Generics (page 33) -- This is an opportunity to treat this as a unique policy setting process. -- We should explore what can be done going forward rather than looking at what was done. -- The definition of the term “generic” would be the definition that is in the agreement itself in Spec 11. -- The question is: Is there any situation where you would support a closed generic? -- Suggestion: “A closed generic could be considered for approval by the ICANN board if there is a compelling reason presented in the application that indicates it would NOT be in the public interest to have the gTLD open.” -- We don’t have the evidence that there is a severe problem because we’ve never allowed it in the first place. -- If we say there can be no closed generics, but we do acknowledge that registries should be able to be creative and innovative. -- List out the problems that people face and see if we can overcome those specific problems. -- Suggest: "If you restrict access to your gTLD there will be an expectation that you might be forced to revert to an open registry - UNLESS you can prove that the restrictions are serving the Public Interest." -- Question: What is the status quo if we do nothing? The WG has different views on that. Is it the AGB? Or is it implementation? Answer: It’s more productive at this point to see if there is a solution. -- Question: What is the impact on previous applicants who opened their TLDs as a result of the last round? -- It would also be good if folks could articulate the harm in closed generics because I'm really sure I have a good understanding on that either. -- We need to say that we believe the default is: 1) the AGB and they are allowed; or 2) the implementation and they are not allowed; or 3) that it is out of our scope to interpret the Board resolution and the Board has to say. -- Look at the list of cons in the Initial Report as the identified problem. -- What about putting into the AGB: "In the 2012 round the board denied to contract closed generic registries on the basis of GAC advice (no public benefit). There is an expectation that in absence of compelling proof of Public Interest any closed generic might be denied contracting again." -- Can’t send thousands of applications to the Board, so restrict to not-for-profits. The problem with coming up with a rule is that we can’t even come up with a good example. ACTION ITEM: Call for proposals on how to address closed generics to be discussed in one of the remote PDP ICANN67 sessions. Deadline is 29 February 2020.

1 0

ICANN67 Update
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

Dear all, ICANN org will provide a short update and answer questions about ICANN67 today at 18:00 UTC. Please join: https://icann.zoom.us/my/icann67prepweek ICANN org will continue to make further announcements as circumstances warrant. Thank you.

1 0

Generic words belong to everyone in a business or industry
by Kathy Kleiman Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

As we revisit the topic of Closed Generics, I would like to share a few thoughts as a reminder on how this issue (of "generic words") has been dealt with in other forums. This is a long-established issue... 1) Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, US Trademark Office: "Generic terms are incapable of functioning as marks denoting source, and are not registrable on the Principal Register under §2(f) or on the Supplemental Register." 807.14(e)(ii) 2) Our own Community Objection process reviewed and raised the same deep concerns for gTLDs in which the applicant (a competitor in a field) ICC New gTLD Community Objections determination: "The establishment of unrestricted, exclusive rights to a gTLD that is strongly associated with a certain community or communities, particularly where those communities are, or are likely to be, active in the Internet sphere *seems to me inherently detrimental to those communities' interests." [Note: the "communities" being referred to here are commercial communities. The issue of a closed .MOBILE was raised by the CTIA which represents the US mobile wireless industry. *1-1316-6133 Best, Kathy

11 26

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 February 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 19, 2020

Feb. 19, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 18 February 1500 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-02-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: 2.6.1 Application Queuing Affirmation xx: ACTION ITEM: Capture in a comment the request to add the words “non-IDN” in the first paragraph in brackets: “The Working Group affirms the approach ultimately taken for [non-IDNs] to application queuing during the 2012 round, in which ICANN conducted drawings to randomize the order of processing applications within an application window. Recommendation xx: ACTION ITEM: Any processes put into place for application queuing should be clear, predictable, and finalized and published [at the same time as] in the Applicant Guidebook. Implementation Guidance xx: ACTION ITEM: Add in the accompanying rationale that this is Implementation Guidance because it is subject to a legal review. No Agreement: ACTION ITEM: Add text to clarify that in the absence of agreement the policy will revert to the 2012 round implementation. c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. -- Re: The second paragraph. ACTION ITEM: Request alternative text from Christopher Wilkinson. 2.7.3 Closed Generics (page 33) ACTION ITEM: Request that Alan Greenberg submit his proposal in writing to the list. ACTION ITEM: Insert some suggested language to clarify the following sentence: “The ICANN Board made it clear, however, that the decision it made applied only to the 2012 round and that it wanted the GNSO to engage in policy discussion regarding the treatment of such strings in subsequent rounds.” Reference the Board resolution. Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkR… a. 2.6.1 Application Queuing (page 30) Affirmation xx: The Working Group affirms the approach ultimately taken to application queuing during the 2012 round, in which ICANN conducted drawings to randomize the order of processing applications within an application window. The Working Group acknowledges that continuing to use the randomized drawing approach is contingent upon local law and the ability of ICANN to obtain the necessary license to conduct such drawings, but advises that under no circumstances should ICANN attempt to create a “skills-based” system like “digital archery” to determine the processing order of applications in subsequent procedures. This affirmation updates and replaces Implementation Guideline D from 2007 which recommended a first-come first served method of processing applications. Discussion: -- Make sure that we cover the prioritization of IDNs -- note that this is covered but not in the first affirmation. -- Group applications according to characteristics, not only the IDNs. -- But note that IDNs were randomized in their group. -- Suggest you look at making the insertion after the word "randomize", e.g. "with idns taking priority at a group and randomized separately"  -- Suggest  "which were treated separately but for which queueing was also randomized" ACTION ITEM: Capture in a comment the request to add the words “non-IDN” in the first paragraph in brackets: “The Working Group affirms the approach ultimately taken for [non-IDNs] to application queuing during the 2012 round, in which ICANN conducted drawings to randomize the order of processing applications within an application window. Recommendation xx: Any processes put into place for application queuing should be clear, predictable, and established in advance. The recommendation to establish procedures in advance is in line with recommendation 1.2.a in the Program Implementation Review Report which states: “Assign priority numbers to applications prior to commencement of application processing.” Discussion: -- Need to clarify what is meant by “in advance”. “In advance” should mean with the publication of the AGB. -- Say that the AGB is “finalized and published”. -- Publish as an addendum to the AGB. -- What's the purpose of the Applicant Guidebook? Is it to document all elements of the application, evaluation and other related information? -- At the same time as the AGB. -- +1 for having it in the AGB. If not in the AGB, it seems appropriate to have it published prior to the application window opening. -- Agree with the support for having it in AGB. Newcomers will have enough of a time trying to find info on this.  ACTION ITEM: Any processes put into place for application queuing should be clear, predictable, and finalized and published [at the same time as] in the Applicant Guidebook. Implementation Guidance xx: Procedures related to application queuing should be simplified and streamlined to the extent possible. For example, applicants could be provided the opportunity to pay the optional fee for participating in the drawing along with payment for the application. Another suggestion is to explore ways to assign a prioritization number during the application process without the need for a distinctly separate drawing event. ACTION ITEM: Add in the accompanying rationale that this is Implementation Guidance because it is subject to a legal review. No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether those IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. Discussion: -- This was not approved policy and the WG can’t agree to it as approved policy, therefore it shouldn’t be part of the next round. -- Question: What does the WG do when it doesn’t have agreement? Answer: We said at the beginning of this PDP that we wouldn’t make changes to the existing policy if we couldn’t reach consensus to do so. -- This is a rare situation because this wasn’t in the AGB and wasn’t consensus policy. -- One WG member disagrees that we should treat the status quo as policy and that there should be a separate PDP on just IDNs that would take priority over this PDP. -- If we can’t agree on a change then the policy was as the 2012 round was implemented. -- The lack of agreement to change the practice implemented in the 2012 round leads to the retention of what was practiced. -- We are talking about giving IDNs a slight head start over non-IDNs that aren’t in a contention set. Did this 2012 round implementation violate policy? -- The policy was first-come, first-served, but the community said that wasn’t the best way to do it so at some point during the writing of the AGB the notion of the secondary time stamp came to be accepted by the community. -- Looking at the comments there is agreement that first-come, first-served is not the way to do it and support for a random draw. -- Only thing the WG can say is that we don’t agree. We don’t agree to recommend the status quo as policy. -- Need to sort out this issue now. -- Change the framework for how the WG operates in cases where the implementation violates policy? -- As long as we cannot agree on a change, my view is that we must be consistent and leave it as AGB as implemented, that os 2012 practice. -- In order to continue as policy it needs to be approved as policy. -- Need to be consistent. -- IDN Prioritization didn't seem to violate a policy. Conflating it with Closed Generics stacks the deck against the pro-closed generics folks in the next topic. Unfortunate. ACTION ITEM: Add text to clarify that in the absence of agreement the policy will revert to the 2012 round implementation to prioritize IDNs. Re: “Specifically on the topic of prioritizing entire contention sets including community-based applications, the Working Group considered a proposed recommendation put forward by one member: “All community applications in contention sets should be prioritized for Initial Evaluation if they provide advance commitment to enter the Community Priority Evaluation immediately up completing initial evaluation.” The Working Group member noted that the processing time for these applications is longer than standard applications, and therefore it would make sense to begin processing them earlier. Further, in the 2012 round, Community Priority Evaluations (CPE) were held until the entire contention set was through Initial Evaluation. The member noted that CPE is the quickest way to resolve a contention set, and a positive CPE result could spare standard applicants in the contention set any expense for Initial Evaluation, therefore creating greater efficiency in the process and savings for members of the contention set.” Discussion: -- Disagree with the above paragraph. -- Need to have a restrictive concept of portfolio applications. ACTION ITEM: Request alternative text from Christopher Wilkinson. b. 2.7.3 Closed Generics (page 33) No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board to effectively ban exclusive use generic applications. The ICANN Board made it clear, however, that the decision it made applied only to the 2012 round and that it wanted the GNSO to engage in policy discussion regarding the treatment of such strings in subsequent rounds. Although the Working Group has had numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive comments from the community, received a number of comments on this, the Working Group was not able to agree as to how to treat these applications in subsequent rounds. See the Board resolution at: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06… Discussion: -- Not sure this is accurate: “The ICANN Board made it clear, however, that the decision it made applied only to the 2012 round and that it wanted the GNSO to engage in policy discussion regarding the treatment of such strings in subsequent rounds.” -- Board resolution is interpreted to mean that you should be able to move your application to the next round subject to the rules of the next round -- so not a ban depending on the rules of the subsequent round. -- This sentence and the Board resolution isn’t clear. -- How do we allow closed generics without allowing in those that we find problematic. -- Proposal: Allow a closed generic subject to approval of ICANN Board with near unanimity. If not approved it is not appealable. -- There would have to be a criteria applied to any decision of this kind by the board, otherwise it becomes too subjective. -- Question: What is the fallback position if we end up with no agreement? -- We need to get to absolute clarity on what happens if we don't adopt an affirmative Policy ban on closed generics (which has never been adopted, by the way). -- We need to develop a solution. If we want applicants to innovate in the next round, we need to make sure their hands aren't tied. -- It's possible an outcome is "it seems applicants CAN mostly do what they want within the existing rules...let's codify some form of a ban" (Not saying that's likely, but possible.) But we should explore it to make sure we aren't unduly prejudicing new applicants. -- Default was that the Board banned closed generics -- reference the Board motion. -- WG will not make a recommendation that is only supported by one Constituency or Stakeholder Group. ACTION ITEM: Request that Alan Greenberg submit his proposal in writing to the list. ACTION ITEM: Insert some suggested language to clarify the following sentence: “The ICANN Board made it clear, however, that the decision it made applied only to the 2012 round and that it wanted the GNSO to engage in policy discussion regarding the treatment of such strings in subsequent rounds.” Reference the Board resolution.

2 1