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

What behaviors would we consider undesirable?
by Jeff Neuman Jan. 23, 2020

Jan. 23, 2020

All, On the call early this morning (for some of us), while we were discussing the goals/objectives to consider when selecting a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention, a very important question was asked by a participant on the call. The question demonstrated that what one person believes is "Bad Faith" other people may not believe is "bad faith" with respect to mechanisms to resolve contention sets. So, with the e-mail chain, I would like for members of the Working Group to discuss what behaviors they would consider to be of the type that we would like to preclude? And by the same token, what are the types of activities that we know we would like to allow. For example, we believe from most of the comments that have come in as well as in our discussions, that some forms of private resolution have been deemed acceptable. This includes the creation of joint ventures between applicants (assuming public comment, etc.), potentially revising applications to address concerns (eg., trademark owner agrees to withdraw its application if other applicant agrees to mitigate trademark abuse), 2 trademark owners agree to modify strings to enable both to have their own TLDs (eg., .deltafaucets or .deltaair)), etc. We have also heard from the ICANN Board that they may believe that participating in private auctions with the sole purpose of losing and using those to fund other auctions may not be as desirable. Though the next call with not be on this topic, we did want to put this issue out on e-mail. Please discuss. Thanks. 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:image003.jpg@01D5CC80.0E2CE0C0] ________________________________ 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>

10 22

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 21 January 2020
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 21, 2020

Jan. 21, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/CwVxBw> (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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 21, 2020

Jan. 21, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkR…. The goal of this exercise is intended to accomplish at least a couple of things, 1) Ensure that the format and level of detail, which emphasizes the recommendations/implementation guidance/affirmations and rationale rather than comprehensive deliberations (and which follows the model established by Work Track 5), is supported by the WG, and 2) Give the WG the opportunity to make substantive progress on finalizing topics. * 2.4.2 Communications – start on page 3, Implementation Guidance xx.a. * 2.4.3 Systems * 2.5.1 Application Fees & 2.5.2 Variable Fees 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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 21 January 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 21, 2020

Jan. 21, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 21 January at 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/2020-01-21+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Applicant Guidebook: ACTION ITEM 1: Create a bracketed new recommendation/implementation guidance and circulate to the WG for review: [There should be an affirmation that the AGB should again be published in the 6 UN languages. Recommendation that this happens at least a certain period of time before the application window opens. IG or recommendation?: All translations should be available at or as close as possible in time to the English version.] Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkR…. The goal of this exercise is intended to accomplish at least a couple of things, 1) Ensure that the format and level of detail, which emphasizes the recommendations/implementation guidance/affirmations and rationale rather than comprehensive deliberations (and which follows the model established by Work Track 5), is supported by the WG, and 2) Give the WG the opportunity to make substantive progress on finalizing topics. a. Applicant Guidebook Format: -- Recommendations that we think must be implemented. -- Implementation guidelines -- things that we think should be done. Sections: -- Affirmation: Will always see an affirmation in the first section -- going back to the AGB or the 2008 policy. -- Recommendation. -- Implementation Guidelines. -- Deliberations: intended to address the comments that were raised, but not in too much detail. A rationale for the recommendations and implementation guidance. -- New issues raised in recommendations. Discussion: -- Question: In the beginning we talk about making the AGB more user friendly, but we don’t mention that it should be published in real time in multiple languages -- where do we capture that in the deliberations? Answer: That might be in the 2.4.3 Systems section, but also should be referenced here. Affirm the publication in 6 UN languages, but the timing of publication is a new recommendation. -- Just as important to having it in UN languages is to have those translations at the same time as English version being published. In 2012 - there were some translations provided but it was several weeks after the English version so those applicants had a small application window as a result. -- Can we understand in principle how long that would take to have the English and the translations available given the AGB will be a sizable document? -- Make sure one geographic region is favored over another. -- There should be an affirmation that the AGB should again be published in the 6 UN languages. Recommendation that this happens before the application window opens. -- Authoritative version should be English. -- COMMENT I think it will be important to specify how quickly all translations will be available after the English version because otherwise the time for prep of application is not equitable.  -- Why can’t the non-English versions be published first? ACTION ITEM: Create a bracketed new recommendation/implementation guidance and circulate to the WG for review: [There should be an affirmation that the AGB should again be published in the 6 UN languages. Recommendation that this happens at least a certain period of time before the application window opens. IG or recommendation?: All translations should be available at or as close as possible in time to the English version.] b. Communications Discussion: -- Question: Is the implementation guidance something that must be done? Answer: Could be considered a strong should, but will depend on feasibility. Should provide that context in the preamble. -- Sounds like the group is recommending that the comms period starts 6 months before the window opens and AGB is published at least 4 months before. Tighten the text accordingly. “Implementation Guidance xx.a: For timeliness, the Working Group believes that for the next subsequent round there should continue to be a minimum of four (4) months from the time when the final Applicant Guidebook is published and the application submission period begins. While this Implementation Guidance should serve as the minimum, additional time may be needed based on other factors such as the RSP pre-approval process, the level of substantive change to the program during implementation, etc. In addition, the Communications Period should begin at least six months prior to the window opening. Essentially, the communications plan should be commensurate with the time needed to perform elements like the non-exhaustive list below: * Outreach related to Applicant Support * Establishing and allowing interested parties to engage in the RSP pre-approval process” -- This is not talking about the communications period. -- Question: Thought we decided at least 6 months? Answer: There is a recommendation for a 6-month communications period. You could make them the same, or you could have the communications period start before the final AGB is published (so different time periods). -- Start at this point on the next call.

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 20, 2020

Jan. 20, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 15:00 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…. The goal of this exercise is intended to accomplish at least a couple of things, 1) Ensure that the format and level of detail, which emphasizes the recommendations/implementation guidance/affirmations and rationale rather than comprehensive deliberations (and which follows the model established by Work Track 5), is supported by the WG, and 2) Give the WG the opportunity to make substantive progress on finalizing topics. * Applicant Guidebook * Communications * Systems (time permitting) * Application Fees (time permitting) * and Variable Fees (time permitting) 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 1

Draft Final Recommendations Sections: Applicant Guidebook, Communications, Systems, Application Fees and Variable Fees
by Steve Chan Jan. 17, 2020

Jan. 17, 2020

Dear WG Members, As discussed on the 16 January 2020 call, the WG will concentrate on reviewing draft final recommendations for a handful of topics: Applicant Guidebook, Communications, Systems, Application Fees and Variable Fees The goal of this exercise is intended to accomplish at least a couple of things, 1) Ensure that the format and level of detail, which emphasizes the recommendations/implementation guidance/affirmations and rationale rather than comprehensive deliberations (and which follows the model established by Work Track 5), is supported by the WG, and 2) Give the WG the opportunity to make substantive progress on finalizing topics. You can find the document here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… and attached. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] What behaviors would we consider undesirable?
by Vanda Scartezini Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Have a large discussion on items acceptable or not, IMO is a good and quick way to create basis to enhance fairness on competition among applicants. For example: I do believe that just enter into a auction dispute against one less wealth applicant juts to exclude them and not use the string - you will certainly get - is not a behavior that I would consider fair competition. It is common in the market, but in the end the string that could be profit enough for a small community will be just lost. So guess our colleagues have lots fo ideas and examples that can create an interesting base of “best practices on competition” Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 17:17 To: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] What behaviors would we consider undesirable? All, On the call early this morning (for some of us), while we were discussing the goals/objectives to consider when selecting a mechanism of last resort to resolve string contention, a very important question was asked by a participant on the call. The question demonstrated that what one person believes is “Bad Faith” other people may not believe is “bad faith” with respect to mechanisms to resolve contention sets. So, with the e-mail chain, I would like for members of the Working Group to discuss what behaviors they would consider to be of the type that we would like to preclude? And by the same token, what are the types of activities that we know we would like to allow. For example, we believe from most of the comments that have come in as well as in our discussions, that some forms of private resolution have been deemed acceptable. This includes the creation of joint ventures between applicants (assuming public comment, etc.), potentially revising applications to address concerns (eg., trademark owner agrees to withdraw its application if other applicant agrees to mitigate trademark abuse), 2 trademark owners agree to modify strings to enable both to have their own TLDs (eg., .deltafaucets or .deltaair)), etc. We have also heard from the ICANN Board that they may believe that participating in private auctions with the sole purpose of losing and using those to fund other auctions may not be as desirable. Though the next call with not be on this topic, we did want to put this issue out on e-mail. Please discuss. Thanks. 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:image003.jpg@01D5CC80.0E2CE0C0] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Hi Anne, The link to the Google doc is on the agenda posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-01-16+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Here it is also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT…. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 2:07 PM To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC Since listening to the last call I had to leave, I have been trying (without success) to find the link to the Google doc on String Contention Resolution on the Wiki. Could someone please send the link? Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Bisland Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 9:51 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/CAVxBw> (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, Julie -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/CAVxBw> (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, Julie -- Julie Bisland GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

2 1

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 January 300 UTC
by Emily Barabas Jan. 16, 2020

Jan. 16, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 16 January at 300 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/2020-01-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest - No updates - Discussion of workplan, available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJyfcJT2rC6I7mjZL8TMmo19LVX1xOd6cXE-Llm… - Next topics are AGB, Communications, Systems, Application Fees and Variable Fees - By Friday, the leadership team will send out a draft document to review on these topics - This document focuses on recommendations and rationale as opposed to background. This is the type of document that we expect will go out for public comment. - The purpose of the review is in part to ensure that everyone agrees on the approach and format - If we continue at the same pace that we have been working, we don’t get to delivering the Final Report until after the end of summer. - This is still very much in draft form. It is not intended to be definitive. If we can cover topics more quickly, we will do so and are exploring options to speed up the work. - The budget intentionally leaves these projects off until they are formally approved by the Board and the community gives instructions to move forward. - There is a possibility of requesting extra face to face time for ICANN68. We are exploring a day zero of that policy meeting. Council liaisons will assist with taking any requests from the WG to the Council. We hope to bring this to Council during SPS. - Reminder that it is important that members have enough time to review documents in advance of calls. - If there is something like a day zero for ICANN68, important that we get this planned soon so people can plan their travel. - Any timelines we submit to Council should be realistic. 2. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT… – Continue Discussion on Goal 8. See also attached flow chart. - Today we will seek to prioritize the goals discussed on the last call. The goal is ultimately to come up with a mechanism, but if we can only come up with goals, these will become part of the policy and the IRT would use these goals to develop a mechanism. - Question about whether it is better to provide feedback by email or as comments in the working document. Suggestion – provide comments on the mailing list so that they can be discussed. It can be helpful to have the comments in both places. - Goal 8: encourage new entrants into the field. If you had this as a goal, you could potentially implement multipliers. There was some discussion about whether this should be a goal for the mechanism or a goal for the program more broadly. - One perspective – the multiplier suggestion might not work in an auction process. It could be that if this was a priority, there could be preference for certain applicants the way there was preference for communities in 2012. If there was priority, it might need to be decided in the evaluation process before contention resolution. - Reminder that the purpose of the goals exercise is to clarify which goals should be considered in deciding between possible mechanisms. - Goal 9: Increase efficiencies – the group had thought that as a byproduct of selecting one of these mechanisms, we might be able to improve efficiency in application evaluation. - It could also mean that unsuccessful applicants get bigger refunds because they know sooner in the process where they stand. - Suggestion to adjust this text to efficiency of the overall process not just application evaluation. -- "Increase efficiencies in the process from application to delegation” - Suggestion that goal 9 could be a potential benefit but is not a goal. It may be a factor to consider rather than a goal. In the original drafting, we “backed into” this goal after looking at the different models. If it is considered a goal, it might be a secondary one. - Some models could increase efficiency in some respects while creating complexity in other respects. - Goal 10: Increased creativity in the resolution of contention sets. There were public comments supporting allowing changes to applications, potentially changes to strings, changes to address concerns expressed about an application and discussion that this could have a positive effect on the program. - While many were not in favor of private auctions, most of the comments did favor some form of private resolution among applicants. - Note that some goals may be in conflict with one another. For example, number 10 may not be compatible with 2 and 4. - We have a mentality coming out of the 2012 round that the only way out of a contention set is an auction of last resort. Our default setting shouldn’t be that our primary goal is to make ICANN money. - From another perspective, the goal of auctions of last resort are not to give ICANN money. They are a predictable mechanism that has been tested and has been decided by the community to be the most fair and efficient way to resolve contention. - In the 2012 round, forming a joint venture at the stage in the process where that would need to happen to avoid contention would involve creating a new entity. The entity that was evaluated for financial, technical, and operational capabilities would not be the same one that ended up signing the agreement. That was a key reason for the rules on joint ventures. - It was noted that joint ventures would need to go out for public comment, be subject to potential objections, etc. - Suggestion to write goal #10 to be more narrowly focused. - Response, if we only focus this goal on creativity via joint ventures, isn’t that narrowing the opportunity for creative solutions we are not specifically mentioning? - You could potentially narrow the scope of 10 so that you support creativity while also staying consistent with the goals of #4. - Goal 11: Board comment: “applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications.” - Board comment raises concerns about using funds from the loss of one auction to fund another application. - Sorting and prioritizing goals – Number 1 and 10 relate to each other. If you are going to allow a period for private resolution, you are also going to be encouraging creativity. - Some support had been expressed in the comments about giving parties in contention a period of time to work things out privately. - One way to consider the goals is to sort them into high, medium and low priority. - Another is to rank the mechanisms based on how they align with each of the goals. One challenge with this approach is that some goals conflict with one another and they may not all be equally important. - Review of language provided by Donna Austin on the mailing list that seeks to combine 3 and 4: “iii) Reduce the risk of applicants or third parties engaging in unfair practices that would manipulate the outcome of a contention set resolution; or require applicants to decide the market value of the string absent relevant information.” The proposal seeks to capture concerns about things that we don’t want to be repeated from the 2012 round and also take into account that the value of a TLD is subjective and only the person or entity bidding can determine what the value will be for them. - With the Vickrey model, it’s hard for participants to consider the value of the TLD in a vacuum. Establishing what it may be worth and the number of applicants in contention might be enough for that. - Concerns that the new proposed text may be appropriate in addition to 3 and 4 but should not replace it. - Terminology would need to defined in the new proposed text, as well as the existing formulation of 3 and 4. - Perhaps if there is a specific type of activity that should not be allowed, this should be called out. - Will the goals see the “light of day”? For the moment, they are for internal use. Next steps will depend on whether the WG can come to agreement in further WG discussion. So they are internal unless and until decided by the group. - If the WG is not able to come to agreement on a mechanism, we need to determine the next step. If we can agree on goals, do we forward these goals to the IRT and say that we do not have a recommendation? - Clarification that proposed changes to number 3 is limited to removing “winner ultimately overpays for the TLD” as a goal. From one perspective, this is not consistent with what was discussed on the last call. 3. AOB - None Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0