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

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

Aug. 3, 2020

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

1 0

SubPro call tonight
by Pruis, Elaine Aug. 3, 2020

Aug. 3, 2020

HI, Is this coming very soon, so we have time to review before our discussion? “Review Private Resolutions – Model 6 (link TBD)” If not please postpone the agenda item. Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 [signature_270372331]

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 04 August at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund July 31, 2020

July 31, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Tuesday, 04 August 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Final Report Structure and Public Comment Survey 3. Closed Generics (new proposals due Monday, 03 August at 23:59 UTC) 4. Review Private Resolutions – Model 6 (link TBD) 5. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 30 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon July 30, 2020

July 30, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 30 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/oABcC> (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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 July at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 30, 2020

July 30, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 30 July at 20:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-07-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Package 6 and 7 “Can’t Live With” Comments 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) Recommendation xx (rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: Delete “and/or” and change to “or”. Accept [whether formal or informal,]. Add string contention resolution to the list, and for Application Change Requests. Check that where we talk about objections that we are being clear and consistent. 2.6.1 Application Queuing Recommendation xx: ACTION ITEM: In the first bullet point: Change to “If there are 125 or more applications”. Add bracketed text. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Package 6 and 7 “Can’t Live With” Comments – Additional Items:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi9…> 2.8.1 Objections Recommendation xx (rationale 2): ICANN org must document the types of changes which are required to be posted for public comment and which are not required to be posted for public comment. The following is a non-exhaustive list of changes that must require public comment: * The addition of Registry Voluntary Commitments in response to public comments, objections, GAC Consensus Advice, or GAC Early Warnings -- Comment: Final Check: Anne Aikman-Scalese suggests inserting", whether formal or informal," after the word "objections." Rationale: This was a different package number but the change to Package 6 to insert “formal” before “objection” throughout the Objections section requires amendment to the section in Application Change Request. 2.3.2 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) / Public Interest Commitments (PICs) Recommendation xx (rationale 4): ICANN must allow applicants to submit Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)(previously called voluntary PICs) in subsequent rounds in their applications and/or to respond to public comments, objections, [whether formal or informal, ]GAC Early Warnings, and/or GAC Consensus Advice. Applicants must be able to submit RVCs at any time prior to the execution of a Registry Agreement; provided, however, that all RVCs submitted after the application submission date shall be considered Application Changes and be subject to the recommendation set forth in Section xx Application Changes Requests, including, but not limited to, public comment in accordance with ICANN’s standard procedures and timeframes. Discussion: -- If we put “formal objections” in then we would need a catch-all phrase. -- Don’t want a change done arbitrarily. Want to be able to follow a process of early warnings, responses, etc. Not to allow changes outside of the formal process. -- Builds the case that ICANN can no longer accept those late opposition letters after formal objections are closed. -- But this language allows ICANN to accept opposition (i.e. informal objection) and it could force further application change and public comment. -- This language allows ICANN to accept late opposition after formal objections are concluded (and prior to CPE), which is yet another moment in the process when community applicants many be required to submit changes or RVCs in order to overcome that informal objection -- This does not help with building predictability into the process for community applicants and any informal objection must be submitted to ICANN within the public comment period stated in the AGB, with no late submissions accepted. -- Shouldn’t be restricting the ability of applicants to work out issues that don’t fall into one of the formal processes by filing a voluntary commitment. -- Organization X may just contact the applicant before the public comment period expires and get an RVC before filing an Objection. -- Before the execution of RA there is no registry, only an applicant.  -- We are saying that from a registry perspective the applicant can file a voluntary commitment prior to the execution of a Registry Agreement. -- State that the RVCs will go out for public comment again. Delete “and/or” and change to “or”. -- Already says that RVCs will go out for public comment. -- An applicant doesn’t have to do an RVC. -- But to protect CPE points (which were distributed in a very stingy manner in 2012) an applicant will be forced to address it. Why not just force the informal opposition to come in during the Public Comment period. ACTION ITEM: Delete “and/or” and change to “or”. Accept [whether formal or informal,]. Add string contention resolution to the list, and for Application Change Requests. Check that where we talk about objections that we are being clear and consistent. 2.6.1 Application Queuing Recommendation xx: All applications must be processed on a rolling basis, based on assigned priority numbers. [While the 2012 AGB prescribed batches of 500 applications, ICANN Org noticed during that round that moving through the priority list without splitting the applications into batches was more efficient. The WG affirms that approach by not recommending batches.] -- Comment from Anne Aikman-Scalese: suggested adding the highlighted sentence. Rationale: While the recommendation text is correct, the rationale misses comparing it to the 2012 AGB, although being exactly the 2012 Implementation. This more of a completeness addition and it’s not crucial to the report. ACTION ITEM: In the first bullet point: Change to “If there are 125 or more applications”. Add bracketed text. 2.8.1 Objections c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. Re: “The Working Group determined that because the Working Group agreed upon Category 1 restrictions for regulated strings, there is no need for the objection process.” -- Final Check: Question from Justine Chew: "My question is what happens if there is an application for a string which is an exact translation of an existing TLD string that is in a highly regulated sector, i.e. one marked for Category 1 restrictions for regulated strings - how is such an applied-for string dealt with?" -- If an applied for string falls into Category 1 then it will have to live within the restrictions of Category 1. If a TLD is already a Category 1 then the new applicant is going to be hit with the Category 1 restrictions, but we don’t state that. Could put in as an example. -- There is a "safe assumption" that any string that falls into a Cat 1, then the translated string will also be subject to the same Cat 1 restrictions. The "safe assumption" isn't explicit.  2.9.1. Community Applications c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. The Working Group considered proposals for specific changes to the CPE Guidelines from 2012, but did not ultimately recommend any specific changes to the text of the Guidelines. Rather, this should be done by the Implementation Review Team taking into account all of the recommendations and implementation guidance described herein. -- Final Check: Anne Aikman-Scalese: "Thanks for deleting the reference to the conclusion that the IRT should be the body that determines any needed changes to the CPE Guidelines. However, what was discussed when the “can’t live with” comments were reviewed is that there is a need to specify that the WG is seeking public comment on the CPE Guidelines. We should be specifying at this point in the text that we are seeking that comment and we should provide the link at this same point in the text so that we call attention to the request for public comment on the CPE Guidelines (but not the scoring.)" -- Hold for discussion on the structure of the report. 3. Review Private Resolutions – Model 5 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg…> and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTg…> Other Forms of Private Resolution All material terms of any arrangement between applicants to privately resolve a contention set (financial or otherwise) must be disclosed to ICANN [and the community]; Discussion: -- Think of the timing of the disclosures. -- Need to look at where we talk about not causing delays, but this section doesn’t touch on that. -- In the event the private resolution triggers a change to the application that would otherwise be necessary to make – Board members, officers, financials, etc. Those things that ordinarily would have to be disclosed, would have to be disclosed. -- On the timing: it should be aggressive. -- There should be a timing circuit breaker – 30 or 40 days? -- That's if a JV happens. We also need to know if say A withdraws because A settled with B and B remains as the applicant on file for its application. That is a settlement between A and B – that would be disclosed and that it resulted in A withdrawing. -- Need to look at what is in the larger section. Are there any other terms of an arrangement that we think need to be disclosed? -- Any contractual commitments to a change of ownership or option to buy out any party to the agreement subsequent to contracting. Need to work out the language. -- Although the second bullet talks about "material change to the surviving application", what is there is no material change?

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 30 July at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund July 28, 2020

July 28, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 30 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Package 6 “Can’t Live With” Comments – Additional Items: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… 3. Package 7 “Can’t Live With” Comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… 4. Review Private Resolutions – Model 5 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… 5. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Additional thoughts on Proposal 5 and on Closed Generics
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne July 27, 2020

July 27, 2020

Hi all, I just want to point out that it is possible the Board could approve a next round while prohibiting certain practices in relation to policy issues as to which we have a “lack of consensus”. This morning Jeff pointed out that we make recommendations and it’s up to GNSO Council to determine whether they will follow them or not. He said this in the context of GNSO Council replacing the WG deliberations and recommendations on the constitution of the SPIRT. His point was that despite the deliberations on the constitution of the SPIRIT, it is possible that Council will elect to restrict the participants to a smaller, more select group. (Some in the WG have pushed for this all along despite the public comment in favor of a “Standing IRT”.) In relation to the context of “ultimate authority”, I note that in the EPDP Phase I, the ICANN Board approved implementation of all the EPDP recommendations except one. The point here is that while we in the WG have relied on the default position in relation to several issues, the Board is not required to follow the GNSO Council recommendation as to what constitutes the default position in relation to either the String Contention Private Resolution process or the issue of Closed Generics. Under the ByLaws, it takes a 2/3 vote of the directors to overturn GNSO Council recommendations, but the Board could simply prohibit both or allow both by the votes of each director acting in his/her fiduciary capacity in relation to the Core Values. The Board could even delay the entire program until these major policy issues are resolved. (ICANN’s 5 year plan has NO new gTLD revenues figured into the plus side of the budget.) On the call this morning, there were several comments about the “default position” for the contentious issues as to Private Resolution of Contention Sets and as to Closed Generics. It was stated that the default position for private resolution is that it’s permitted, but this does not take into account the Board’s comment on this matter. In the Closed Generics discussion, there were also lots of arguments presented that the “default position” ought to be that they are allowed. In the same sense that GNSO Council is not bound by our recommendations, neither is the Board bound by what the WG and the Council think is the “default position”. So the bottom line is it’s important for us to seek the compromise positions Jeff is urging rather than backing into the extreme corners. If we don’t, we face another big “bottleneck” at the Board level since we know already that these are issues of concern to the Board. (I still don’t think there is anything that prohibits an application for the model that George and his group have proposed. It’s not a Closed Generic. And I don’t think the proposal by Kurt et al is realistic because it ignores standing GAC Advice.) Accordingly, I look forward to Jeff’s proposed model for Closed Generics and I look forward to changes that need to be made to Model 5 for Private Resolution of String Contention in order for the WG to reach compromises that have a better chance of making it through to both GNSO Council level action and Board level action. This morning’s discussion on Private Resolution of String Contention was very focused on brands. One business model for a major player might say go ahead and file for the .brand for a lot of the brands you sell and then offer them lots of services associated with running the TLD. This would be a good faith application for sure and would at least get you to the negotiating table with the trademark holder, who likely does not want to file an LRO (complainants generally don’t win) but who also likely does not want to lose out on having its own TLD. So based on the concerns expressed by Paul and Susan, maybe the resolution of the issues relative to required disclosures in the case of private resolution of string contention sets should be different for .brands than for other types of TLDs. In this regard, Phil’s question about tracing each separate type of application through the process would likely be useful. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 7:07 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Additional thoughts on Proposal 5 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Jim. Comments in line with your notes below. Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 6:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Additional thoughts on Proposal 5 Apologies in advance. I will not be able to join the call later today as I am cohosting a workshop at RightsCon at the same time. I will review the notes and recording and respond on list as necessary. As Jeff noted during the last call, this is complicated because we are now allowing the resolution of contention sets in ways that were not allowed in the 2012 round. A very simple, clean way to settle contention sets without these measures is to have them all go to an ICANN auction of last resort or a random draw. But some people insist that losers should get paid so those are off the table. I also believe that we have to address BOTH Board concerns - Board Concern #1 - applications submitted for the sole purpose of receiving a payout for losing private auctions We have made good progress in addressing #1 and I think we can get there with some tweaks. Transparency requirements are good but they should not be rolled back for the creation of JVs. Not suggesting trade secrets be divulged but we should know who the operator of the JV is and we should also know the circumstances around what caused members of the contention set who are not part of the JV to drop out. The operator of the JV will be in the application update, so that is a red herring. As for parties that are not in a JV, there is no way for a JV to know why other applicants dropped out and no way for the JV or its constituent elemental parties to issue discover to determine why a third party dropped out. I also believe that the Bona Fide proffers should be reviewed and enforced by ICANN, not just the outside evaluators. Rationale is that at some point, the evaluators will disappear. They are temporary help. ICANN has the ultimate responsibility to administer this program so they should be the ones reviewing theses Bona Fide requirements. I don’t disagree, but unless we want to create the entire framework now instead of having the IRT do it (as Jeff suggested) we need to build out details around how ICANN would enforce these. And along these lines – ICANN should oversee all auctions, not just the Auction of Last resort. As currently constructed in Paul’s edit – there are too many steps for revealing the results of private auctions. With ICANN overseeing this, it’s a much cleaner process. ICANN involvement also adds a level of assurance that these auctions are being conducted in an aboveboard manner. This has been debated extensively. ICANN overseeing private auctions makes them ICANN auctions not private auctions. There is no stomach for the elimination of private auctions. As far as penalties for violations of the Bona Fide requirements – loss of registry has to be there. That is a major deterrent and should not be cast aside. This doesn’t make any sense. If the concern is that a party is losing to get money, how do you take away a registry from a party that didn’t win it in an auction? Even if you could, the disruption to any second level registrants would be intense. Board Concern #2 - gaming for the purposes of financing other applications. The base Proposal 5 does nothing to address Concern #2. Donna stated that she’s “not convinced that means we have to address it.” I couldn’t disagree more. Proposal 5 does address this by requiring a bona fide intention to run the registry. If we fail to address this now, there is a strong likely hood that the Board will either 1) come back to us and ask us to develop a plan (slowing things down again) or 2) develop a solution themselves. Neither is an ideal outcome so we have to do something to stop the gaming for purposes of financing other applications. Perhaps, but there are other items, such as Closed Generics, where the Board instructed us to find a solution and we aren’t going to do so. Also, sometimes the Board doesn’t get what it wants – that is what the bottom up process is all about. I and others believe that the Bona Fide requirements do not go far enough here. Others believe my sealed bid requirement goes too far. So what are alternative solutions that are enforceable and prevent this type of activity? Auction proceeds held in escrow? All auction conducted at once? All auctions conducted at once won’t work as all contention sets aren’t on the same timeframe (objections, etc.). Holding auction proceeds in escrow hurts smaller players who may not be able to borrow against the escrowed funds in time, sure, but would do nothing to hinder large corporations. These ideas sound good, but don’t actually accomplish anything other than ICANN interfering in private auctions. Timing on when these auctions happen is the key to stop this gaming and that is why I proposed the submission of all bids upfront. With bids upfront, auctions could be conducted whenever but there is a constraint on the ability to roll funds over and over. All bids up front has been discussed extensively and rejected repeatedly. It doesn’t work. Applicants cannot know the bid amounts until all public comments, GAC Early warnings, objections, etc. are over. We can’t deconstruct the entire New gTLD program to solve a problem that only a fraction of the WG even think is a problem. ICANN’s right to refer to competition authority. We never got around to discussing why Paul felt the need to delete this section completely and since the call there was a brief discussion on list about whether ICANN has this as an inherent right or whether it should be spelled out. My proposal was based upon the RSEP process which is already in force of all registry operators and will be required for all future operators. It specifically calls out competition authority referral if ICANN makes a determination such referral is necessary. I was surprised how representatives of contracted parties reacted so negatively to that since it is in existing registry agreements. My rationale for including this provision and calling it out specifically is simple – if a JV or other form of private resolution raises competition concerns for ICANN, they should have the right to refer it to relevant competition authorities to ensure they are ok with it. This protects ICANN the institution from charges that it is fostering anticompetitive behavior. We actually discussed this for a large portion of a call that you were on. I deleted it from the draft because we came to a conclusion on the call that there will be a general notice in the AGB that ICANN can refer whatever it wants whenever it wants to whatever competition authority it chooses – and not just for private auctions. So, this comment leaves me befuddled. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 ________________________________ 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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 27 July at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 27, 2020

July 27, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 27 July at 15:00 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-07-27+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: 1. Predictability Framework: Conflicts of Interest ACTION ITEM: Staff will pull language from Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures on Statements of Interest. 2. Private Resolutions and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort: Model 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements ACTION ITEM: Send some suggested language to the WG re: where there is agreement on what to disclose. 3. Closed Generics ACTION ITEM: Give everyone until 03 August at 23:59 UTC to file other proposals. Put them out for public comment. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Predictability Framework: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kT… SPIRT Chartering d. Length of Term: -- Add a foot note about term limits. “e if participation is limited in some manner.” SPIRT Role: -- Addressed Kathy Kleiman’s comment on who can raise an issue. Added “For avoidance of doubt, the SPIRT cannot refer an issue to itself.” Who receives the Advice / Guidance issued by the SPIRT? -- “Role of GNSO Council where issue was forwarded by a party other than the Council. Upon being provided with a copy of the draft advice/guidance, the GNSO Council shall within no greater than 60 days:” -- Question: What happens if Council doesn’t respond in 60 days? -- Nothing in the guidelines would limit the Council if it needs more time. -- Any Councilor can request a deferral to the next meeting. -- Maybe add “unless a 30-day extension is requested by the Council.” Conflicts of Interest -- See also language in 2.d. "The Statement of Participation should include all of the usual elements of a GNSO Statement of Interest plus additional information the GNSO Council may see fit, including but not limited to, whether the participant is (or will be) employed by, under contract with, has a financial interest in, or providing consulting, financial, legal or other services to, any new gTLD applicant, objector, or commenter. The Statement of Participation is not intended to exclude any person/entity from participating, but rather to provide complete information about the participant to the community. All Statements of Participation shall be made public." -- You can disclose that you have clients who have interests without disclosing who they are. -- So 1) disclosure in realtime (I'm involved with an application in this set) prior to discussion and 2) recusal. ACTION ITEM: Staff will pull language from Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures on Statements of Interest. Code of Conduct: “Members of the SPIRT will be subject to a code of conduct stating that they may not take action that is designed to discriminate against any entity/applicant or group of entities/applicants.” -- Suggest: "disparate treatment from other TLDs similarly situated" 3. Private Resolutions and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort: Model 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements -- Paul McGrady: I have yet to hear a basis for requiring JVs to disclose anything, since both parties are going to be involved in running the registry so there is no "happy loser" concern/ Even if we create a non-problem, there is no basis to require any information other than what is disclosed in Auctions of Last Resort and necessary application changes. -- What to have the data for how these are resolved, by any type of settlement. -- The addition of transparency and disclosure are compromise requirements for allowing private resolutions. -- This notion of disclosing the terms of a private resolution is unacceptable – it would prevent .brands applications. -- If the real parties and interests change during the process that should be discosed. -- What if a third party approaches a single applicant after they are delegated and pays a sum for the TLD in the after market? What can we disclose: -- Notice of settlement – Yes. -- Settled for compensation – No: don’t want to tell cyber squatters what brand owners are preparing to pay. -- That the settlement includes names, without naming them – Yes. -- If the private resolution of a contention set results in a change to the real party or interest the application must go the application change process. This is in theory required by all applicants. ACTION ITEM: Send some suggested language to the WG re: where this is agreement on what to disclose. 4. Closed Generics Proposal from George Sadowsky/Small Group (George with Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg, and Kathy Kleiman) Proposal from Kurt Pritz Proposal from Jeff Neuman Discussion: -- On the comment that we have to define the public interest – we decided that we can’t define it, but have to recognize it when the issue comes up. -- At this point in time there is no agreement on which way to go, but we still think it’s important to put these proposals before the community. If there are others we also can include them. ACTION ITEM: Give everyone until 03 August 23:59 UTC to file other proposals. Put them out for public comment.

1 0

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Monday, 27 July 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew July 27, 2020

July 27, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 27 July 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/ngBcC> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Terri

1 0

Current Thinking on Closed Generics
by Jeff Neuman July 27, 2020

July 27, 2020

All, I wanted to throw something out for consideration by the group in the interests of getting to the draft final report. We are already a week or two behind and I am worried that we could get much further behind and ultimately not meet our end of year date. So, I am laying this out on the line as a proposal. This is not a definitive plan, but something to think about. 1. For the Draft final report, we state that there is No Agreement on the issue of Closed Generics and keep the paragraph in the draft the way it is today. 2. In addition to the text that is already in there, we now have two proposals, one from George et al., and one from Kurt, et al. What if we give everyone an additional week to come up with any proposals on Closed generics they would like to float out for public comment. 3. We publish those proposals for public comment being very specific that they are individual proposals and do not have any level of support within the working group. We may even not want to attach names to the proposal so as to try not and bias the comments we get in. We can of course discuss this last point. 4. We solicit comments on all of the proposals. 5. While the public comment period is going on, we continue to discuss the proposals as a Working Group to see if we can reach any sort of consensus on this issue. 6. We make it very clear in our report that absent reaching consensus within the Working Group on any of these proposals, taking into consideration public comments of course, that in the final report, we will go with the language that is in the Draft Final Report (without any of the individual proposals); namely, No Agreement. Why do this? 1. We need to be realistic with ourselves as well as the community that to date there is no agreement on how to move forward. 2. We also need to give the community a chance to look at the various options people in the working group have proposed so that they can think about these as well (regardless of whether one group of people like it or not). 3. At the end of the day, we will need to demonstrate to the GNSO Council and the Board that we attempted every possible way to reach consensus on a compromise. 4. And finally there are 40+ other topics that we have come to some sort of final resolution on and there is no reason to delay everything even more for these last few issues. What does this mean for us? i) On the call on Monday, we will discuss this path of moving forward. ii) This means that we do not need to use up time on the call discussing the two existing proposals for which I am sure we could spend hours going back and forth and likely end up on Monday exactly where we are now. iii) It also means that others have a week to submit their own proposals. I personally have some ideas that I may put into a proposal that I may submit (not as a co-chair, but personally speaking). This may give us another reason to not attach names to the proposals so that if I submitted a proposal it wouldn't be associated with the "co-chair". iv) We work on finalizing the draft report sections on Predictability and Mechanisms of Last Resort this week as well as the Preamble and "Cant Live With" Package 7. v) This would enable us to stay only a week or to behind. Thoughts? [cid:image002.png@01D6627D.6D7E5C00] 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

6 6