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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 12 January 2021 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 12, 2021

Jan. 12, 2021

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

1 0

Text from Working Group Guidelines 3.6 on Challenging Consensus Designations
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 12, 2021

Jan. 12, 2021

Dear WG members, Per the discussion during today’s meeting there was a question as to whether there is guidance on WG members lodging a challenge to the leadership’s Consensus Designations. Here is the relevant guidance in Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines: “If several participants[1] in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these steps sequentially: 1. Send email to the Chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error. 2. If the Chair still disagrees with the complainants, the Chair will forward the appeal to the CO liaison(s). The Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response to the complainants and in the submission to the liaison. If the liaison(s) supports the Chair's position, the liaison(s) will provide their response to the complainants. The liaison(s) must explain their reasoning in the response. If the CO liaison disagrees with the Chair, the liaison will forward the appeal to the CO. Should the complainants disagree with the liaison support of the Chair’s determination, the complainants may appeal to the Chair of the CO or their designated representative. If the CO agrees with the complainants’ position, the CO should recommend remedial action to the Chair. 3. In the event of any appeal, the CO will attach a statement of the appeal to the WG and/or Board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the CO.[2] Footnote: Any Working Group member may raise an issue for reconsideration; however, a formal appeal will require that that a single member demonstrates a sufficient amount of support for initiating an appeal before the formal process outlined in Section 3.7 can be invoked. In those cases where a single Working Group member is seeking reconsideration, the member will advise the Chair and/or Liaison of their issue and the Chair and/or Liaison will work with the dissenting member to investigate the issue and to determine if there is sufficient support for the reconsideration to initial the appeal process set forth in Section 3.7.” Note that the deadline for challenges per the work plan is Wednesday, 13 January. Kind regards, Julie ________________________________ ________________________________ [1] Any Working Group member may raise an issue for reconsideration; however, a formal appeal will require that that a single member demonstrates a sufficient amount of support for initiating an appeal before the formal process outlined in Section 3.7 can be invoked. In those cases where a single Working Group member is seeking reconsideration, the member will advise the Chair and/or Liaison of their issue and the Chair and/or Liaison will work with the dissenting member to investigate the issue and to determine if there is sufficient support for the reconsideration to initial the appeal process set forth in Section 3.7. [2] It should be noted that ICANN also has other conflict resolution mechanisms available that could be considered in case any of the parties are dissatisfied with the outcome of this process.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] I support concerns voiced regarding the draft report's treatment of PICs and RVCs
by Pruis, Elaine Jan. 12, 2021

Jan. 12, 2021

To clarify, my opposition is to the RVCs being included in the registry contract. RVCs in the application and in the registry operator’s policies I don’t mind. But in no way should my lack of calling out 9.9 specifically indicate support for 9 overall. Elaine Pruis Senior Director Naming Operations and Policy epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com> 703.948.4672 [signature_1932908514] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 2:55 PM To: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky(a)gmail.com>, New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] I support concerns voiced regarding the draft report's treatment of PICs and RVCs Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. George, I think you need to read the responses carefully to get the intricacies of the statement that everyone has made to understand why we have labeled them as consensus. For example, according to the responses, Jim, Elaine and Jessica did not state that they opposed the recommendation in 9.9. They have some issues with the rationale and they would like the rationale to be worked on, but they have not indicated opposition to 9.9. Greg actually stated the opposite, that he supported 9.9 and does not see any way that PICs could violate the Bylaws. The ONLY objection to the recommendation came from Kathy. And one person’s objection does not indicate a lack of consensus. Happy to discuss further in 10 minutes. [cid:image002.png@01D6E8F4.04491150] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 2:38 PM To: New gTLD SubPro <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] I support concerns voiced regarding the draft report's treatment of PICs and RVCs Dear Jeff and Cheryl, At the end of this long effort, I want to thank you very much for your willingness to lead what appears to have turned out to be a major life event for you both! I would like to note for the record that I support the concerns raised by Greg, Elaine Pruis, Jim Prendergast, Jessica Hooper, Kathy Kleiman and others on Topic 9 about RVCs, and specifically oppose draft recommendations 9.9 and 9.10. I do not think these recommendations have consensus without absolute clarity and determination that PICs and RVCs must not and will not violate the scope and mission of ICANN. I share the current Board members worries, and the dilemma that ICANN will be asked to enforce things outside its scope and mission, which it cannot do (directly or through a third party). The Board members who have contributed their views on this are right; we cannot allow this to happen. I do not think these recommendations have consensus to move forward - under any definition of consensus that I know. This certainly would not pass the carefully considered consensus evaluation of RFC 7282, which is in my opinion one of the most careful and considerate studies of the factors that are relevant and important in assessing a degree of consensus. Best regards, George

1 0

I support concerns voiced regarding the draft report's treatment of PICs and RVCs
by George Sadowsky Jan. 12, 2021

Jan. 12, 2021

Dear Jeff and Cheryl, At the end of this long effort, I want to thank you very much for your willingness to lead what appears to have turned out to be a major life event for you both! I would like to note for the record that I support the concerns raised by Greg, Elaine Pruis, Jim Prendergast, Jessica Hooper, Kathy Kleiman and others on Topic 9 about RVCs, and specifically oppose draft recommendations 9.9 and 9.10. I do not think these recommendations have consensus without absolute clarity and determination that PICs and RVCs must not and will not violate the scope and mission of ICANN. I share the current Board members worries, and the dilemma that ICANN will be asked to enforce things outside its scope and mission, which it cannot do (directly or through a third party). The Board members who have contributed their views on this are right; we cannot allow this to happen. I do not think these recommendations have consensus to move forward - under any definition of consensus that I know. This certainly would not pass the carefully considered consensus evaluation of RFC 7282, which is in my opinion one of the most careful and considerate studies of the factors that are relevant and important in assessing a degree of consensus. Best regards, George

2 1

Official Consensus Call Designations and Responses
by Jeff Neuman Jan. 12, 2021

Jan. 12, 2021

All, Attached is the Working Group Co-Chairs' designation as to the level of Consensus on each Overall Topic containing Affirmations, Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. We have also attached a copy of a spreadsheet with all of the Consensus Call Responses filed by members of the Working Group. As a reminder, Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g…> provides the applicable methodology for the Chairs for Making Decisions. We are proud to announce that of the 41 overall topics, all but 1 of the topics received a designation of either Full Consensus or Consensus. More specifically, 26 topics received Full Consensus, 14 received Consensus and 1 received a designation of Strong Support but Significant Opposition. Within each of the topics that received either Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition, the table sets forth those outputs which the topic that achieved Consensus or Full Consensus. For example, in Topic 2, the overall designation for the Topic is "Consensus." That said, Outputs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 actually had "Full Consensus", but Output 2.3 had Consensus. We look forward to discussing any questions you might have on Tuesday's Working Group Call. Please remember that you have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to challenge any of these designations, and until 18 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to file any Minority Reports or other statements. In full disclosure, some members have asked whether they could file statements of support and leadership can see no reason to not include links to those statements (like the minority reports) in the Final Report. We also wanted to thank you for all of your effort these past 4-5 years and for helping us get to the finish line. And a special thanks of course to the other members of the leadership team who have helped us along the way and of course to Steve, Emily and Julie for their amazing work! Sincerely, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman, SubPro Chairs

5 6

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

Jan. 10, 2021

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

1 0

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

Jan. 9, 2021

All, I just wanted to thank everyone for your responses to the Consensus call and to let you know that we are reviewing them now. Also, we wanted to let you know that one person did request an extension until tomorrow for personal confidential reasons and SubPro Leadership approved that extension. So, you should be seeing one more response tomorrow. Have a great rest of the weekend and look for our assessment late on Monday (Tuesday for some) after the Leadership team has a chance to meet and discuss. Also a reminder that we will go over those results on Tuesday at 20:00 UTC. The call is scheduled for two hours, but we will meet for as long as we need to answer all of your questions and celebrate our final milestone. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image001.png@01D6E69C.E1CA3360] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com

1 0

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

Jan. 9, 2021

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

2 1

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

Jan. 9, 2021

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

1 0

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

Jan. 9, 2021

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

17 18