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

Latest Version of Compromise Closed Generic Text
by Jeff Neuman July 12, 2020

July 12, 2020

Fair enough. Here is the latest version with Paul’s edits: No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board[1] to either (a) “submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD”, (b) “withdraw their application” or (c) “maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD,” which would operate to defer their application to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.” All applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or (b). The result was that no exclusive generic gTLDs (also called “Closed Generic” gTLDs) were delegated in the first round. It was the expectation of the ICANN Board that the GNSO would “develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs”[2]. Although the Working Group has had numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive comments from the community, including members of the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Working Group was not able to agree on “policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.” Questions within the Working Group arose on the impact of a failure to develop any policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs. Following the approach the Working Group has taken on other issues where there is no agreement on changes to the implementation of the new gTLD program, the Working Group would normally recommend applying the Status Quo (e.g., no changes recommended). However, in this unique case, the Working Group was not able to agree on what the Status Quo actually was given the Board’s expectation that the Working Group would develop policy on this matter. In the absence of agreement on any policy, the Working Group debated, and was unable to come to agreement on, whether the status quo meant that either (i) Closed Generics would be allowed (as there were no provisions in the final Applicant Guidebook that prohibited them), (ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (noting that none were delegated in the 2012 round), or (iii) Closed Generics would be allowed if they serve a public interest goal (in accordance with the GAC Advice that was accepted by the Board). Jeff Neuman JJN Solutions, LLC Founder & CEO +1.202.549.5079 Vienna, VA 22180 Jeff(a)JJNSolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com<http://jjnsolutions.com/> From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 2:14 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: Proposed Compromise Language on Closed Generics Thanks Jeff. I actually think that is a step backwards as there was no ban (or “not allowed”). There were 3 options, none of which were a ban: 1. Change 2. Defer to the next Round or 3. Withdraw Let’s keep trying. How about simply deleting the ( ) on all of the options. They are, ultimately, commentary on the opinions of WG members, so they don’t really add much. If we can’t do that, then we could say (ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (noting than none were delegated in the 2012 round). That would be factual. Best, Paul From: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 1:09 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Proposed Compromise Language on Closed Generics Thanks Paul. Each option is followed by a parenthetical explaining why that option could be viewed as the status quo. So while I take your point, we could amend to read: (ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (as they were not allowed to proceed in the 2012 round) Would that work? Jeff Neuman JJN Solutions, LLC Founder & CEO +1.202.549.5079 Vienna, VA 22180 Jeff(a)JJNSolutions.com<mailto:Jeff@JJNSolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com<http://jjnsolutions.com/> From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 1:11 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Proposed Compromise Language on Closed Generics Thanks Jeff. Most of your proposed text is accurate and, therefore, good. However, “…(ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (in line with part (a) of the Board’s resolution),…” is not accurate since the Board’s resolution specifically addressed the 2012 Round and not future Rounds, so there is no “in line with.” The inaccuracy jumps out since A would require an applicant to file a closed generic then later amend it. That would be nonsensical. A more accurate way to state what I think you are trying to say would simply be “…(ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed…”. Otherwise, I think this works. 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 Jeff Neuman Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 11:41 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Compromise Language on Closed Generics All, There has been some good conversation on Closed Generics and specifically making sure that we stay completely factual. In light of the e-mails from Paul, Kathy, Anne and others, I wanted to present some text to replace part (a) of the Closed Generics section. That text is below. A couple of notes first. 1. The materials produced by the Working Group are intended to be as objective as possible and not advocacy pieces for one side or the other. I ask that you look at it for its accuracy and not whether the language makes your position look good or not. 2. The Chairs have not cut off any discussions on this topic at all. If you really believe this to be the case, you are free to report this to the GNSO Council Liaison to escalate. But to make it clear, leadership has assessed that this Working Group is not able to come to agreement on either the substance of this issue, or even on what the default/status quo would be. And the discussions so far on the mailing list have proven us correct. So I would ask that everyone please refrain from accusations that we have cut off discussions inappropriately, or to escalate the issue. 3. The cites for the quotes here are in footnotes (which I did not attach to the body of this e-mail, but can if you would like). 4. If the text below is acceptable, then we will make the corresponding changes in the Rationale. 5. Finally, I know Kathy you were only on the phone during the last call where Package 6 (which included Closed Generics) was on the agenda and discussed. If you review the chat transcript, you will see that there was no support for including the terms “ban” or “effective ban” as you raised. Further George Sadowski, who was on the call, in that chat stated that his opinion of what happened was his opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the 2013/2014 Board which is reflected in the resolution itself. I have the utmost respect for George as he knows from our many conversations, and his views are incredibly important to us, but for the text of the Draft Final Report, we have to include the language of the actual resolution and supporting documentation. ********************************************* So, here is the proposed text: No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board[1] to either (a) “submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD”, (b) “withdraw their application” or (c) “maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD,” which would operate to defer their application to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.” All applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or (b). The result was that no exclusive generic gTLDs (also called “Closed Generic” gTLDs) were delegated in the first round. It was the expectation of the ICANN Board that the GNSO would “develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs”[2]. Although the Working Group has had numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive comments from the community, including members of the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Working Group was not able to agree on “policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.” Questions within the Working Group arose on the impact of a failure to develop any policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs. Following the approach the Working Group has taken on other issues where there is no agreement on changes to the implementation of the new gTLD program, the Working Group would normally recommend applying the Status Quo (e.g., no changes recommended). However, in this unique case, the Working Group was not able to agree on what the Status Quo actually was given the Board’s expectation that the Working Group would develop policy on this matter. In the absence of agreement on any policy, the Working Group debated, and was unable to come to agreement on, whether the status quo meant that either (i) Closed Generics would be allowed (as there were no provisions in the final Applicant Guidebook that prohibited them), (ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (in line with part (a) of the Board’s resolution), or (iii) Closed Generics would be allowed if they serve a public interest goal (in accordance with the GAC Advice that was accepted by the Board). Jeff Neuman JJN Solutions, LLC Founder & CEO +1.202.549.5079 Vienna, VA 22180 Jeff(a)JJNSolutions.com<mailto:Jeff@JJNSolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com<http://jjnsolutions.com/> ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ [1] https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06… [2] Ibid. [1] https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06… [2] Ibid.

9 24

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed Generic Text
by Alexander Schubert July 12, 2020

July 12, 2020

Kathy, Paul,In the 2007 gNSO PDP the issue of "closed generics" has not been defined; but was left open. Accordingly the 2012 AGB was reflecting this policy vacuum; which forced the board to intervene.After the 2012 application round the Board gave clear instructions to the gNSO to develop new policy advice. A mini-micro "2006/2007"-style PDP: just for the very narrow aspect of "closed generics".We are right now exercising the "2012-AGB revision process"; it is authorized to revise the 2012 AGB; it is bound in this exercise by the 2007 PDP. This current forum has explicitly stated that it will abstain from leaving the 2007 policy advise picket fence.As a result this current forum is not authorized to create new policy advice.I guess we all hoped that somehow we all agree to a solution - then implement it; and hence avoid a formal (partial) new PDP.It seems we have now reached agreement within this forum that this 2012-AGB-revision will not come up with a solution.That's not a problem at all.The board didn't require this forum to solve the problem. It instructed the gNSO to engage in a policy development process leading to new policy advice (in regard to the issue of "closed generics").So I suggest we stop wasting precious time: The gNSO has only about 1 year left to create new policy advice regarding the simple question: how shall closed generics be treated. We here are out of depth and need to let this go.The NGPC specifically required the gNSO: "A Policy Development Process with respect to operating exclusive generic strings in the 'public interest' should be undertaken by the community. Policy issues on 'closed generic' TLDs should be resolved through the multistakeholder process."This group here does not have the mandate to conduct a PDP that results in policy advice. We have concluded that we can provide no help, draft or suggestions. So let's simply throw the issue of "closed generics" into a tiny black box: "This working group could not resolve the issues around 'closed generics' and will therefore make no suggestions to their treatment. The gNSO will engage in a PDP - and upon their policy advice a final regulation will be implemented at such time it is available."Closed generics aren't regulated now. So there is nothing for us to say about it. We can continue our 2012 AGB review (leaving closed generics in the black box) - and once the formal PDP creates a solution for closed generics: we add it afterwards. So these are the steps the gNSO (not this group here) will have to initiate:"The rules for the revised GNSO PDP are outlined in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws and the PDP Manual. In addition, the graphics shown below have been developed to facilitate understanding of the different steps of the PDP which include:Issue IdentificationIssue Scoping (What is the issue?)Initiation (Moving ahead with a PDP or not?)Working Group (Exploring the issue in depth and developing recommendations)Council Deliberation (Assess / affirm WG recommendations)Board Vote (Final approval)Implementation"Can we get this done within 3 month? The benefit of a new (very narrow defined) PDP: there is no "fallback solution". We are forced to create a compromise. It's completely seperate from our scope & group here.Who can initiate a PDP? Could ALAC do that? Is someone from ALAC reading this? Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> Date: 7/11/20 18:46 (GMT+02:00) To: "McGrady Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br>, Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed Generic Text Trust me, I understand the frustration. Perhaps more than anyone.But we do not get to make up our own facts. The Board has acted, and the GAC has acted. We must operate within those constraints. Best, Kathy ----- Original Message -----From: "McGrady Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>To:"Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk(a)nic.br>, "Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org>Cc:Sent:Sat, 11 Jul 2020 12:18:37 +0000Subject:Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed Generic Text +1 Rubens. We can’t substitute the facts as they are with Kathy’s view of how they should be. I too am disappointed that this WG did not reach agreement on an improvement to the status quo as the Board asked us to. Some of us tried by introducing thoughts on what a so-called closed generic in the public interest would look like. But, those ideas didn’t stick. Our failure to come to an agreement doesn’t make the fact that we didn’t, somehow, “inaccurate.” What happened, happened, and editorializing about what that means is just another way of trying to get an individual view of what the status quo is adopted by this group. We have been over and over and over this and I, very kindly and respectfully, resist this latest attempt. Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here. For additional resources, visit Taft's 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> On Behalf Of Rubens KuhlSent: Friday, July 10, 2020 3:39 PMTo: Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Latest Version of Compromise Closed Generic Text On 10 Jul 2020, at 17:15, Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> wrote: Hi Jeff, I'm sorry, but the language below is not accurate, and it must be. There is no way this group can agree to allow Closed Generics outside the public interest framework required by the GAC in its Advice. Further, absent our agreement (and the GNSO’s approval), we have not meet the requirements of the Board's resolution on Closed Generics, and the bar does not simply "time out." The group haven't agreed on anything, so... I offer the language below as a substitution -- to accurately reflect the two “Closed Generic” policy requirements before this WG and the GNSO -- the 2015 Board Resolution AND the GAC Advice. No Agreement: The Working Group was unable to come to agreement on a policy that meets the GAC Advice requirements for “exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal.” In keeping with the requirements of the 2015 Board resolution, as clarified in the Rationale, the GNSO must “inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue.” It has not done so. “The NGPC [ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee] is also requesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue. The President and CEO should provide the GNSO with information needed to support this request.” https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06… Accordingly, in the absence of agreement by the Working Group on any new policy consistent with the GAC advice on public interest goals, the status quo is that Closed Generics would not be allowed in subsequent rounds in line the Board’s resolution. The GNSO has not formulated or approved a policy in accordance with the Board’s wishes, as stated in the Rationale, and has not reported any progress to the Board, as requested in the Rationale. Therefore, the Board’s resolution holds until such a policy is formulated and formally approved by the GNSO. It's already known that we can't agree on what the status quo is, so retrying it one way or the other doesn't cut it. Rubens

2 3

Proposed Compromise Language on Closed Generics
by Jeff Neuman July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

All, There has been some good conversation on Closed Generics and specifically making sure that we stay completely factual. In light of the e-mails from Paul, Kathy, Anne and others, I wanted to present some text to replace part (a) of the Closed Generics section. That text is below. A couple of notes first. 1. The materials produced by the Working Group are intended to be as objective as possible and not advocacy pieces for one side or the other. I ask that you look at it for its accuracy and not whether the language makes your position look good or not. 2. The Chairs have not cut off any discussions on this topic at all. If you really believe this to be the case, you are free to report this to the GNSO Council Liaison to escalate. But to make it clear, leadership has assessed that this Working Group is not able to come to agreement on either the substance of this issue, or even on what the default/status quo would be. And the discussions so far on the mailing list have proven us correct. So I would ask that everyone please refrain from accusations that we have cut off discussions inappropriately, or to escalate the issue. 3. The cites for the quotes here are in footnotes (which I did not attach to the body of this e-mail, but can if you would like). 4. If the text below is acceptable, then we will make the corresponding changes in the Rationale. 5. Finally, I know Kathy you were only on the phone during the last call where Package 6 (which included Closed Generics) was on the agenda and discussed. If you review the chat transcript, you will see that there was no support for including the terms "ban" or "effective ban" as you raised. Further George Sadowski, who was on the call, in that chat stated that his opinion of what happened was his opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the 2013/2014 Board which is reflected in the resolution itself. I have the utmost respect for George as he knows from our many conversations, and his views are incredibly important to us, but for the text of the Draft Final Report, we have to include the language of the actual resolution and supporting documentation. ********************************************* So, here is the proposed text: No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board[1] to either (a) "submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD", (b) "withdraw their application" or (c) "maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD," which would operate to defer their application to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs." All applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or (b). The result was that no exclusive generic gTLDs (also called "Closed Generic" gTLDs) were delegated in the first round. It was the expectation of the ICANN Board that the GNSO would "develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs"[2]. Although the Working Group has had numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive comments from the community, including members of the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Working Group was not able to agree on "policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs." Questions within the Working Group arose on the impact of a failure to develop any policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs. Following the approach the Working Group has taken on other issues where there is no agreement on changes to the implementation of the new gTLD program, the Working Group would normally recommend applying the Status Quo (e.g., no changes recommended). However, in this unique case, the Working Group was not able to agree on what the Status Quo actually was given the Board's expectation that the Working Group would develop policy on this matter. In the absence of agreement on any policy, the Working Group debated, and was unable to come to agreement on, whether the status quo meant that either (i) Closed Generics would be allowed (as there were no provisions in the final Applicant Guidebook that prohibited them), (ii) Closed Generics would not be allowed (in line with part (a) of the Board's resolution), or (iii) Closed Generics would be allowed if they serve a public interest goal (in accordance with the GAC Advice that was accepted by the Board). Jeff Neuman JJN Solutions, LLC Founder & CEO +1.202.549.5079 Vienna, VA 22180 Jeff(a)JJNSolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com<http://jjnsolutions.com/> ________________________________ [1] https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06… [2] Ibid.

4 6

Vickey auctions
by Kathy Kleiman July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

Hi All,For days and months we discussed auctions and ways to improve them. One thing we learned is that Vickrey auctions are inherently fair They provide a process that encourages bidders to bid the price that is fair to them -- and set out exactly what they are willing to pay. They avoid collusion and unfair dealing. I thought we had agreed to recommend this method -- a sealed bid at the time of application. I want to reintroduce some of what we learned about Vickrey Auctions in our long discussions -- and why they are a trusted method of auctions among players large and small and with an array of resources. I think it is the very best way to ensure that smaller parties can prevail from time to time, and that the Global South can obtain a share of new gTLDs. Best, Kathy----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT IS A VICKREY AUCTION? https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/vickrey-auc… A Vickrey auction is a sealed-bid auction where bidders submit bids without knowing the bids of other people. However, as opposed to other sealed-bid auctions, the price paid is the second-highest bid price and not the winning bid price. The Vickrey auction was named after William Vickrey, a Canadian who won the 1996 Nobel Prize in Economics for his research on asymmetric information [1] in economics. UNDERSTANDING A VICKREY AUCTION In a Vickrey auction, the individual is bidding their true value and are not trying to assess what everyone else is going to bid. Therefore, in a Vickrey auction, the individual is bidding the maximum amount they are willing to pay and are not disadvantaged by it. By utilizing the second-price mechanism [2] in a Vickrey auction, individuals bid truthfully – individuals are motivated to bid their maximum value because the individual understands that if their bid wins, they will only need to pay the second-highest bid value. Links: ------ [1] https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/asymmetri… [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228296863_How_Good_is_the_Generali…

6 7

Reminder: Deadline 9 July - Final Check on Revised Packages 1-5
by Emily Barabas July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

Dear Working Group members, As a reminder, the deadline to flag errors in the revisions to Packages 1-5 is this Thursday, 9 July. Please see details below. Kind regards, Emily From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, 2 July 2020 at 19:37 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Deadline 9 July - Final Check on Revised Packages 1-5 Dear Working Group members, The Draft Final Report sections in packages 1-5 are now revised to reflect discussions on the “Can’t Live With” input received. Please see the revised text made in the working production document here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…>. If you find errors in the edits, for example a revision that you believe does not accurately reflect the outcome of discussions about a “Can’t Live With” item, please raise these on the mailing list no later than Thursday 9 July. If you find typos, you can send those directly to staff. At this stage, please do not raise new issues, introduce new “Can’t Live With” items, or re-open deliberations on items in packages 1-5. The purpose of this review is to “sanity check” revisions resulting from your consideration of “Can’t Live With” input. A high-level summary of the “Can’t Live With” input received is available here<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report>. And a detailed log with the outcomes from the WG’s consideration of that input is available here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1blgQjzh_vR7WQ1utsqBnHDb8_b2DD7IDQu-…>. As you review, you will also notice some redline text in part d of each of the report sections. Staff has been fleshing out the descriptions of dependencies between the sections in order to make the report more readable for an external audience. We do not expect that you will find anything surprising in this text, but we wanted to make note of it nonetheless. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

3 2

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 09 July at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 09 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review the updated Predictability Framework, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kT…. Also attached, please find the updated concerns/mitigation document and process flow. 3. Review Private Resolutions/Auctions: Hybrid Proposal 2+ and Proposal 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… 4. 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

4 6

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 09 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 08 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/kwBcC> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Andrea

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 14 July at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Tuesday, 14 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review Private Resolutions/Auctions: Hybrid Proposal 2+ and Proposal 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZ… 3. Complete Review of the updated Predictability Framework, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kT…. Also attached, please find the updated concerns/mitigation document and process flow. 4. 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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 09 July at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 09 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/2020-07-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: Predictability Framework: Annex - Predictability Framework Predictability Framework: Categories of Changes to the New gTLD Program after Approval of the Applicant Guidebook ACTION ITEM: Delete the words “take action on”. b. Operational - Non-Minor ACTION ITEM: Add that the SPIRT will report to the Council. - and - b. Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Rationale for Recommendation xx (rationale 1): See new text on pages 2-3. ACTION ITEM: Make this language consistent with the new text in b. Operational – Non-Minor: “The Framework seeks to ensure that, where appropriate, to balance the need for ICANN Org to, on the one hand, works with the community in addressing issues and makes changes to the program with the necessary community input.” 2. Possible Policy Level Changes to Existing Processes [Changes that May Have a Policy Implication] “All recommendations are subject to the review and oversight of the GNSO Council, who maintains the discretion on whether or not to adopt the recommendations made to the Council.” ACTION ITEM: Delete “made to the Council.” 3. Possible Policy Level New Proposals [New Proposals that May Have Policy Implication] the Framework will be used to conduct an assessment [to screen if there is a policy implication] and recommend the mechanism by which the solution will be developed ACTION ITEM: Delete “to conduct an assessment”. SPIRT Chartering ACTION ITEM: Create a flow chart/process chart that shows the timing of each activity. d. Conflict of Interest: ACTION ITEM: Add that if an issue may be tied to a member’s application that should be declared. Consider the language from Cheryl: “Annual SOI Updates does not negate the expectations of Continuous Disclosure AT the time, and operating in an abundance of caution.” Length of Term: ACTION ITEM: Review the language to avoid being detailed on the length; also make sure there is consistency in terminology throughout. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review the updated Predictability Framework, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kT…. Also attached, please find the updated concerns/mitigation document and process flow. RE: “The Predictability Framework is principally: A framework for analyzing the type/scope/context of an issue and if already known, the proposed or required Program change, to assist in determining the impact of the change and the process/mechanism that should be followed to address the issue. [The framework is therefore a tool to help the community understand how an issue should be addressed as opposed to determining what the solution to the issue should be; the framework is not a mechanism to develop policy.]” The WG accepts the new text in brackets. New Implementation Guidance -- Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 1) and Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2) Why this is under the GNSO: -- It is the body charged with developing policy. -- This is a GNSO PDP so we can’t have recommendations that require other SOs/ACs to do something. We can only recommend that this be supervised by the GNSO. Recommendation xx (rationale 2): In the event significant issues arise that require resolution via the Predictability Framework, applicants should be afforded the opportunity to withdraw their application from the process and receive an appropriate refund. -- “appropriate refund” – it was agreed that this was consistent with the schedule. b. Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines Rationale for Recommendation xx (rationale 1): See new text on pages 2-3. ACTION ITEM: Make this language consistent with the new text in b. Operational – Non-Minor: “The Framework seeks to ensure that, where appropriate, to balance the need for ICANN Org to, on the one hand, works with the community in addressing issues and makes changes to the program with the necessary community input.” Annex - Predictability Framework Predictability Framework: Categories of Changes to the New gTLD Program after Approval of the Applicant Guidebook “Only the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org may [take action on] [initiate action on] identify an issue or proposed Program change that needs to be analyzed to determine in which category it belongs. The category will assist in proposing an appropriate course of action for handling the change as outlined below.” ACTION ITEM: Delete the words “take action on”. b. Operational - Non-Minor Process: [ICANN org shall use the Framework to determine if an issue falls in this category. ICANN org must inform the SPIRT of issues arising in this category and the SPIRT will have the option to collaborate with ICANN org as a solution is developed.] All non-minor changes to ICANN Org’s internal processes must be communicated to all impacted (or reasonably foreseeable impacted parties), prior to deployment of the change, [and shall be reported on subsequent to their implementation in a change log, or similar]. Discussion: -- Could we say "ICANN org must inform the GNSO Council and the SPIRT of issues arising in this category and the SPIRT will have the option to collaborate with ICANN org as a solution..." But the change log is after implementation. -- But we may need to may need to modify some language on page 3 of the main Predictability Index text if we go this direction. This is because - On page three of the main Predictability Framework text, we say the following, which conflicts with the language of B currently under discussion. "The Framework seeks to allow ICANN Org to make changes to its internal processes that DO NOT HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT (emphasis mine) on applicants or other community members, change applications, or impact any of the processes and procedures set forth in the Applicant Guidebook." -- Instead of making it ICANN Org’s obligation it should be the SPIRT obligation. ACTION ITEM: Add that the SPIRT will report to the Council. 2. Possible Policy Level Changes [Changes that May Have a Policy Implication] D. Description: These are potential changes to implementation that may materially differ from the original intent of the policy and could be considered creation of new policy. An example is the development of an application ordering mechanism (e.g., digital archery). Process: If the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org [take action on] [initiate action on] identify an issue that they believe to be in this category, the Framework will be used to conduct an assessment [to screen if there is a policy implication] and recommend the mechanism by which the solution will be developed. Options could include: “All recommendations are subject to the review and oversight of the GNSO Council, who maintains the discretion on whether or not to adopt the recommendations made to the Council.” -- Question: What if the recommendation is made to someone else? Answer: All recommendations do go to the Council. ACTION ITEM: Delete “made to the Council.” 3. Possible Policy Level New Proposals [New Proposals that May Have Policy Implication] the Framework will be used to conduct an assessment [to screen if there is a policy implication] and recommend the mechanism by which the solution will be developed ACTION ITEM: Delete “to conduct an assessment”. SPIRT Chartering ACTION ITEM: Create a flow chart/process chart that shows the timing of each activity. d. Conflict of Interest: -- If something involves only your application that should be called out. -- All applications would be covered by Statements of Participation. -- There already is a requirement to keep SOIs up to date and reminders are made on every call. ACTION ITEM: Add that if an issue may be tied to a member’s application that should be declared. Consider the language from Cheryl: “Annual SOI Updates does not negate the expectations of Continuous Disclosure AT the time, and operating in an abundance of caution.” Length of Term: -- If the membership is open does there need to be a term limit? -- May not need to get into the detail of the length of term. ACTION ITEM: Review the language to avoid being detailed on the length; also make sure there is consistency in terminology throughout.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 30 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 6
by Kathy Kleiman July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

Hi All, On Monday, I objected to the deletions of words that made Section 2.7.3 (Closed Generics) clear and accessible to the larger ICANN Community. The words “ban” and “effectively ban” are clear and accurate; that’s exactly what the Board resolution did in the first round. By the rules of our editing, this objection should act as a bar on the change. We agreed for these “I can’t live with it” changes that we all agree or they don’t go in– and we have set aside many fine changes for lack of full agreement. Further, we heard from George Sadowsky, then a member of the Board, that the 2015 Board resolution on Closed Generics is meant to stand until the GNSO comes up with another policy. If we had any question about what the Board meant, that’s our answer and we should share it. Finally, I heard (and agree) that the question of default is unclear to the public. This procedural question is very important for the public to understand and comment on, and not clear in the current version. I am willing to withdraw my objections if we add further language to a) clarify the Board resolution and GAC advice, and b) make clear the additional question of “default” in future rounds. To that end, I offer the attached language (showing the full edit history of the WG) with these newly-offered changes. Attached. Best, Kathy

4 4