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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 11 June at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Emily Barabas June 11, 2020

June 11, 2020

Dear all, As a follow-up to the agenda and specifically regarding item 2 -- there is some proposed recommendation/implementation guidance text in the Working Document on page 6 that we will reference on the call. It draws on Jeff’s proposal below and input from WG members on the last call. For easy reference, I’m including it by email, as well: Recommendation xx: If an applicant qualifies for Applicant Support and is part of a contention set that is resolved through an auction of last resort, a bid credit, multiplier, or other similar mechanism must apply to the bid submitted by that applicant. Implementation Guidance xx: Research should be conducted in the implementation phase to determine the exact nature and amount of the bid credit, multiplier, or other mechanism described in recommendation xx. Implementation Guidance xx: If the Applicant getting Applicant Support prevails in an auction, there should be restrictions placed on the Applicant from assigning the Registry Agreement, and/or from any Change of Control for a period of no less than three (3) years. This restriction is in place to prevent gaming of the applicant support program whereby an applicant immediately transfers its ownership of a registry to a third party in exchange for any form of financial gain. However, legitimate assignments (e.g., changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc.) shall be permitted. All assignments after such time shall be governed under the then-current Registry Agreement standard provisions; provided that any Assignment or Change of Control after the third year, but prior to the seventh (7th) year, shall require the applicant to repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%). Rationale: By definition, applicants qualified to receive applicant support have demonstrated that they have limited financial resources available to apply for a TLD. Applicants with limited financial resources are expected to be disadvantaged when participating in auctions of last resort. The Working Group recommends increasing the chances of applicants qualified to receive applicant support winning at auction by applying a bid credit, multiplier, or other similar mechanism for bids submitted by such applicants to increase their chances of success at auction. The Working Group recommends that in the implementation phase, appropriate expertise and research should be leveraged to determine the exact nature and amount of the bid credit, multiplier, or other similar mechanism. To reduce the risk of gaming, the Working Group suggests additional restrictions on assigning the Registry Agreement and/or Change of Control for those Registry Operators that have benefited from a bid credit, multiplier, or similar mechanism. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 10 June 2020 at 20:39 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 11 June at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 11 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) page 6 in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> and proposed language from Jeff Neuman – see below for latest 3. Review "Can't Live With" comments on package 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>: 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>. Kind regards, Julie --- Applicant Support (multipliers at auction), proposed revised language: Re: Highlighted language: How do we word allowing assignments/change of control through the normal course of business (changing corporate entities, death or retirement of owners, etc.). If we just use the standard, you can assign to parents or subs, then that will allow reverse triangular mergers which gets around the whole no assignment/change of control rules. “If the Applicant getting Applicant Support prevails in an auction, there should be restrictions placed on the Applicant from assigning the Registry Agreement, and/or from any Change of Control for a period of no less than three (3) years. This restriction is in place to prevent gaming of the applicant support program whereby an applicant immediately transfers its ownership of a registry to a third party in exchange for any form of financial gain. However, legitimate assignments (e.g., changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc.) shall be permitted. All assignments after such time shall be governed under the then-current Registry Agreement standard provisions; provided that any Assignment or Change of Control after the third year, but prior to the seventh (7th) year, shall require the applicant to repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%).

3 2

FW: [NCAP-Discuss] next steps for the discussion group
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

Dear Sub Pro WG members, See below by way of update from the Name Collision Analysis Project. Jeff Neuman has been participating actively in the weekly meetings of this group. Anne -----Original Message----- From: NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of James Galvin Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 1:34 PM To: NCAP Discussion Group <ncap-discuss(a)icann.org> Subject: [NCAP-Discuss] next steps for the discussion group [EXTERNAL] First, we want to thank everyone who has been participating (and observing as we have had a couple of regular observers) to the work so far. It is a great thing to have as many folks as we’ve had contributing! The NCAP Admin Committee has just had a meeting to consider the question of what our next steps could be. We believe there are at least 4 tasks in front of us. In no particular order, these tasks are as follows. * Review of name collision definition * Consideration of .corp, .home, and .mail, per the Board resolution * Continue work on the 9 questions by doing the analysis in Studies 2 and 3 with what we have * Review Studies 2 and 3 as currently proposed in the original NCAP Proposal and propose revisions as appropriate What the NCAP Admin Committee is prioritizing is the last task for us to act on in this discussion group. We will review the current proposal and consider what, if anything, we need to change. It’s been more than 2 years since the original proposal was drafted. Given the additional understanding and experience that comes with the last 2 years I’m sure there are changes to consider. Separately you’ll be reminded of the full project proposal on the Wiki by Kim. She will setup two Google docs for us, one for each of the Study 2 and 3 proposals, which she will excerpt from the full project proposal for us. If we create revised proposals we will submit these as a work product to the SSAC, who will be responsible for passing them to the Board for consideration when they review the funding for continued NCAP work. The discussion group will begin this process next week, 17 June, at our usual meeting time. We will not meet the week of the ICANN68 Kuala Lumpur virtual meeting. Beginning 1 July we will meet weekly and continue our project proposal review and pick up the other tasks as appropriate. Thanks again for your participation! Jim, Patrik, and Matt Thomas co-Chairs NCAP _______________________________________________ NCAP-Discuss mailing list NCAP-Discuss(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ 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

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 11 June at 20:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 11 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) page 6 in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… and proposed language from Jeff Neuman – see below for latest 3. Review "Can't Live With" comments on package 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…: 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>. Kind regards, Julie --- Applicant Support (multipliers at auction), proposed revised language: Re: Highlighted language: How do we word allowing assignments/change of control through the normal course of business (changing corporate entities, death or retirement of owners, etc.). If we just use the standard, you can assign to parents or subs, then that will allow reverse triangular mergers which gets around the whole no assignment/change of control rules. “If the Applicant getting Applicant Support prevails in an auction, there should be restrictions placed on the Applicant from assigning the Registry Agreement, and/or from any Change of Control for a period of no less than three (3) years. This restriction is in place to prevent gaming of the applicant support program whereby an applicant immediately transfers its ownership of a registry to a third party in exchange for any form of financial gain. However, legitimate assignments (e.g., changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc.) shall be permitted. All assignments after such time shall be governed under the then-current Registry Agreement standard provisions; provided that any Assignment or Change of Control after the third year, but prior to the seventh (7th) year, shall require the applicant to repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%).

1 0

proposed Language for those Getting Applicant Support
by Jeff Neuman June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

All, On the call today, Susan raised a good point about applicants that get Applicant Support trying to "game the system" by immediately flipping their registries to a third party to make a profit. Although we would hope that those that take the time to go through the Applicant Support Program (ASP) and get approved would alone demonstrate that this is unlikely to happen. The process to get support is supposed to be vigorous and try to root out potential gaming. That said, I worked with Susan to draft the following language. Would this be acceptable as a Recommendation? "If the Applicant getting Applicant Support prevails in an auction, there should be restrictions placed on the Applicant from assigning the Registry Agreement, and/or from any Change of Control for a period of no less than five (5) years. This restriction is in place to prevent gaming of the applicant support program whereby an applicant immediately transfers its ownership of a registry to a third party in exchange for any form of financial gain. However, legitimate assignments (e.g., changing of ownership due to death or retirement, etc., assignments to subsidiaries, etc.). All assignments must have ICANN's consent, which consent may be reasonably withheld. In the event of a change of control after the first five (5) years but during the remaining first term of the registry agreement, the applicant should be required to repay the financial support that they received." Note: We would add this to Agreements for all that get Applicant Support, not just those that prevail at an auction (with the multiplier or other form of bid credit). Discuss........... Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> [cid:image001.jpg@01D63DA3.235624E0] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

7 21

Is there an agenda for tomorrow's call? I can't find it. Thanks and sorry.
by McGrady, Paul D. June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com<http://www.taftlaw.com> / PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [https://dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_image_fetch?cid=1016&ep=f7716fc610e04863…] Taft Bio<http://www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [V-Card Icon] Taft vCard<http://www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Subscribe to our law updates<http://taftlaw.com/news/subscribe> 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.

2 1

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 June 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 8, 2020

June 8, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 08 June at 1500 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: a. Community Applications (independent research, GAC input) [Recommendation xx (rationale 6): ACTION ITEM: Accept the additional text and clarify who is able to respond (applicant). ACTION ITEM: Change the language from “verify the community status of the applicant” to “evaluate the application”. b. Application Queuing (IDNs proposal), ACTION ITEM: Accept the new text and include in the “Can’t Live With” package #6. c. Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), page 6 c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. [The Working Group considered a proposal that a fixed multiplier should apply to bids submitted by certain qualified applicants in sealed-bid auctions of last resort. As an example, applicants that have qualified for support under the Applicant Support Program (ASP) could have their bid automatically upgraded by a fixed multiplier, such as factor of 1.5. As an illustration of this example, an applicant’s bid of $400,000 would count as a bid of $600,000 in the auction. Some Working Group members believe that a multiplier would “level the playing field” for qualified applicants who might not otherwise be in a position to submit winning bids. The Working Group did not reach a conclusion on this proposal.] ACTION ITEM: Add as recommendation under Applicant Support. There must be a bid credit in the form of a multiplier or other mechanism, but that bid credit should be established by the IRT with public comment. Integrate research component to be completed in implementation. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: a. Community Applications (independent research, GAC input), pages 129, 131, and 133 Page 129: [Recommendation xx (rationale 6): If the Community Priority Evaluation Panel conducts independent research while evaluating an application, limitations on this research and additional requirements must apply. The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: “The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.”] Discussion: -- Not sure how ICANN would determine compliance. -- At the end of the day we have to rely on the integrity of the panelists. -- Question: What is the timing of the reveal of the research/sources to the applicant? Answer: Before the evaluation decision is rendered, whether positive or negative. The applicant has 30 days to respond. It was the intent that the applicant would have the information before the ruling so the applicant could see what might need to be rebutted. -- Question: Does anyone other than the applicant see this? Wouldn’t it have to be publicly available? Answer: This is a one-party proceeding. Opening up would make it too complicated. This isn’t an objection proceeding. -- Question: What if the applicant wanted someone else to comment? Answer: The applicant can include that in the response. -- Question: Can we make the language more specific about who is involved in this process? If we don’t specifically say that this is a one-party process then it can be opened up to others. Answer: If you look elsewhere in this recommendation we have details about the public comment period, etc. We need to look at it in context. The opponent has the opportunity to appeal. -- "Relevant" or "adopted" material to be appended to determination. Provides material for establishing grounds for challenge / appeal. -- Anything relied on by the evaluator to make the decision needs to be disclosed. -- Question re: the “status of the applicant” -- is research limited to this option or applied to all 4 elements of the evaluation or is Nexus an option? Answer: Concern was that the panelist shouldn’t act as an advocate. As far as the elements, it would be strange to limit it to a single element. -- Change the language from “verify the community status of the applicant” to “evaluate the application”. ACTION ITEM: Accept the additional text and clarify who is able to respond (applicant). ACTION ITEM: Change the language from “verify the community status of the applicant” to “evaluate the application”. b. Application Queuing (IDNs proposal), page 50 Given that no agreement has been reached in the Working Group, the status quo as implemented controls, meaning continued prioritization of IDNs in future application rounds. Recommendation xx: For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications…[See details on page 50, 51, and 52 of https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5…] Discussion: -- Question: Why assume batches and 500? Answer: Because that is what the AGB already has to keep it simple. -- It doesn’t matter if it is batches of 500, if you maintain the principle (the percentages). -- Question: If we have 10,000 applications, what would be the batch for IDNs? Answer: See the example in the rationale on page 52. -- The only thing that is limiting is the number of IDN applications. -- Concern about the use of the term “batch” as that was not what was done in 2012. ACTION ITEM: Accept the new text and include in the “Can’t Live With” package #6. c. Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), page 6 c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. The Working Group considered a proposal that a fixed multiplier should apply to bids submitted by certain qualified applicants in sealed-bid auctions of last resort. As an example, applicants that have qualified for support under the Applicant Support Program (ASP) could have their bid automatically upgraded by a fixed multiplier, such as factor of 1.5. As an illustration of this example, an applicant’s bid of $400,000 would count as a bid of $600,000 in the auction. Some Working Group members believe that a multiplier would “level the playing field” for qualified applicants who might not otherwise be in a position to submit winning bids. The Working Group did not reach a conclusion on this proposal. Discussion: -- We should limit the multiplier to a maximum, and leave the IRT to pick a number between 1 and ceiling. -- From a policy perspective we support a multiplier but leave it up to the IRT to determine the multiplier. -- Question: Do we want this to be a recommendation or implementation guidance? Answer: Change to a recommendation. -- Need to have something in here to prevent transfer of ownership from being gamed, such as a time period. ACTION ITEM: Add as recommendation under Applicant Support. There must be a bid credit in the form of a multiplier or other mechanism, but that bid credit should be established by the IRT with public comment. Integrate research component to be completed in implementation.

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group / Monday, 08 June 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter June 8, 2020

June 8, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 08 June 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/1QAdC> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Michelle

1 0

Deadline 16 June - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 5
by Steve Chan June 6, 2020

June 6, 2020

Dear all, The leadership team is releasing the fifth set of revised draft recommendations for your review. There are 9 topics in package 5 here, beginning on page 74: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL… [docs.google.com] Note that the Geographic Names report from Work Track 5 is provided separately, below. · 2.2.7 Metrics and Monitoring (This topic is intended to serve as an aggregation point for the metrics based recommendations from the various topics. Deliberations occurred in the context of the directly related topic.) · 2.5.4 Applicant Support (last discussed 26 Mar) · 2.4 Application Change Requests (last discussed 14 Apr) · 2.7.1 Reserved Names (last discussed 23 Apr) · 2.8.1 Objections: GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice (last discussed 7 May) · 2.8.2 Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 20 Apr). Note, an Annex is referenced in this section which will eventually mean the spreadsheet the WG developed here. · 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (formerly Accountability Mechanisms) (last discussed 23 Apr) · 2.10.1 Base Registry Agreement (last discussed 9 Apr) · 2.7.1.2 Geographic Names (last discussed by the full WG at ICANN66 in Montreal on 2 Nov 2019). The WT5 report is available here, unchanged from when it was delivered to the full WG on 22 October 2019. Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format. Because of the size of this particular package, the deadline for comments is Tuesday 16 June at 23:59 UTC Comments will be tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Email: steve.chan(a)icann.org Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 08 June at 15:00 UTC for 90 Minutes
by Julie Hedlund June 5, 2020

June 5, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 08 June 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… * Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), page 6 * Application Queuing (IDNs proposal), page 50 * Community Applications (independent research, GAC input), pages 129, 131, and 133 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Thursday, 04 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon June 5, 2020

June 5, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 04 June 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/0wAdC> (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