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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
by Emily Barabas April 23, 2020

April 23, 2020

Hi Anne, Thanks for adding your additional suggestions to the Google Doc. I have updated your insertion in the document so that it matches the text below and added a comment indicating that you are the author of the comment. Kind regards, Emily From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, 22 April 2020 at 20:30 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, "Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com)" <jamie(a)dotgay.com>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Thanks Emily. Yes – I had previously added some other comments to the CPE Guidelines. At your invitation, I went back in and added the statement below to the Guidelines. (Firm guidelines do not permit signing in to Google docs and had some trouble with the form so we may need to check it against the language in red below.) More importantly, I note that the CPE Guidelines specifically state that they are NOT intended to broaden or narrow the scope of the AGB provisions, so it’s possible we have to state the following in the AGB itself: “In applying these scoring guidelines and as further described in the AGB, evaluators may rely on independent research deemed necessary to accurately complete the scoring process, provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose such independent research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered.” Also relevant is the section in the CPE Guidelines regarding Verification of Support Letters. I guess we can discuss verification generally whenever we discuss the CPE Section and the Guidelines. Thank you, Anne From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:12 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com) <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Hi Anne, In response to your question below to Jeff, the WG has a working document to collect feedback on the 2012 CPE Guidelines. It includes input received about the Guidelines over the mailing list inserted as comments. You can find the document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. I don’t believe that the Working Group has actually taken the step of agreeing on revisions to the 2012 Guidelines or scoring criteria, but that could potentially be a next step for the Working Group to take on. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, 21 April 2020 at 16:34 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>, "Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>)" <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D6194A.F085E770] Paul, You wanted to start a small group on this topic, but we have not heard from you as to a counter-proposal. Jamie and Kathy are copied. Thank you, Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 7:52 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au<mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>) <jamie(a)dotgay.com<mailto:jamie@dotgay.com>> Subject: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Dear WG, In light of the short time frame, I am proposing language re the standard for Community Evaluation panelist relying on independent research (proposed limitation from 2012 by Kristine Dorrain and Paul McGrady) as follows: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant, provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose such independent research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered.” Just trying to get the ball rolling on this proposed compromise – noting that a lack of consensus results in a fallback to 2012 implementation. In addition, I think I have missed the proposed revisions to the Community Guidelines for scoring. Jeff, was this sent around again? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D6194A.F085E770] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=Fm…> [cid:image003.jpg@01D6194A.F085E770] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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

The Consensus Playbook
by Julie Bisland April 22, 2020

April 22, 2020

Dear all, Please see the completed Consensus Playbook and background information below. Best Regards, GNSO Team == Consensus Playbook Published Originated from GNSO’s Policy Development Process (PDP) 3.0 initiative and a subsequent Additional Budget Request (ABR), the Consensus Playbook has been completed for the ICANN community to reference and use. The Consensus Playbook can be downloaded here: http://go.icann.org/consensus [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_consensus&…> This playbook was developed by an external vendor (Consensus Building Institute - CBI.org [cbi.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cbi.org_&d=DwMGaQ&…>) via an Additional Budget Request [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.icann.org_3bkd5Oz&d…> (ABR) for FY20 submitted by the GNSO Council, based on PDP 3.0 improvements [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_pdp3dot0&d…>. The ICANN Board approved<https://community.icann.org/x/Wxq8BQ> the ABR contingent upon the playbook being developed with broad applicability across the community, and not just limited to GNSO PDPs. Hence, this Consensus Playbook aims to provide community volunteers with practical tools and best practices for building consensus, bridging differences, and breaking deadlocks within ICANN processes beyond just GNSO working groups. In developing the playbook, CBI interviewed fourteen (14) ICANN community leaders across ICANN’s SOs and ACs, who shared their extensive consensus building experience in leading and participating in working groups and community groups. The playbook stresses that consensus building should be considered as a journey and it does not just take place at the end of a group’s deliberations. To that end, we’d like to draw your attention to Appendix A, which serves as a reference guide to help inform you which of the fifteen (15) “plays” are applicable to the various phases of the community’s work. It is important to note that this playbook does not seek to change the definition of consensus or the methods of decision making as prescribed in each community group’s rules and procedure; it does not seek to introduce any new requirements either. It is designed for the ICANN community and is only permitted to be used by the ICANN community in support of ICANN related work. The playbook shall not be used for any non-ICANN related purposes. All ICANN community volunteers are strongly encouraged to review the playbook. We anticipate additional opportunities for the ICANN community to discuss the contents and practical utility of the playbook.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
by Emily Barabas April 22, 2020

April 22, 2020

Hi Anne, In response to your question below to Jeff, the WG has a working document to collect feedback on the 2012 CPE Guidelines. It includes input received about the Guidelines over the mailing list inserted as comments. You can find the document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit. I don’t believe that the Working Group has actually taken the step of agreeing on revisions to the 2012 Guidelines or scoring criteria, but that could potentially be a next step for the Working Group to take on. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, 21 April 2020 at 16:34 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com> Cc: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au)" <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, "Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com)" <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards [cid:image001.gif@01D61810.BFB4F860] Paul, You wanted to start a small group on this topic, but we have not heard from you as to a counter-proposal. Jamie and Kathy are copied. Thank you, Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 7:52 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au) <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady(a)taftlaw.com>; 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com) <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards Dear WG, In light of the short time frame, I am proposing language re the standard for Community Evaluation panelist relying on independent research (proposed limitation from 2012 by Kristine Dorrain and Paul McGrady) as follows: “deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant, provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose such independent research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered.” Just trying to get the ball rolling on this proposed compromise – noting that a lack of consensus results in a fallback to 2012 implementation. In addition, I think I have missed the proposed revisions to the Community Guidelines for scoring. Jeff, was this sent around again? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D61810.BFB4F860] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com [lrrc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=Fm…> [cid:image003.jpg@01D61810.BFB4F860] Because what matters to you, matters to us.™ ________________________________ 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.

2 1

Final Compromise Proposal for the Prioritization of IDN applications
by Jeff Neuman April 22, 2020

April 22, 2020

All, Thank you all for your thoughtful comments on the previous proposals for the processing of applications. I have assembled the comments and offer this as proposed text for the draft final report. I first lay out what the existing section states followed by the proposed new language: EXISTING LANGUAGE No Agreement: The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. Although the Working Group received a number of comments on this issue (both in support and against), the Working Group was not able to come to agreement as to whether IDN applications should receive any priority in subsequent rounds. PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE Affirmation with modification (Rationale xx): If the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, applications will be processed in batches of 500.* *In the 2012 round, the Section 1.1.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook provided that the first batch would consist of 500 applications, but each subsequent batch was to be only 400 applications. For ease, the Working Group has modified this to an even 500 applications per batch. (See Applicant Guidebook, page I-9). Recommendation (Rationale xx): The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round a decision was made by ICANN Org to prioritize applications for IDN strings. Although there was a 30-day public comment period, the decision to prioritize IDN strings was never subject to policy review. For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications: 1. First Batch of 500 * If there are more than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, the first 25% of applications processed in the first batch shall be those applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 75% of applications in the first batch shall consist of both IDN and non-IDN applications that elect to participate in the prioritization draw. * If there are less than 125 applications for IDN strings that elect to participate in the prioritization draw, then all such applications shall be processed in the first batch prior to any non-IDN application. 1. Each Subsequent Batch of those electing to participate in the Prioritization Draw * For each subsequent batch. the first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. * The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. 1. Processing of Applications which do not elect to participate in the Prioritization Draw * When all of the applications that have elected to participate in the Prioritization Draw have been processed, ICANN shall process the remaining applications is batches of 500 applications. * The first 10% of each batch of applications must consist of IDN applications until there are no more IDN applications. * The remaining applications in each batch shall be selected at random out of the pool of IDN and non-IDN applications that remain. Example: Assume ICANN receives 3,000 applications. There are 1,200 applications for IDN strings and 1,800 applications for non-IDN strings. 1,000 of the IDN strings and 1,000 of the non-IDN strings elect to participate in the prioritization draw. The remaining 200 IDN string and 800 non-IDN strings have declined to participate in the Prioritization Draw. ICANN shall place the applications in 6 batches of 500 applications in the following manner: Batch 1: 125 of the 1,000 IDN applications (selected during the prioritization draw) shall be processed first. The remaining 750 IDN-applications shall be combined with the 1,000 non-IDN applications. Of those 1,750 applications, 375 of them shall be selected at random to be processed in the first batch. Batch 2: Assume there are 700 IDN applications and 800 non-IDN applications remaining that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the second batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 650 IDN applications. Batch 3: Assume that there are now 400 IDN applications and 600 non-IDN applications that have elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In the third batch, the first 50 applications processed shall be for IDN strings selected at random. The remaining 450 applications processed in the second batch shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 600 non-IDN applications and the remaining 400 IDN applications. Batch 4 Assume there are now only 25 IDN applications and 475 non-IDN applications for the last batch that has elected to participate in the prioritization draw. In this case only 5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 475 non-IDN strings. Batch 5: There are now 200 IDN strings and 800 non-IDN strings that have elected not to participate in the prioritization draw. The first 50 applications process in Batch 5 shall be IDN strings. The remaining 450 applications process shall be selected at random from the pool of both the 800 non-IDN applications and the remaining 150 IDN applications. Batch 6: Assume of the remaining 500 applications, 30 of them are for IDN strings and 470 of them are for non-IDN strings. In this case only 7.5% of the last batch is comprised of IDN applications. Therefore all of the remaining IDN applications will be processed in the last batch prior to the remaining 470 non-IDN strings. 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:image002.jpg@01D617CA.40759A50] ________________________________ 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 11

FW: Minority View - Against the Ban on New Applications for Identical Strings where prior string status is "Not Approved"
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne April 21, 2020

April 21, 2020

Jeff and Cheryl, Regarding the rules relative to a ban on applying for applications for the same string which is still pending from a prior round and the action item we had on submitting a Minority View, I inserted draft Minority View language in the Google doc as shown below in black. MINORITY VIEW: in recognition of the principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression, timely applications for any string previously applied for, but not yet delegated, should be permitted, but such applications should not be processed further unless and until the matching string from the previous round has been classified as "Will Not Proceed:". Will probably want to add some rationale behind the Minority View language as shown in the next two paragraphs: As mentioned, the problem with the current majority view is that if there are no "back-up" offers, then there is no pressure on "strings in process" to finalize an agreement with ICANN because they will have obtained this ability to block other applicants. This delivers too much bargaining power to the prior applicants. They should have first come, first served status, but should not be able to delay and block those who are willing to comply with ICANN Board requirements and/or any new legal and/or policy requirements that may be required to get ICANN comfortable with delegating the string. This logic is particularly sound where the status of the prior string is "Not approved" but "Not Withdrawn." Take, for example, future applications for closed generics. (Keep in mind that the WG has NOT come to a consensus and that no one can agree on the 2012 implementation fallback because you have pointed out that the Board resolution on Closed Generics, by its own terms, does not apply to the next round.) Let's say I'm a big player and I want to reapply in the next round for several Closed Generics in hopes that the policy will evolve at some point and I'll get my opportunity. (Maybe I aim to resolve issues with certain PICS and get a Board vote in favor of my application.) Even if I don't get that opportunity right away, I keep my "bet on the table" by not withdrawing my application. My status may even end up being "Not approved" but I don't withdraw and I keep moving toward policy efforts (and more PICs) to allow my closed generic. Meanwhile, as long as I do not withdraw my application, no one else can apply for that string in the next window, even if they are applying to operate an open TLD. The string is blocked and I hold the block. For many big players, the application fee is chump change (especially since I can autofill most of it) and constitutes a long term investment in future profits. >From the consumer's point of view, back-up applications should be allowed as long as applicants are advised of the risk that the prior string may move forward to delegation. Those back-up applications should not proceed unless and until the prior application is deemed "Will Not Proceed" by ICANN. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D6170C.5E0CC570] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D6170C.5E0CC570] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ 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

Neustar Issues Sheet
by Austin, Donna April 21, 2020

April 21, 2020

All Please find attached Neustar's Issues Sheet, which identifies one issue for consideration. Donna Donna Austin Senior Policy Manager Neustar

2 3

Deadline 21 April - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 1
by Emily Barabas April 20, 2020

April 20, 2020

Dear all, As discussed by the Co-Chairs on today’s call, the leadership team is providing with this email a series of revised draft final recommendations for your review, specifically: 2.4.1 Applicant Guidebook, 2.4.2 Communications, 2.4.3 Systems, 2.5.1 Application Fees/2.5.2 Variable Fees (these two are combined into a single section), 2.5.3 Application Submission Period, and 2.5.5 Terms & Conditions. Revisions are based on Working Group feedback, discussion on calls, and mailing list contributions. The purpose of this exercise is to prepare sections for the draft Final Report so that the draft Final Report can be published for public comment. This is not a consensus call. As discussed, the deadline for comments from WG members on these sections (package 1) is Tuesday 21 April at 23:59 UTC. Please see below for instructions on providing comments. A clean version of the revised sections is available in read-only format here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQL…>. If you prefer to view the sections in redline, please see the relevant sections of the working document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5…>). At this stage, please do not add comments to the working document in the above referenced sections. 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. We will be tracking the release of revised draft recommendations and the feedback WG members submit on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Any issues identified will be addressed and resolved on the mailing list, or if necessary, scheduled for discussion on a subsequent call. Kind regards, Steve, Julie, and 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/>

4 3

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 23 April at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 20, 2020

April 20, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5…> b. 2.8.2 Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (page 91) c. 2.7.1 Reserved Names (p 40) d. 2.2.4 Different TLD Types (p 7) 1. 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

2 1

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 20 April 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter April 20, 2020

April 20, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 20 April 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/oy2JBw> (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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 20 April 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 20, 2020

April 20, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 20 April 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/2020-04-20+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: WG members are reminded to submit their comments on the first Packet of draft recommendations. These will be posted here: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report. ACTION ITEM: Consider rescheduling the Name Collisions topic on 28 April at 0300 UTC to a time that is more convenient for the NCAP Chairs. 2.8.2 Limited Appeal/Challenge Mechanism and Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures Evaluation Procedures Applicant Support: ACTION ITEM: Add in the Applicant Support section that panels need to have panelists available that could decide an appeal and who were not involved in the original decision. Background Screening: ACTION ITEM: Remove the bracketed text of third parties. Objections: Conflicts of Interest of Panelists: ACTION ITEM: The Implementation Review Team should decide who will be the Arbiter of the Appeal. Consider Board Committee as arbiter. Rationale for Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 7) (page 88): ACTION ITEM: Insert additional language from Anne Aikman-Scalese in the footnote: “Clearly erroneous: On balance, in terms of the substantive determination, I would tend to leave an Objection ruling in place unless (1) the panel failed to follow the appropriate procedures or (2) failed to consider/solicit necessary material evidence or information.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… a. 2.8.2 Limited Appeal/Challenge Mechanism and Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8f… Evaluation Procedures: Applicant Support: -- Don’t want anyone on the panel who had input in the decision presiding over the appeal. -- Should make a note that if in the next round we are going to rely on the same mechanism then there might need to be a recommendation to enlarge the panel. The panels that are constituted need to have the ability to hear these types of appeals. Make sure that there is a recommendation in the Applicant Support section that the panel needs to have people available to engage in an appeal that are not the panelists involved in the original decision. ACTION ITEM: Add in the Applicant Support section that panels need to have panelists available that could decide an appeal and who were not involved in the original decision. RSP Pre-Evaluation: -- Question: Do we anticipate ICANN using a third party for the Pre-Evaluation? Answer: Don’t think the WG made a decision on that, it would need to be decided by ICANN. Probably the same panel and the regular tech evaluation panel. -- Question: Do we know how many parties would be able to handle an appeal? Answer: ICANN ended up hiring three entities last time. Background Screening: -- Remove the suggestion for third parties to have standing. Paul had suggested it be added and now is suggesting that it can be removed. -- Question: What could be the alternative channel if we don’t allow third parties to challenge? Answer: The bulk of comments last time were filed by other members of the contention set. Third parties can provide public comments. -- Question: What if the ALAC wants to challenge? Answer: To allow any third party to make challenges to evaluation results would be a step too far. Not sure why the ALAC would be different from any other organization that might want to challenge. -- There is also a recommendation to allow non-public submission of information in relation to a background screening (this is in addition to public comment) ACTION ITEM: Remove the bracketed text of third parties. Objections: String Confusion: ACTION ITEM: Accept the bracketed language in the Notes column H. Limited Public Interest Objection: -- Independent Objector -- just have adequate budget to pay for an unsuccessful appeal -- ALAC -- if it loses the appeal ICANN should not reimburse. Do we want to say that the ALAC should have a budget for objections and appeals? -- ALAC would not be able to appeal without a budget from ICANN. -- A right without funding isn’t much of a right. Need to find some mechanism for this to be meaningful. -- We are saying that ICANN will give the IO a budget, but not that the IO would have adequate funding for any appeal. -- Important to point out that for community objections there was an upfront $5K fee that everyone had to pay to file and to respond. The money that the winner paid to file and participate in the objection never got reimbursed. Advocate the filing fees being paid by the loser and returned to the winning party. -- We will use the same language as in the AGB. -- There wouldn’t be a way for the Board to approve the ALAC making a limited public interest objection or appeal. There should be a budget for ALAC with a line item for appeals. Money that is not used would be returned to ICANN. -- Previously ICANN paid the fees -- ALAC doesn’t get funding to pay, per se. -- Could just say “Loser Pays” and ALAC and ICANN can work out the funding. Conflicts of Interest of Panelists: -- Who is the Arbiter of the Appeal? Should we provide guidance? Or punt this to the Implementation Review Team. ACTION ITEM: The Implementation Review Team should decide who will be the Arbiter of the Appeal. Consider Board Committee as arbiter. Rationale for Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 7) (page 88): -- Question: What happened to the suggestion that there should be more detail about the “clearly erroneous” standard? Answer: Look at the rationale for rationale 8 and footnote 84. -- Doesn’t take account the language Anne Aikman-Scalese suggested. ACTION ITEM: Insert additional language from Anne Aikman-Scalese in the footnote: “Clearly erroneous: On balance, in terms of the substantive determination, I would tend to leave an Objection ruling in place unless (1) the panel failed to follow the appropriate procedures or (2) failed to consider/solicit necessary material evidence or information.” Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 11): The limited challenge/appeal mechanism should include a “quick look” step at the beginning of the process to identify and eliminate frivolous challenges/appeals. -- Should this be a Recommendation versus Implementation Guidance? -- Concerns that the “quick look” mechanism if it is a recommendation could be abused. -- What is important here is that there are some objections that require standing. The “quick look” is just to establish standing. It eliminates the frivolous objections.

1 0