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

Supporting Discussion Materials for 4 November 2019 SubPro Working Sessions
by Steve Chan Nov. 1, 2019

Nov. 1, 2019

Dear WG Members, In support of the SubPro sessions on 4 November 2019, from 15:15-18:30 local time (see agenda here: https://community.icann.org/x/BY7kBg) leadership and staff have developed discussion papers for three topics. The creation of these discussion papers is not to introduce new information but rather, to organize existing materials to facilitate a constructive and productive discussion. Those three topics and relevant discussion papers can be found directly below, as well as on the agenda page. Predictability Framework (https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecG…) String Contention - Mechanism of Last Resort (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT…) Limited Appeals Mechanism (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pw98QzloHsVaM22VjYy95G-QmHULKbB2gPTSdzQ…) 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 See All SO and AC events on the ICANN Global calendar [features.icann.org]

1 0

Donna Austin Proposal and Paul McGrady Question re: Sealed Bid Auction
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 29, 2019

Oct. 29, 2019

At the end of the call that just wrapped up we had a good discussion on a potential compromise regarding auctions that I want to continue the conversation in this thread before we lost momentum. WARNING: THIS E-MAIL MAY RESULT IN YOUR HEAD SPINNING FROM THE POTENTIAL PERMUTATIONS. If I understood correctly, the proposal was that we consider the following: What if at some point prior to reveal day, ICANN were to notify all of the parties that are in a contention set that they were in a contention set. Perhaps even telling them how many other applicants they were in a contention set with. But there would be no disclosure of WHO was in the contention set. Then each applicant would be given a period of time (Which would end PRIOR to reveal day), to either withdraw their application or submit a sealed bid. ICANN would then process only the application that submitted the highest bid. If the application with the highest bid gets through the entire evaluation/objection processes and to the contracting stage, it would then be responsible for the payment of an amount equal to the second highest bid. If that applicant did not make it through the evaluation/objection processes for whatever reason, ICANN would then start processing the application of the second highest bidder and if that bidder were successful, it would at contract stage pay ICANN the price of the third highest bidder, etc. Here are the potential issues/questions [and some of my initial thoughts]: 1. If there are one or more Community Applications, that/those application(s) would need to be processed first through CPE before looking at the auction bids. 2. What happens on Reveal Day? Are all of the applications (that have not been withdrawn) posted regardless of whether they are first in the queue or not? [I would say yes so that they next steps can be completed]. 3. If they are all revealed, would the order of where the bids came in (but not the amounts) be posted? I would say again yes. 4. Would comments from the public be solicited on all applications regardless of where they placed in the queue? I would say yes because to do it otherwise would mean opening up separate public comment periods depending on whether there is a need to go to the second bidder, and that would be impossible to monitor. 5. How does String Similarity Evaluation fit in here? * For exact matches and plural/singular (if that rule is adopted), it will be clear who is in a contention set. * But, what if String Similarity Evaluation determines that others should be in the Contention Set? * Although String Similarity Evaluation is after reveal day, if the panel decides that another string should be added to an existing contention set, or it results in the creation of a new contention set, the following should happen: i. If it creates a new contention set, the all of the applicants in the new contention set would be asked to submit bids. Yes, they would know who they were in a contention set with, but that is just something I think we need to live with. ii. If new applications were added to an existing contention set, then the new applicants would be asked to submit a sealed bid. Yes, they would know who was in their contention set and if the applications are poste in the order in which they bid, they would know who they would have to outbid, BUT, they would not know how much the others bid. This too in unavoidable. 1. Would objections need to be filed during the objection period? * This is a much more difficult question. My proposal would be that objections on the highest bidder’s application would certainly need to be filed within the objection period. * With respect to objections on the other applications, I believe there should be something akin to the filing of “an intent to file an objection” with respect to other applications. But the actual Objection filing would not need to be made unless the first application did not succeed. If ICANN needs to go to the second bidder, the party(ies) that indicated an intent to file an objection would be given 30 days to file that objection at that time. If the first applicant proceeds to contracting, then there would be no need to hear any objections on the second, third, etc. applications. 2. Is #5 above the same if there are one or more Community Applications? * I would say that all Community Applications for a string would be treated as if they were first in the queue for the purposes of #5. So, objections on the community applications would need to be filed during the original objection period, but “intent to file objections” would need to be filed (if any) on the others. * If more than one Community Application passes CPE for a string, then the highest Community bidder would be processed through the rest of the process first. If for whatever reason they do not succeed, then it would go to the 2nd Community Applicant that passed CPE, etc. * Then, the objections (if any) on the non-Community Applications would only be heard if the Community Applications do not pass CPE. 3. What if a String Confusion Objection results in the creation of a new contention set or adds to an existing contention set? * I think this would be treated similarly to the String Similarity Evaluation results. * What this means is that after all String Confusion Objections are filed within the Objection Period, ICANN would need to determine whether there would be a possibility if the outcome could result in the creation of a new contention set or add to an existing contention set. If that possibility exists, then ICANN would need to hold off on proceeding with the potentially impacted strings until after the results of the String Confusion Objection are in (as well as any appeals of those decisions). 4. How do Appeals/Accountability Mechanisms work with this? * All appeals/Accountability Mechanisms of the first application in the queue must be exhausted. If the first application in the queue for whatever reason loses an appeal and that results in the failure of the application (for whatever reason), then and only then would the second in line be processed. 5. How does the Applicant Support Program figure into this? * If we decide that Applicants who are given support get a multiplier on their auction bid (But not Priority), that would get figured in at the appropriate time in determining their order in the queue. * If we decide that Applicants who are given support do not get a multiplier on their auction bid, then this would have no impact on the proposal. If you made it this far, I am not only amazed, but also proud 😊 Great job! Best regards, 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:image003.jpg@01D58519.1C04C950] ________________________________ 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>

10 11

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Community Priority Evaluation - EIU Guidelines
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 28, 2019

Oct. 28, 2019

Regarding the "considerable size" standard in the CPE evaluation, Alexander has raised an interesting point. I meant the non-citizen Kurd population of northern Syria rather than all worldwide Kurd populations when talking about a community with shared challenges. If we are to establish appeal processes and standards, "considerable" might require further definition. Would the estimated 400,000 non-citizen Kurds in Syria constitute a community of "considerable size" in comparison to the entire population of Kurds on the planet in all countries? Or do the Syrian Kurds fail the "Extension" test? Would it depend on exactly what TLD name they were seeking for the CPE Community? So could the Syrian Kurds get CPE for (dot)syriankurds or (dot)non-citizenkurds? And what if the Syrian government objected? Maybe no one likes this example, but the point is that the attached EIU Guidelines for scoring just say: "Is the community of considerable size?" What does the word, "considerable", mean to panelists who are subject to being overturned on appeal and who have no precedents to follow? Anne From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 4:06 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; Jamie Baxter (jamie(a)dotgay.com) <jamie(a)dotgay.com> Subject: Community Priority Evaluation - EIU Guidelines Jeff and Cheryl, Regarding the EIU guidelines and possible adoption of a recommendation by the WG to continue with those in the next round, I have a couple of notes: 1. p. 4 - The Guidelines say re "Pre-existing" means that the community has to have existed since 2007 - assume we would need to change this date. 2. p.3 and 4 - There is language about awarding points based on the idea that the applicant entity was formed to "administer the community". Does this requirement make sense when we are trying to encourage Community TLDs for purposes of Applicant Freedom of Expression? It would seem more appropriate to talk about an entity that is formed for the purpose of administering the TLD for a clearly-delineated community. Is there an assumption here that all communities are somehow "administered"? And was that the assumption in the 2012 AGB? Maybe Jamie or others will have more background on this standard? 3. p. 5 - Re 1-B Extension - it is a bit confusing that the 1 point category is defined as "not meeting the 2 point category" Is the only difference here the fact that 2 points emphasizes "considerable size AND longevity" whereas 1 point could mean "either considerable size OR longevity" or could the entity be of less than considerable "size" but have lots of longevity - maybe like the Kurds? 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:image003.png@01D58D9E.B6FFBC20] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image004.jpg@01D58D9E.B6FFBC20] 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.

2 1

Appeals Standard of Review
by Jeff Neuman Oct. 28, 2019

Oct. 28, 2019

All, One of the remaining topics for Appeals is to determine what the standard of review should be. The choices discussed are "De Novo" or "Clearly Erroneous." 1. Under a "De Novo" standard of review, the appeals panel is essentially deciding the issues without reference to any of the conclusions or assumptions made by the evaluator/dispute panel. It can refer to the evaluator/dispute panel to determine the facts, but it need not defer to any of the findings or conclusions. It would be as if the appeals panel is hearing the facts for the first time. 1. Under a "Clearly Erroneous" standard of review, the appeals panel must accept the evaluator's or dispute panel's findings of fact unless the appeals panel is definitely and firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. In other words, it is not enough that the appeals panel may have weighed the evidence and reached a different conclusion; the evaluator's/dispute panel's decision will only be reversed if it is implausible in light of all the evidence. In theory it could be possible to have different standards of review depending on what is the issue being appealed. For example, for Conflicts of Interest determinations, we could state that such an appeal would be on a De Novo standard, but for all other appeals, Clearly Erroneous. As a reminder, here are the different types of appeals: 1. Evaluations * Background Screening * String Similarity * DNS Stability * Geographic Names * Technical / Operational Evaluation * Financial Evaluation * Registry Services * Applicant Support * Community Priority Evaluation 1. Objections * String Confusion * Legal Rights Objection * Limited Public Interest * Community Objection * Conflict of Interest of Panelists. My personal recommendation is that all appeals except for the Conflict of Interest appeals have a "Clearly Erroneous" standard. Conflict of Interests should be reviewed under a De Novo Standard. To review anything else De Novo would be incredibly time consuming, costly, and could substantially delay applications. ICANN should have a thorough screening process to pick its evaluators/panelists and deference to their determinations should be given. But determinations of Conflict of Interest seem to me to be appropriate for a De Novo standard because the original determination could be made by the party against whom the assertion of a conflict is made. Thoughts? 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:image003.jpg@01D5833A.5E4EC4E0] ________________________________ 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 10

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Appeals Standard of Review
by Jamie Baxter Oct. 27, 2019

Oct. 27, 2019

2 1

Post call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 24 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Oct. 25, 2019

Oct. 25, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 24 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/pYoCBw> (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, Julie

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal
by Alexander Schubert Oct. 25, 2019

Oct. 25, 2019

Dear Anne,I know that you stated an "unusual "example" - in which maybe a potential objector would be forced to submit different objections In reality in almost all cases of contention you faced the typical "Donuts"-type of application: A VC money fueled applicant proposes to ICANN to run a standard ".com-style" generic keyword based string as new gTLD. And as long as the basic circumstances and modi of suggested gTLD operation are basically identical - so should be the objection. Obviously it would be the task of the objection provider to investigate the feasibility of a consolidation in each specific case. If the provider deems it necessary to split the objections up: they would notify ICANN and the objecting party.Just if you are the City of Shanghai and there are 5 cookie cutter standard submissions for .shanghai which cleverly manage to skirt the necessity for a letter of non-objection from the relevant government: your 5 community objections will all be identical. And as we know objection costs may run up to $ 500k - times 5 equals $ 2.5 Million. Even for a city like Shanghai a real burden and risk.Which brings me to the culprit of low application fee floors:I still don't understand how we can lower the application fee floor to something irresponsible like US $25k - which then might incur potentially a US $500k objection risk to an otherwise uninvolved entity (e.g. city community). The whole notion of "cost based" application fees is indefensible if we look at the implications - yet this mantra seems to be "untouchable". In my view we need at least a minimum entrance hurdle. You can hardly buy a used three letter .com domain for US $25k - but ICANN gifts you the operation of a piece of DNS infrastructure for that amount? Just doesn't make sense. A healthy 6 figure application fee floor would be the bare minimum. We might discuss to award a portion of that amount to transaction fees over the years - say if you owe ICANN transaction fees beyond the annual minimum amount: each year you could draw e.g. US $25k from the application fee amount that exceeded the cost base. Example: we charge US $150k application fee. Once the round is fully digested ICANN tallies up and determines that the real "cost base" was US $50k. Then for 4 years (equaling US $100k) you could draw $25k transaction fee reduction from the "overpaid balance" (only valid for transaction fees that exceed the annual minimum transaction fee amount). That would in the end leave those who really "run" their string successfully ending up with "cost based" conditions after 4 years - but still establishes an initial entrance hurdle. No entrance hurdle will equal high volumes of speculative, purely defensive (brands) and unsustainable applications - resulting in an unmanageable DNS and pure chaos - not to mention further "watering down" the already struggling existing DNS-ecosystem. A big difference to 2012 is: by 2021 "full service agencies" will provide "flat fee all inclusive turnkey registry solutions". All a wannabe registry owner needs to do is blurting out a string (.anything) - and pay up the application fees plus a handling fee. EVERYTHING ELSE would be handled by the agency - including application creation and submission, contracting, testing and onboarding at their own white label registrar. Combined with a low application fee floor this would invite chaos. Tnx,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: 10/25/19 01:21 (GMT+02:00) To: alexander(a)schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal  Alexander, · You say “They should be able to object to a GROUP of applicants if the circumstances are similar or identical.” I’m not sure where the WG ended up on this one – was there a consensus that Objections to the same string could be consolidated even where applicants and purpose of the TLD are different? · I expressly included four very different purposes for the four different .sam applications in my hypothetical. These different purposes make possible objection grounds very different indeed: .sam – CPE for the (hypothetical) Society for Aviation Maintenance .sam – domains for those interested in the Samurai arts .sam – free speech domains for criticism/support of “Uncle Sam” – (USG) .sam – for retail sales (clearly a candidate for LRO by Sam’s Club) The above should show why (1) Not all contention sets are appropriately consolidated for Objection purposes and (2) why it makes more sense to trigger the Objection filing deadline when a prospective winner is identified with reference to (a) passing or failing CPE, if applicable or (b) identified as having highest sealed bid From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:09 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal [EXTERNAL] Hi, Regarding “objections” and their timing let’s look at the facts (we are discussing contention sets – so contention is assumed): · We have at least 2 applications in contention: likely for the identical string (though string similarity could play a factor here, too: but super seldom). · Likely both applications are similar: Some VC money funded applicant wants to run the TLD by “making domains available” through the registrar channel (outside of Spec 13 applications the pre · Now we are discussing “objections”; in all likelihood an objector would object to the notion, that some VC money funded applicant “makes domain available” through the registrar channel! Likely IRRESPECTABLY of the identity of the applicant. (exceptions might exist of course). Example would be: Two applicants want to run “.twitter” – for bird fetishists! TWITTER doesn’t like it and objects. Or two U.S. based applicants want to run “.mecca” – kind of as “.guru” surrogate: ski.mecca, diving.mecca! The KSA would object. No it doesn’t matter to the KSA or TWITTER who wants to run .twitter or .mecca: They will simply don’t like it. Do we force them to object one applicant, then the next one gets evaluated and they need to object again? They should be able to object to a GROUP of applicants if the circumstances are similar or identical. · So I suggest: Once an objection is being filed – that triggers the initial evaluation for ALL contention set members. And all those who pass will be subject to the objection (if the objecting party wants so). The percentage of objected strings was fairly low – so you must have a bad luck (or bad taste rather) if that happens to you. Any contention set resolution can only start once we are past the stadium where objections could be filed. Contention set resolution: 1. In case of the ICANN Vickery “Instant Contention Set Resolution”: Any ONE applicant can trigger that; and it would result in a speedy, instant resolution. The winner would THEN be evaluated – if that fails the 2nd winner would be awarded. No evaluation failed in the 2012 round – so it’s very unlikely. After successful passing the initial evaluation the winner has to pay (just like in the former “ICANN auction of last resort); and is then on their own (has a 18 month time to contract, then a 24 month to enter the root). I don’t see that they should be able to drag it out for 3.5 years BEFORE they pay up. That would be a SIGNIFICANT change to the 2012 round. So the winner needs to pay directly after winning – not after delegation of the string. 2. In case ALL applicants signal ICANN that they want to explore a private contention set resolution then all applicants need to be evaluated BEFORE that can happen. The result of private contention set resolution in the 2012 round was in 100% of all cases the withdrawal of applications of the losers. The “winner” had to give them “something” (usually cash; or another application; or shares, or whatnot). This only works if the winner owns an “asset”: an application that survived the initial evaluation. So in case of an objection or the request of the entire contention set to be granted time to explore private contention set resolution: ALL applications of that set need to be evaluated. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 11:58 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] String Contention Proposal There cannot be a 'winner' if there is still unlimited potential for anyone to object on any basis. That probably would be unreasonable to take on such risk. But if objections at least had to be lodged in some form, even if not fully briefed with evidence, then at least everyone could make some risk assessment in resolving the contention set. I think that would encourage lots of silly lodged objections though. And I am still not convinced this is a big enough problem warranting such a substantial change to the previously agreed, dseigned and implemented, and highly complicated and integrated processes to resolve contention and objections in a timely and reasonably foreseeable manner. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.law

2 1

FW: String Contention Proposal
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne Oct. 24, 2019

Oct. 24, 2019

________________________________ Regarding Tuesday’s call (Monday night in the US), I am offering the following hypothetical based on Donna’s suggestion to collect sealed bids prior to a reveal of the contention set. String Contention Proposal to Avoid Speculation in TLDs 4 applications for .sam string – contention set and parties not revealed on application date. Per Donna's suggestion, parties are all 4 notified of string contention and asked to submit sealed bids. Sealed bids received. (Some may drop out.) Application 1 is a Community Application for .sam for the "Society for Aviation Maintenance". All worldwide aviation maintenance unions back this application. Public comment is sought. At this point, the other applicants know there is a CPE application but their bids are already in. Should private resolution be permitted at this point or not? A. CPE Pass leads to Appeal. If sustained, Application 1 wins. If overturned, move to highest bidder and seek public comment on that application. (It's still possible for this application to be the highest bidder even if it fails CPE.) B. CPE Fail leads to Appeal. If overturned, Application 1 wins. If CPE Fail is sustained, move to highest bidder and seek public comment on that application. Application 2 for .sam Purpose: Dedicated to domains for those interested in the Samurai arts. Application 3 for .sam Purpose: Free speech on the pros and cons of Uncle Sam (USG) Application 4 for .sam Purpose: Retail sales. Assume CPE for Application 1 fails and that Application 4 submitted the highest sealed bid. Solicit public comment on Application 4 and the Objection deadline is triggered. Sam's Club files Legal Rights Objection against the Application 4 winner. A.LRO Success leads to Appeal. If successful LRO upheld on appeal, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline. If LRO success is overturned, Application 4 wins .sam. B. LRO Failure leads to Appeal. If failed LRO upheld on appeal, Application 4 wins .sam. If failed LRO is overturned, move to the next highest bidder not withdrawn, solicit public comment, and trigger Objection deadline. ________________________________ 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.

4 13

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 24 October 2019
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 24, 2019

Oct. 24, 2019

Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 24 October 2019. 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/2019-10-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: No actions captured. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary documents: a. DNS Abuse: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nIorSwzwom_yXvzWwo9pElsnFfK7bwcuYQq_Hur… -- New type of document, stems from discussions we’ve had and the CCT-RT recommendations. -- CCT-RT came out with its final report several months ago. The ICANN Board has accepted some of the recommendations and some are pending. -- One that has been accepted is related to DNS abuse. -- Others are pending, but they still seem like ones we should be taking a look at. Applicable recommendations: 13, 14, 15, 17, and 25 Although many of the recommendations above are still pending review by the ICANN Board, the SubPro Working Group recognizes that there is a good deal of overlap between topics for which we have been developing policies and the recommendations by the CCT-RT. The recommendations touch various topics within our Charter, such as registrant protections, public interest, and the Base Registry Agreement (RA). The Working Group also recognizes that there is currently extensive interest within the ICANN Community on the topic of DNS Abuse, and that DNS Abuse is not unique amongst new gTLDs nor would addressing DNS Abuse in this Working Group solve any of the real or perceived issues existing in the TLDs that have already been delegated. -- Question: What precipitated this sudden addition of DNS Abuse to the agenda? Was there outreach from ICANN Board or Staff on it? Was on previously part of the work plan. Answer: There were a number of comments that talk about not wanting to do another round until DNS abuse issues are solved. Also related CCT-RT recommendations. Charter mentions keeping tabs with the CCT-RT. So, Co-Chairs decided the WG should consider DNS Abuse issues relating to the work of the WG and the CCT-RT recommendations. Comments from the WG on the document: -- Recommendation 13 not directed at SubPro. -- Recommendation 14: Financial incentives are outside of the picket fence. A PDP that is forward looking doesn’t have to be within the picket fence. Concerning “proactive” -- not possible to identify a crime before it’s committed. This means to take certain measures before it is reported to you as a problem. Recommendation 15: -- negotiate amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Registry Agreements to include provisions aimed at preventing systemic use of specific registrars or registries for DNS Security Abuse. COMMENT: there is no way for a registry (with exclusion of Brands) or a registrar to ensure nothing happens with the good registrant who turned rogue, or whose credentials were stolen and used for bad activities. -- And “with a higher threshold at which registrars and registries are presumed to be in default of their agreements.” COMMENT: this opens gates to blackmailing registries or registrars on purpose , extorting money for not using domains registered for this very purpose to cancel the RA, RAA (via , as example inclusion of records from those in some bad activity and sending a complaints the same time to ICANN). Such actions will endanger security and stability of the internet. Without a proof that a particular Registry or a Registrar participated in DNS abuse on purpose , it is a punishment without a crime. Recommendation 17: -- Absolute metrics for information security, including DNS abuse, not available from Computer Science, preventing establishing hard numbers -- Feasible for registrar, registry and registry service provider, but not downwards from registrar (reseller, reseller of reseller etc.) Recommendation 25: -- looks something targeted at the perceived backdooring of ideas in PICs, not at DNS abuse. Discussion: -- according to the details of the CCT-RT report, they ARE talking about activities that precede a potentially abusive registration. -- such as perhaps the registration of a few thousand names at low cost in singe transactions I assume that is a prequi; to a *possible* suspicion of doubtful activity to follow but may be perfectly innocent as well… Current State of SubPro Work: -- Covered some aspects of abuse: 1. Mandatory Pics including Specification 11 3(b) 2. Incentives for Registries to adopt anti-abuse measures 3. From CCT-RT, Recommendation 25 seems to have support from this Working Group The Community is already addressing a number of aspects of DNS Abuse (See Section III below). Any new recommendations we make would impact only new TLDs on a going forward basis. Proposed Recommendation. Given the work already going on within the community, other than the topics that we are already covering relating to DNS Abuse in Subsequent Procedures, we encourage the community to continue to work on all issues pertaining to DNS Abuse which can ultimately apply to all TLDs, not just future ones. OTHER CURRENT DNS ABUSE RELATED ACTIVITIES WITHIN ICANN COMMUNITY Existing Policy Work: --2010: Report from the Registration Abuse WG -- differentiated between “registration abuse” and “use abuse.” It found that “Registration Abuse” involved issues akin to those that have already been included in the Registry and Registrar Agreements. Registration Abuses, it found, were within ICANN’s jurisdiction and therefore were appropriate for future policy development. “Use Abuse”, however, it found, was not a topic within ICANN’s jurisdiction and therefore was not appropriate for future policy development. Use Abuse included things like intellectual property infringement, defamation, spam (when it does not serve as a delivery mechanism for the other forms of DNS Abuse), etc. Domain Abuse Activity Reporting -- ICANN's Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) project is a system for studying and reporting on domain name registration and security threat (domain abuse) behavior across top-level domain (TLD) registries. -- Re: “The data is currently being pushed to registries using the ICANN SLAM system.” COMMENT: There are no domain names in this data, only some digits, the data does not contain any kind of proof that the data is not fake (some DAAR sources are crowdsourced and have benefits and weak points of such method (multiple persons (or virtual persons, i.e. accounts directed by the same entity) may report some domain to be fraudulent because of being paid or directed to do so)). Number of false alarms could be requested from ICANN compliance (ICANN audit, where the suggested bad strings were sent to Registries, and not all of such strings were found to be bad)) -- Re: Spam COMMENT: spam is out of scope of ICANN, not all spam has dangerous payload Contractual Compliance Registry Operator Audit<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-registry…> COMMENT FROM MAXIM: “The final Audit Report lacks information about ratio of the domains reported by DAAR to the amount of domains , which were found to be actual abuse cases” Public Comments on the Initial Report Addressing DNS Abuse Discussion: -- Don't we already have disparity between legacy gTLDs and new gtlds? -- Some WG support for the proposed recommendation: Given the work already going on within the community, other than the topics that we are already covering relating to DNS Abuse in Subsequent Procedures, we encourage the community to continue to work on all issues pertaining to DNS Abuse which can ultimately apply to all TLDs, not just future ones. -- QUESTION: SHOULD WE BE RECOMMENDING AN EXPEDITED PDP ON DNS ABUSE? Are we going to get held up if we don't? QUESTION  -- Answer: That’s for the community to decide. The WG would not recommend it. -- Given that the Board has not accepted the recommendations from the CCT RT it seems premature for any discussions about a PDP or EPDP. -- If the Board will not move forward on a next round until this is addressed, we should likely figure out how to expedite. (There is some existing GAC ADvice on this which they would have to override to authorize a next round I think.) -- If we can't move forward before addressing that, we could as well suspend new registrations in all gTLDs.  -- If our recommendation is that this needs to be handled elsewhere in the community aren’t we sending a mixed message? We could say that these are the aspects that made sense and we’ve addressed them. For the other items it’s for the community to figure out how to handle that. b. Registrar Support for New gTLDs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14HxLzQMXs90hAkpRStPAwHDC4CxaYXWqxZ-psTm… page 8 (time permitting) New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence: Option: ICANN selects a "last-resort" wholesale registrar to provide resellers with the ability to sell TLDs that lack market interest and/or have their target markets in regions or verticals lacking ICANN-Accredited registrars. Only registries allowing Post Payment terms are eligible. -- RySG: Some agreement/some disagreement -- IPC: Divergence/New Idea. -- BC: Divergence/New Idea. -- RrSG: Divergence. Additional comments on potential challenges for compliance oversight for this proposal. -- question e.5: Does ICANN forcing registrars to carry TLDs or designating registrars as "registrars of last resort" pose challenges to compliance oversight of these entities? Should registrars be liable for compliance actions for TLDs for which they did not want to carry but were forced to? By handpicking a few selected registrars as "last resort" does this create the possibility for compliance to go easy on them because ICANN needs them to play a specific role in the marketplace? Discussion: -- Seems that we are not going to get general agreement on this option. Option: ICANN Org provides a “clearinghouse” for registries and registrars that operating in different currencies. -- RySG: Some agree and some don’t agree. -- RySG: Did not agree. Option: Allow an increase to the number of names that can be registered without the use of an ICANN-Accredited Registrar and allow these names to be registered for purposes other than the promotion or operation of the TLD. -- RySG: Agreement. Option: AGB encourages potential applicants to communicate with ICANN accredited registrars before applying, so that they fully understand potential issues that might be encountered. -- RySG: Agreement. -- RrSG: Divergence/New Idea. Option: Registry contract bundles the capacity of becoming an Accredited Registrar. -- RySG: Agreement/New Idea -- RrSG: Divergence. Any other proposals that could assist TLD Registries that have difficulty attracting ICANN Accredited Registrars? -- RySG: No new additional proposals but recommends a balance between innovation and attractiveness for sales channels. How do you identify whether a TLD with low market performance has low performance due to lack of demand or lack of sales channels? -- RySG: Some members believe this is beyond the scope of this WG and the remit of ICANN. Some members disagree. Some members have concerns that there is not a cost-effective way to establish the connection postulated in this question. -- At minimum ICANN should clearly warn applicants that delegating a gTLD doesn't guarantee registrations - and that they WILL need to build a sales channel. -- Need to understand what’s the harm to a TLD if it’s not being supported by registrars. -- We aren’t introducing new registrars, we’re introducing new registries. -- So innovate on the Registrar side as well. There are some registars like EnCirca who specialize in non standard niche TLDs Exactly - is that ICANNs role. -- Many new TLDs were stunned when they found out that many registrars would not carry them, even when similarly situated TLDs were carried. -- Regards planning, applicants thought every 2009 RAA registrar would be able to carry them, but in the end, 2013 RAA was required.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 24 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 23, 2019

Oct. 23, 2019

Thanks Jim. The agenda has been updated to include a link to materials relating to DNS Abuse. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 2:27 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 24 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC Thanks Julie – Since DNS Abuse has rapidly taken on importance in the ICANN space and will be a major issue at ICANN66, can the co-chairs share with us some more detail around 2a. Having some prep time ahead of the call as opposed to reacting on the fly would be most appreciated. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 11:12 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 24 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 24 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary documents: 1. DNS Abuse (document(s) TBD) 2. Registrar Support for New gTLDs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14HxLzQMXs90hAkpRStPAwHDC4CxaYXWqxZ-psTm… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> page 8 (time permitting) 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 Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0