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

PLEASE SHARE: ICANN64 Prep Week Announcement
by Terri Agnew Feb. 14, 2019

Feb. 14, 2019

Hello all, Please find below the announcement of the "ICANN64 Prep Week" published on the ICANN website which includes the link to register for Pre-ICANN64 Policy Update Webinar as well as other webinars in the week. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-02-14-en Kind regards, Terri ICANN64 Prep Week ICANN org is piloting a new initiative called Prep Week to consolidate all pre-ICANN Public Meeting webinars into one week. Starting with ICANN64, Prep Week will streamline the pre-meeting experience, so deeper conversations can be had in the ICANN meeting sessions. There are four webinars scheduled for ICANN64 Prep Week. The org will present updates on the community's work. Wednesday, 27 February 16:00 UTC | Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Webinar. Topics include: * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) * ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 * The latest update and progress on various ICANN Reviews * The next steps on WorkStream 2 recommendations Wednesday, 27 February 23:00 UTC | Contractual Compliance Update Webinar. Topics include updates on: * Registrar compliance * Registry compliance * The Registry Contractual Compliance Audit underway Thursday, 28 February 16:00 UTC | Policy Update Webinar. Topics include updates on activities of various Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Thursday, 28 February 23:00 UTC | Finance/Operating Plan and Budget Planning Webinar. Topics include: * Key dates in the ICANN Planning process and cycle * An overview of the ICANN64 Finance/Planning Session Please register and submit any questions via this form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_forms_…> by Friday, 22 February 2019. The webinars will be in English. Recordings and materials will be posted here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/kobe64-prep-week>. With this new initiative, we not only hope to improve community preparation, but also to increase awareness of cross-community and high-interest topics and enhance briefings and readout sessions.

1 0

2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications
by Steve Chan Feb. 11, 2019

Feb. 11, 2019

Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably: In column E, we have highlighted in orange applications that will not proceed but have not yet been officially withdrawn by the applicant In column H, we have highlighted in grey applications where we know additional information is needed to better understand the current status. This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

6 6

Recordings, attendance & AC chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Monday, 04 February 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Feb. 5, 2019

Feb. 5, 2019

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 04 February 2019 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/e5sWBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-04feb19-en.mp3 [audio.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9fl0hc7h04/<https://participate.icann.org/p9fl0hc7h04/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=5c53706bd1570545…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Julie Bisland Secretariat Operations Coordinator for the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy…>

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 04 February 2019
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 4, 2019

Feb. 4, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 04 February 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/2019-02-04+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBC…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates 2. Update on the Application Status document: -- Received application status from ICANN Org, Jeff added additional context. -- Some (in orange) are closed but application not withdrawn. -- Others not approved, or delegated, but application note withdrawn. -- This is not related to the last round, but for the purpose of the discussion of what it means to have a round that is closed and what point can you start another round. -- Any applications that aren't delegated or not withdrawn -- show as still officially in the system. Not considered "open". -- Sub Group B is talking about the issue of refunds and fees for future rounds, this discussion is pertinent. >From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: @Jeff I don't think the ICANN systems considers .eco "Open". as you stated. It says "Will NOT proceed" under the ICANN status. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: I think we would have to seek public comment on the definition of when a round closes. COMMENT 3. Review of Supplemental Initial Report Public Comments – see the document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBC… Introduction: -- 5 issues that WorkTracks 1-4 had sent out in a Supplemental Issue Report. -- Question: What will we do with the document? Triaging? Discussion? Answer: This is the triaging. We'll take notes of anything substantive. Review the comments, make sure we understand them, if there are clarifying questions. Making sure that if there are new ideas that the full WG could start thinking about these questions. General Comments: Line 4, ICANN Board -- started discussion on these issues. Concern related to whether the WG has talked about new things that could lead to abuses. Whether new recommendations could lead to abuses, such as with auctions of last resort and private resolutions. Also, alterations to the change request mechanism. Concerned about adding functions that would exceed ICANN's scope or mission. -- Question: The second paragraph and very last sentence -- relates to items we've tagged as new ideas? What happens to those items? Answer: We flagged the issue and had an initial conversation with the full WG. On recommendations, if we don't reach consensus on a recommendation, then we default to the 2012 policy. Or we can let the Board make the call. Line 5, RySG -- Points out that their comments generally reflect multiple view points. >From the chat: avri doria: so the idea is not new but is one that was heard discussed in the past - how do we avoid finding ourselves in another one of these long intervalas between procedures.. also we were not loooking for answers anytime sooner than the final report. Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT @ Jeff - agree with your summary but I'm not sure that this reasoning applies to items which are labelled "New Idea". It seems to fit more in the category of items that could need ongoing policy work as indicated by the Board comment. COMMENT 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort General Comments: Line 4, RrSG -- Agreement (supports alternatives to ICANN auctions listed in c.2) Line 5, ICANN Board -- General Comment Line 6, GAC -- Divergence (opposes auctions of last resort between commercial and non-commercial); disincentivize for commercial (private auctions more generally). Line 7, ALAC -- Divergence (opposes auctions as mechanism of last resort) New Idea (supports Vickrey auction) Line 8, Business Constituency -- Concerns (auction difficulties for less well-financed participants) New Idea (supports Vickrey auctions) Line 9, ICANN Org -- Concerns (with changes to Terms and Conditions) 2.1.c.1: Line 11, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement Line 12, Neustar -- Agreement Line 13, RySG -- Agreement (with qualifications), New Idea -- Good insights in call on 22 January with Monte Kahn. Line 14, IPC -- Agreement (with qualifications) New Idea Line 15, ICANN Org -- Concerns (requests for clarification) Line 16, ALAC -- Divergence: The ALAC strongly opposes the retention of the regular highest-bid auction process which was used in the 2012 round (“regular auctions”) as the mechanism of last resort for resolution of contention sets within the Program. 2.1.c.2: Line 18, ALAC -- Agreement Line 19, IPC -- Agreement Line 20, Neustar -- Agreement (with qualifications) Line 21, RySG -- Agreement (with qualifications) Concerns New Idea Line 22, ICANN Org -- Concerns (requests for clarification) Line 23, BRG -- Divergence (supports current process as mechanism of last resort) 2.1.d.1: Line 25, ALAC -- Agreement New Idea Line 26, IPC -- Agreement New Idea (use of sealed bid auctions in limited circumstances) Line 27, RySG -- Divergence (auctions/resolutions should take place after applications pass review) Agreement (support for Vickery Auction) Line 28, Neustar -- Agreement (support consideration) Divergence (but not requirement for applicants to submit a bid upon application) Line 29, BRG -- Divergence (supports current process as mechanism of last resort) 2.1.d.2.1: Line 31, IPC -- Concerns (predictabilty of mechanism/subjective criteria/freedom of expression) Line 32, ALAC -- Concerns Line 33, RySG -- Divergence (strongly objects to content-based evaluation) Line 34, BRG -- Divergence (support current process as mechanism of last resort) Line 35, Neustar - Divergence (does not support as a viable option) 2.1.d.2.2: Line 37, Neustar -- Agreement (if not mandatory). Line 38, IPC -- Agreement (if not mandatory) Line 39, RySG -- Agreement (with qualifications) Divergence (concerns about flipping/limits business choices) Line 40, BRG -- Divergence (support current process as mechanism of last resort) Line 41, ALAC -- Divergence (no ability to apply meritorious comparative evaluation/licensing requirement for ICANN) 2.1.d.2.3: Line 43, BRG -- Divergence (supports current process as a mechanism of last resort) Line 44, ALAC -- Divergence (would favour larger entities with multiple applications and affect applicants' strategies) Line 45, RySG -- Divergence (can't guarantee fewer applications/prejudicial to applicants for more than one TLD) Line 46, IPC -- Divergence (impossible to define and police) Line 47, Neustar -- Divergence 2.1.e.1: Line 49, ALAC -- New Idea (supports Vickrey auction re: Option 2.1.d.1) Line 50, RySG -- New Idea (some support "sealed bid" but as "last resort"/some support Vickery Auction with mulipliers) Line 51, BRG -- Divergence (support current process as mechanism of last resort) Line 52, IPC -- Divergence (disagree that auctions of last resort are unfair) Line 53, Neustar -- Divergence (disagree that auctions of last resort are unfair) Line 54, NCSG -- Divergence (disagree that auctions of last resort are unfair) 2.1.e.2: Line 56, ALAC -- Agreement (support for a muliplier feature, but on the Vickrey auction) Line 57, Neustar -- Agreement (with qualifications -- needs to be "means tested") Line 58, NCSG -- Agreement (with qualifications -- also for other underserved groups; concept is not new) Line 59, RySG -- Agreement (with qualifications) New Idea (suggestion for more data) Line 60, BRG -- Divergence (support current process as mechanism of last resort) Line 61, IPC -- Divergence (concerns about abuse of process) 4. AOB -- Update on the Timeline -- Draft timeline has been circulated to the Leadership team, but not to the full WG. -- Try to identify when the Sub Groups complete their work but also the full WG meetings. -- Before ICANNN64 there will be 1-2 back-to-back meetings of the full WG; Sub Groups should be complete except for Sub Group B. -- Full WG will try to make progress on reports from Sub Groups. -- Kobe: Two days with sessions -- most on Saturday and one on Wednesday. So WG and WT5 on Saturday, and WG meeting on Wednesday. >From the chat: Steve Chan: @Donna, i think there are two full WG sessions on Saturday and one on Wednesday. And as Jeff said, there will also be two WT5 sessions on Saturday. Jim Prendergast: be great if the timeline also included reconcillation with WT5 as well as Deliver to GNSO and what happens from there. Obviously dates for that is difficult but seeing the road map will help.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications
by Steve Chan Feb. 4, 2019

Feb. 4, 2019

Dear Anne, all, I will take this opportunity to attach the PDF version, as I forgot to do so in the original message. To briefly respond to your concern, if I recall correctly, the context in which this action item was identified was in the discussions around “round” closures in the future. As there are applications still pending from the 2012 round, I believe the idea was that learnings could potentially be drawn for usage in the future by examining those pending applications. So to be clear, the intention is most definitely not for this PDP WG to attempt to resolve the pending status of any 2012 applications. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 at 9:16 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Thanks Steve. We also note that substantive discussion may not be appropriate since the 2012 round is outside the scope of the work of Sub Pro based on our Charter. (At least that was the approach taken consistently – and rather strenuously - by Leadership in Work Track 4 throughout the process.) It seems the WG could make a policy recommendation as to treatment of unresolved strings applied for in the next round if that is what ICANN staff is looking for in terms of guidance. (This seemed to be what Trang was saying.) I don’ t think we can make policy recommendations about 2012 applications without an amendment to our Charter. But I don’t see any problem making policy recommendations that would apply to strings applied for in the next round that remain unresolved during subsequent rounds or during an FCFS process if approved. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 9:59 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably: In column E, we have highlighted in orange applications that will not proceed but have not yet been officially withdrawn by the applicant In column H, we have highlighted in grey applications where we know additional information is needed to better understand the current status. This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org] Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] 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 meeting - Monday 04 February 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 1, 2019

Feb. 1, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday 04 February 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Being Review of Supplemental Initial Report Public Comments – see the document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBC… -- General Comments -- 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 22, 2019

Jan. 22, 2019

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/t4IWBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-22jan19-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5i5ee1cd3f/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 22 January 2019
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 22, 2019

Jan. 22, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 22 January 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/2019-01-22+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2g…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Working Group Updates (e.g., Sub Groups, Work Track 5): Sub Group A: -- Making good progress. -- Don't think we will need more than a couple of additional meetings. Sub Group B: -- Call later today, 20:00 UTC. Sub Group C: -- Next meeting is 31 January -- moving to last two topics.: TLD rollout questions. -- Making good progress. Nothing controversial so far. -- May finish in one more meeting. Work Track 5: -- Supplemental Initial Report public comment closing today, 22 January: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-names-wt5-initial-2018-12-05-en. -- Full WT5 WG will begin to review the comments. -- Meeting on 13 February. 3. Auctions (discussion with Monte Cahn, President of Right of the Dot): -- Different types of auctions, but primary are: 1) English/ascending clock auction; 2) Vickrey auction/first place sealed bid auction or second place sealed bid auction. Protected from overbidding since the market is considered the second higher bid price. -- Technical difficulties in public and private auctions last year. Need to learn a lot of strategy for an English/ascending clock auction. -- Are no Internet issues with the Vickrey auction -- don't need to be online, no technical training needed, no bidding experience needed. Don't need to stay until the auction is over so less participation time. Risk sharing is more equal/fair. Less overpaying. Can be submitted in a specific time frame. -- Are there people gaming the system by losing? In a sealed bid environment there is less tendency for gaming. Discussion: -- Two options for a sealed bid: 1) at the outset at submission; 2) after all applications evaluated and objections considered. In the second option you would know who is the competition. -- There is a risk in taking bids at application since if an applications is not approved then the bid is void. A lot of the applicants in the last round got their financing based on becoming approved. -- You would know who the participants are in the second scenario but you don't know what they have bid. -- Question: With the Vickrey model you have only one opportunity to place your bid? Answer: That is correct. You are bidding based on what you think is the true value of the asset. -- Question: The value of TLDs is to some extent subjective, so it's the value of whatever the applicant puts on it? Answer: It is really hard for an applicant to determine the value other than the value they place on it. -- The sealed bid auction is still the most fair option, but not sure how you would level the playing field for less-funded applicants. -- Put in dollars and cents to make it less likely that there would be exact bids. If there are, then they would submit against the two or three people who tied. So, do another round with just the two or three who tied. -- Question: What is your recommendation for a situation of an applicant that might have applied for 5 TLDs and rate them differently -- pay more for preferred option. Then if they have lost their first 4 auction, so the 5th is much more valuable. How one deals with changing business ties over the course of a round? Answer: Everyone bids at the same time for all contension set, so it doesn't happen over time. If the process is staggered then you might have changing values. -- Question re: submitting all the bids at the same time -- the risk profile is discouraging to small applicants: who is capable of having 20 bids out there for large amounts of money? Answer: That is a valuable concern -- so you can decide to stagger rounds or have everything at once. Another process is to do it by domain category. Also could have a staggered auction resolution process between different entities/market segments. -- Question: Have you ever been part of an auction where there’s a multiplier given to certain category of bidder to help them compete more effectively in the auction ? For example if there is an applicant support program for applicants from the global south for as an example… there has been some discussion about providing them with a multiplier to help them compete – any experience or thoughts there? Answer: No. You would have to determine how you qualify and how to determine if the multiplier is fair. -- Question: There is the suggestion that the bids should be submitted at the time of applicantion, others suggest only after the contention set is known -- Any thoughts on which would be fairer? Answer: In the last round people got funded based on being approved; if you submit a bid at the point that you apply you could have problems with funding if approval takes a year. If you wait until the end then people can pull out. The closest to the actual date of resolution is better. >From the Chat: lexander.berlin backup: Sealed bid could be submitted online as well; for those who have used a browser before..... Jeff Neuman (Overall Co-chair): @Alexander - I think Monte was referring to the fact that with ascending auctions, you have to be continually online as opposed to submitting a sealed bid on one occassions Jeff Neuman (Overall Co-chair): occassion (sorry) Alexander.berlin backup: I know :D But I do not like "paper" - and sending something via snail mail half around the world seems a bit insecure I would rather like to do it online (and obviuosly had AMPLE time). And the bidders could chose which method they like. Phil Buckingham: 3rd option - after the contention set list of applicants has been issued , but before evaluation start . Option to withdrawn - because you know your competition is say Google ( with lots more money ) Collin Kurre: What if community applicants or otherwise under-represented groups were given some sort of augmentation from the beginning to allow them to be competitive in these scenarios? Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: What happens if two or three highest bids are the same in the silent bid? QUESTION Alexander.berlin backup: Anne: Nobody bids 500,00 - your bid 500,199 or 501,000 etc. Otherwise I assume: Lottery! Alexander.berlin backup: Anne: Nobody bids 500,000 - your bid 500,199 or 501,000 etc. Otherwise I assume: Lottery! Alexander.berlin backup: Refund is a good point: We should SCRAP "refunds". No refund anymore. Collin Kurre: Interesting idea, the Katrin Ohlmer: In terms of a balanced debate about solving contention - have the co-chairs planned to have another debate about other contention resolution means in future calls? Alexander.berlin backup: + Katrin Vanda scartezini: tia Monte for these ideias Collin Kurre: "apples to apples" auction set. For non-profits, though, a funder (like google, US gov, etc) could theoretically swoop in for support. Could end up replicating the same power differential, as those funders will donate to orgs representing their values or interests. Alexander.berlin backup: 1:100 Phil Buckingham: Yes Jeff , one aspect of it . ie when/ if you withdraw to get a refund . 2. Q Under Vickrey sorry I am confused - are you submiiting your sealed bid before or after you know who your competition is . If you do it after knowing then the likelyhood the bids will be much lower( because you cant compete with very weathly ) . Christopher Wilkinson: No hance of that big bang with phased rounds. sarah l (verisign): Phil monte is suggesting all bids are submitted at point of application and if there is a contention set only then is the sealed bid opened Kristine F Dorrain: @Monte, I won't raise my hand again, but in an art auction, if I lose the bidding on three pieces, I can decide that the fourth piece is worth more to me than originally. Tha's why I'm saying this is different and can be disadventagous in some situations. Katrin Ohlmer: Thanks for the clarification, Jeff! Jim Prendergast: On Kristines concerns - flip the scenario - what if an entity applies for only 1? Are they treated differently than as those applying for 5 or ten or 200. Should not be preferrential treatment for those with the $$ to apply for multiples Vanda scartezini: agre forte about third world no that sarah l (verisign): Please can someone ask Monte as I have lost audio- Have you ever been part of an auction where there’s a multiplier given to certain category of bidder to help them compete more effectively in the auction ? For example if there is an applicant support program for applicants from the global south for as an example… there has been some discussion about providing them with a multiplier to help them compete – any experience or thoughts there? 4. Supplemental Initial Report – Next Steps: -- Staff is putting comments into the public comment tool. -- WG will start to analyzing the comments on the next call. -- Sub Group summaries will be provided to the full WG in February. 5. AOB: Update on revised timeline: Will provide by the next full WG meeting.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Tuesday 22 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan Jan. 21, 2019

Jan. 21, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Tuesday 22 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates Working Group Updates (e.g., Sub Groups, Work Track 5) Auctions (discussion with Monte Cahn, President of Right of the Dot) Supplemental Initial Report – Next Steps Continued Review of Items Referred from the Sub Groups to the Full Working Group (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sl4V7OkGldX-RlGZZO108ln5sUG-H-VOhz3Od2g… [docs.google.com] AOB If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 07 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Jan. 8, 2019

Jan. 8, 2019

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 07 January 2019 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/rYIWBg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-07jan19-en.mp3 Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2a8kmw6zkj/?proto=true The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0