Thanks Steve – see suggested changes below.

Anne

 

o They shall not participate in the resolution of contention sets where non-winning applicants receive financial benefit to lose or to withdraw an application.

o The above rules shall not prohibit applicants from creating partnerships,  joint ventures, or other forms of business organization that would allow two or more applicants within a contention set to jointly run and/or operate the applied for string if that new form of organization ultimately is otherwise qualified to operate and administer the registry in accordance with the rules set out in the then-current Applicant Guidebook.   Such new applicant organizations shall be subject to all applicable “Change Request” procedures and the sealed bids of the applicants involved shall be combined for purposes of determining the winning bidder in a contention set.

 

 

 

 

Dear WG Members,

 

In support of agenda item 2b, the WG-Chairs and staff have sought to integrate the deliberations from the 4 May 2020 call and update the proposal, which you will find attached. The updated proposal, under the header “Hybrid Proposal 2+ for discussion on 7 May”, can be found starting on page 3. In addition to updating the proposal, we have tried to identify several questions that the WG was still discussing on the previous call.

 

Best,

Steve

 

Dear all,

 

Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 07 May 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

 

Note that for agenda item 2a below, WG members should:

1. Review the latest version of 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_PArk_pOwXo/edit?usp=sharing
2.  Review the proposed edits from Paul McGrady: “[ In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the detrimental effect of such timing when considering such GAC Consensus Advice which should result in a strong presumption against the Board adopting such late GAC Consensus Advice.]”
3. Review the Compilation of GAC input on Draft Recommendations of GNSO SubPro PDP WG on future New gTLDs at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/2020-May/002759.html and attached

 

 Proposed Agenda:

 

1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest
2. Discussion of Final Report Topics:

a.       2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_PArk_pOwXo/edit?usp=sharing       

1. Revisions since the WG Discussion
2. Suggested text from Paul McGrady
3. GAC Comments (attached)

b.       2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) – Document TBD

3. AOB

 

If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.

 

Kind regards,

Julie