I think the “nut” we are trying to “crack” is the degree to which the required information in any private resolution may exceed the information that is normally required to fill out a new gTLD application to begin with.  Certainly disclosure of the new ownership construct and the fact of and type of compensation paid or to be paid in future (but not the amount) to any applicant who is withdrawing an application for the same string and/or participating in the new business combination or joint venture seems appropriate to address the Board’s concerns re “making a market in TLDs”.  I think it would be appropriate to specify the following:

 

1. “X, Y, and Z applicants have formed DELTA business organization to apply jointly to operate the TLD.  No buy-out provisions are contained in the commitment to form the new applicant for the string.”

 

2. “Compensation in the form of ________________________(e.g. money, shares, control, royalties, seats on the Board of Directors, Managing Member status of an LLC, etc.) has been accorded to the following parties in connection with their commitment to withdraw their TLD applications for the same string:

X – form of compensation if any  

Y – form of compensation if any

Z – form of compensation if any” 

 

Anne

 

 

Paul we have not discussed this edit yet but for the benefit of the entre mailing list and not just the small handful on the calls, I’ll explain here and again in a few hours.

 

The full section of the document reads as follows

 

• Evaluators [and ICANN] must be able to ask clarifying questions to any applicant it believes may not be submitting an application with a bona fide intent. Evaluators [and ICANN] shall use, but are not limited to, the “Factors” described below in their consideration of whether an application was submitted absent bona fide intent. These “Factors” will be taken into consideration and weighed against all of other facts and circumstances surrounding the impacted Applicants and Applications. The existence of any one or all of the “Factors” may not themselves be conclusive of an application made lacking a bona fide use intent.
• Applicants may mark portions of any such responses as “confidential” if the responses include proprietary business information and such portions will not be shared or communicated by the Evaluator. 

 

The rationale behind my suggested edits is simple.

 

Evaluators have the ability to gather information from applicants as it relates to intent.  The evaluators make an initial determination but after they are done, the evaluators disappear.  They are not ICANN employees.  They are an external firm on a contract.  Once they complete their job, it is up to ICANN to continue to oversee the program and ensure compliance.  Since many of the factors that will be used to measure intent are well after evaluation, it is critical that ICANN have the information gathered during the evaluation to ensure compliance. 

 

My edit is meant to ensure that ICANN has all of the information it needs to properly oversee this program.  As currently drafted, the language does the opposite - restricting information significantly hampers ICANN’s ability to oversee this program. 

 

 

 

Hi All,

 

I thought a brief note reacting to Jim’s proposed changes make sense.  Sorry that I was not able to do so prior to our last call (these comments from Jim came in while I was dropping my son off at university for his freshman year).  Even so, these weren’t discussed on our last call, so I think it is still timely in advance of this Monday’s call.

 

Jim suggests we strike:  “and such portions will not be shared or communicated by the Evaluator.” As discussed often on prior calls, this change would set up the disclosure of sensitive information since there is no confidentiality provision in the Terms & Conditions and no ability to enforce it against ICANN who famously works hard at being un-suable.  This will have a chilling effect on application submission and is just bad governance.  At one point I believe I suggested disclosure to Evaluator and those within ICANN with a “need to know” but that was rejected by a small group of disclosure maximalists.  The text must be restored or we need to find a solution other than ICANN being able to spill all the sensitive beans with no consequences. 

 

As for Jim’s other changes, they consist of adding “some of” or “some in”, etc. to a few rationales.  I hope that this is being done for historic record capturing and is not a set up to wreck a consensus call.  We all have to keep in mind that the status quo is private auctions without all the interference that this compromise imposes.  If, at the end of the day, those pushing for interference won’t support the compromise, there is no reason to keep going down this road as the status quo works quite well.  So, hopefully, the record keeping is the reason behind Jim’s insertions. 

 

Best to all,

Paul

 

 

 

 

To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit.

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

 

Attached is my feedback on the draft report on Auctions.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Dear WG Members,

 

As discussed and agreed on the 6 August WG call, we have compiled a consolidated list of materials for you all to review in advance of seeking to finalize the draft Final Report for public comment, as early as 13 August 2020.

 

• For review and feedback no later than Thursday, 13 August (and for discussion on the WG call that same day)
  • Draft Final Report Change Analysis (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding):https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1KgsjZc/edit
  • Draft Final Report (minus Predictability Framework and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction)) attached and available here, on an ongoing basis as the document is updated: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report

 

• Per Emily’s email, comments on the Predictability Framework and the one new additional paragraph in the Closed Generics are due 11 August at 23:59 UTC. Review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPlPCS8/edit?usp=sharing. Feedback form is attached.

 

• NEW! - The new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), comments due 12 August at 23:59 UTC – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxgDQOo/edit#. Again, feedback form is attached.

 

Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.

 

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@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