Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 27 August 2018. 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/2018-08-27+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Please also see the attached referenced documents. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actions: ACTION ITEM: Reach out to the private auction companies that we know about. Notes: 1. Agenda review/SOIs: Cheryl Langdon-Orr -- Retiring, but still active in a consulting capacity. 2. Supplemental Topic Review - Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort: -- Who is the winner or loser? Up to what level will the auction be used? Should there be communication with the CCWG-Auction Proceeds? -- Answer: The CCWG is only looking at money collected from the 2012 round. There is no presumption that more money be collected in the future. -- While auctions should not be encouraged, there does seem to be support for auctions as an absolute last resort. -- The discussion notes that auctions do seem to favor those with more money. -- Concern: If we came in with a recommendation that was in conflict with the guidelines that came out of auction proceeds, that would cause some logistical problems. -- Note that Section 1.2 is the Private Auction section and we will check to see if this was a typo or whether it is just in the wrong section. -- Should we have another category for public interest? At the end of the day there are still likely to be contention sets. -- COMMENT: We would likely need a PDP on what constitutes a TLD in the "Global Public Interest" and how the scoring would go on that evaluation. Evaluating the merits would involve criteria -just like CPE, I think. -- It could be that the CCWG-Auctions recommendations are so unpalatable to this WG that we might keep private auctions. -- It seems unlikely that ICANN would be able to distribute the proceeds from an auction to the participants. -- Maybe the WG could think about private auction not being the last resort method for resolving contention sets. Maybe we could look at options for reducing the number of applications that go to auctions of last resort. Applications reviewed by third parties, have graduated fees, etc. -- Talk about everything except for geonames. -- Do want to make sure we look at information from the last round but also the explanatory memo. Also see if there might be other ways to provide a disincentive. -- Are there additional questions we should be asking? Is the deliberation section accurate? -- See the explanatory note on comparing the different mechanisms: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/string-contention-22oct08-en.p.... 3. Supplemental Topic Review - Auctions: Use of Private Auctions: -- Not sure that there is a mechanism short of prohibiting private auctions. -- On the implementation guidance, if the applicants want to resolve their contentions through private auction they should be permitted to do so. -- Not sure if we have enough information to make an informed decision. If we could understand if there were complaints about the use of private auctions that data could be helpful. -- Where did the idea come from that there were complaints? There isn't necessarily and information since these are private. -- If WG members know the names of any private auction companies we could contact them. -- By attempting to prohibit private auctions we might be abridging the parties to work things out as they deem fit. We would have to get into what else we are, or are not, prohibiting that private parties can do. -- Make sure we look at the questions that are drafted so far. -- Note Page 7, Question e, last bullet. ACTION ITEM: Reach out to the private auction companies that we know about. 4. Adjusted Work Plan: -- Starting with the meeting on 10 September the WG will be meeting every week. -- Extended the public comment period for the Initial Report to 26 September. -- Continue deliberations and work to release a supplemental initial report. -- Will we see a work plan that incorporates Work Track 5? Supplemental report will cover only 5 issues. -- How to address the need to have a representative for gauging consensus: Make it incumbent on the folks to clarify their answers to do that. -- Is this for determining consensus, or for clarifying questions? It is an attempt to understand whether a position being taken is from an individual or representing an organization. Trying to understand who is taking a position.