Compromise proposal on Auctions
In the interest of compromise and in hopes of not reverting to the 2012 rules and thereby ignoring the Board’s request that we make a recommendation on this issue, please consider this proposal to allow contention resolution via creative means as well as auctions, with guardrails and tweaks made to the well-received hybrid proposal. It is a blend of many of the compromise solutions proposed. It also accommodates those who do not want ICANN to end up with all auction proceeds but at the same time minimizes the entire pool of money committed, thereby not disadvantaging single applicants. Objective: Increase transparency and accountability in contention resolution to improve the perception of ICANN and the new gTLD program. Proposed process: * String Similarity evaluation completed * On Reveal Day, all contention sets are announced (number and entities are revealed) * A 90-day Resolution Period begins * Members of a contention set may * Form a JV * Withdraw * Find a creative private resolution * Fail to resolve * Members of a contention set may NOT * Participate in a private auction or auction like mechanism. * No later than the close of the 90-day Resolution Period, remaining contention sets will be required to provide ICANN with their decision on how to resolve the contention. They will have decided to: * Agree to create a partnership or other form of joint venture that would allow two or more applicants within a contention set to jointly run and/or operate the applied for string. Application Change Request requirements will apply, including public comment period. * Agree to participate in a sealed bid “3rd Party Auction” which is overseen by ICANN. Proceeds are distributed amongst the losing applicants in the contention set. * Agree to participate in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort using the sealed bids. Proceeds go to ICANN Auctions Proceeds fund. * Auctions of Last Resort and 3rd Party Auctions will take place immediately after the 90 day Private Resolution Period * For 3rd Party Auctions * All auctions are conducted as sealed bids by the same auction provider ICANN chooses for Last Resort auctions. The applicant that submitted the highest sealed bid amount pays the second-highest bid amount. The auction provider must attest that the participants fully disclosed all information and followed the rules before the funds are released to the losers. * All bids for all unresolved contention sets are due on the same date, no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. Auctions for contention sets involving objections, CPE or other outstanding accountability challenges may be delayed but bids are still due no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. * All auctions are to be conducted in an identical fashion using publicly available procedures. * All auctions should be finalized as quickly as possible after the 90 day deadline. * All results are disclosed on a similar timeline as ICANN auctions of last resort from 2012 round, which was usually 72 hours. All parties partaking in the auction as well as winning bidder and amount paid are disclosed. * Auctions of Last Resort * All bids for all unresolved contention sets are due on the same date, no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. Auctions for contention sets involving objections, CPE or other outstanding accountability challenges may be delayed but bids are still due no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. * On the auction date, the applicant that submitted the highest sealed bid amount pays the second-highest bid amount. * Once payment is received, the applicant may proceed to evaluation and eventually the Transition to Delegation. * In the unlikely event that a winning bidder in either auction format does not pass evaluation (none failed in 2012), the next highest bidder is selected for evaluation. Requirements: * Add T&Cs warning applicants that they may not participate in any of the following activities (Prohibited Application Activities): * They shall not submit applications largely for the purpose of financially benefiting from the resolution of contention sets * During the 90-day Resolution Period, they will not participate in the resolution of contention sets where non-winning applicants receive financial benefit to withdraw. * The Registry Agreement must include a mandatory Public Interest Commitment stating that the registry: * has not submitted applications for the purpose of financially benefiting from the resolution of contention sets. * has not participated in an auction or auction like mechanisms outside of the ICANN 3rd party and ICANN Auction of Last Resort. * agrees to punitive measures for violations listed above, which may include the potential loss of the registry as well as a bar on participation in any future rounds (both for the individuals as well as the entities (and their affiliates) involved. * The auction provider must agree to fully disclose all information about the auctions * The auction provider must assert that all rules were followed before releasing auction funds * All contention set resolutions including creative resolutions, 3rd Party Auction and ICANN Auctions of last resort must be submitted by ICANN to relevant competition authorities for review. Benefits: Full transparency, ICANN oversight and competition authority review mitigate community concerns about nefarious activity. Unlike the 2012 round, access to data from this point forward can inform future policy making efforts in the program. Private auctions are eliminated but applicants can still receive proceeds from a 3rd Party Auction if all applicants in a contention set agree. Sealed bids tend to result in lower auction prices so decreased auctions proceeds to ICANN fund. Speeds up the process allowing more applicants to withdraw applications prior to evaluations resulting in greater refund amounts and faster processing of remaining applications. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:44 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 02 July at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 02 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete review of "Can't Live With" comments on Work Track 5 – see attached document. 3. Continue to review Private Resolutions: Hybrid Proposal 2+ and Proposal 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZz... 4. Review the updated Predictability Framework, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTw.... Also attached, please find the updated concerns/mitigation document and process flow. 5. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. 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<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
On 1 Jul 2020, at 17:26, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> wrote:
In the interest of compromise and in hopes of not reverting to the 2012 rules and thereby ignoring the Board’s request that we make a recommendation on this issue, please consider this proposal to allow contention resolution via creative means as well as auctions, with guardrails and tweaks made to the well-received hybrid proposal.
It is a blend of many of the compromise solutions proposed. It also accommodates those who do not want ICANN to end up with all auction proceeds but at the same time minimizes the entire pool of money committed, thereby not disadvantaging single applicants.
Objective: Increase transparency and accountability in contention resolution to improve the perception of ICANN and the new gTLD program.
Proposed process: String Similarity evaluation completed
Jim, You might want to add security and stability evaluation (which is string-based, not Q30 Security question in Technical Evaluation) and name collision risk. Rubens
Jim, Many thanks for this . I have been working on a very similar proposal. This is excellent and eliminates many of the problems and issues that applicants encountered at great cost and delay in Round 1. The issue I have is there are so many moving parts and so many different scenarios that could happen still and certainly did happen last time. I guess we simply can’t cover all bases. This is a great start and clearly lays out the ground rules and a clear timeline for implementation guidance . Perhaps further down the line it can be tweaked for special / exceptional scenarios. I have a couple of points . Firstly , I think 90 days is too short a period ( from once an applicant find itself in a contention set on Reveal Day ) to then have to put a bid valuation together, to completely revise it business model & strategy to then go out to the market to raise substantial $Ms to win the auction. Could they not let be know earlier by ICANN ? 2 I’m assuming that the financial and technical evaluation will / must come AFTER the contention set is resolved( and paid out/ back to the losers ). Surely the winner will need to resubmit their business models / financials to reflect the cost of winning the auction / its funding / its cashflows to enable it to pass the (old) Q46. As we now know many applicants totally overpaid to win their auction in Round 1 , revenues and registrations are substantially below original evaluation budgets , such that many current TLDs are not viable . I think Q46 needs to much tougher this time around to get a financial evaluation pass. 3. How do we incorporate a scenario of a losing CPE applicant having to go to a contention set - which it will very likely lose through lack of extra auction funds. I guess the CPE applications will need to go first as priority for initial evaluation ,so if it fails IE & EE , only then can the private resolution / auction start. Does this x ref to CPE recommendations ? 4 . What of the same scenario but with an Applicant Support application that finds itself in a contention set . 5. I really don’t like & many applicants didn’t want at all to go to the ICANN public auction last time because it is just that - public . I totally agree with your idea that this Round that all proceeds from an ICANN public auction are redistributed back to the losing applicants as soon as possible. ICANN can’t be seen to be making any money from these auctions . Regards, Phil Phil Buckingham I really think it is time now for ICANN.org to set up a Budget Operations Launch Delegation Team . Let’s call it BOLD 2 in time to start straight after ICANN 69 ( Hamburg) . The team need to be full time employees of ICANN.org. Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Jul 2020, at 22:11, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
On 1 Jul 2020, at 17:26, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> wrote:
In the interest of compromise and in hopes of not reverting to the 2012 rules and thereby ignoring the Board’s request that we make a recommendation on this issue, please consider this proposal to allow contention resolution via creative means as well as auctions, with guardrails and tweaks made to the well-received hybrid proposal.
It is a blend of many of the compromise solutions proposed. It also accommodates those who do not want ICANN to end up with all auction proceeds but at the same time minimizes the entire pool of money committed, thereby not disadvantaging single applicants.
Objective: Increase transparency and accountability in contention resolution to improve the perception of ICANN and the new gTLD program.
Proposed process: String Similarity evaluation completed
Jim,
You might want to add security and stability evaluation (which is string-based, not Q30 Security question in Technical Evaluation) and name collision risk.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On 1 Jul 2020, at 21:28, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
Jim, Many thanks for this . I have been working on a very similar proposal. This is excellent and eliminates many of the problems and issues that applicants encountered at great cost and delay in Round 1. The issue I have is there are so many moving parts and so many different scenarios that could happen still and certainly did happen last time. I guess we simply can’t cover all bases. This is a great start and clearly lays out the ground rules and a clear timeline for implementation guidance . Perhaps further down the line it can be tweaked for special / exceptional scenarios. I have a couple of points . Firstly , I think 90 days is too short a period ( from once an applicant find itself in a contention set on Reveal Day ) to then have to put a bid valuation together, to completely revise it business model & strategy to then go out to the market to raise substantial $Ms to win the auction. Could they not let be know earlier by ICANN ?
I believe Jim mentioned as early as the required string evaluations are done, so it can't be earlier. It could be longer.
2 I’m assuming that the financial and technical evaluation will / must come AFTER the contention set is resolved( and paid out/ back to the losers ). Surely the winner will need to resubmit their business models / financials to reflect the cost of winning the auction / its funding / its cashflows to enable it to pass the (old) Q46. As we now know many applicants totally overpaid to win their auction in Round 1 , revenues and registrations are substantially below original evaluation budgets , such that many current TLDs are not viable . I think Q46 needs to much tougher this time around to get a financial evaluation pass.
The WG decided to go pretty much in the opposite direction on Q46, in a way to match expectations with reality. ICANN didn't evaluate business models at all. Note also that technical evaluation might be very quick for applicants that decided to go with an approved RSP and vanilla-only services.
3. How do we incorporate a scenario of a losing CPE applicant having to go to a contention set - which it will very likely lose through lack of extra auction funds. I guess the CPE applications will need to go first as priority for initial evaluation ,so if it fails IE & EE , only then can the private resolution / auction start. Does this x ref to CPE recommendations ?
I understood Jim's proposal to have already factored that, by starting the resolution clock only after CPE results are published.
4 . What of the same scenario but with an Applicant Support application that finds itself in a contention set .
A multiplier is currently under discussion but it would make sense to apply in multiple scenarios.
5. I really don’t like & many applicants didn’t want at all to go to the ICANN public auction last time because it is just that - public .
A private auction this time might not be secretive as last time, so this might not be a factor.
I totally agree with your idea that this Round that all proceeds from an ICANN public auction are redistributed back to the losing applicants as soon as possible. ICANN can’t be seen to be making any money from these auctions .
ICANN making money shouldn't be a goal, but it's not a problem per se, if that prevents other issues. I don't think even ICANN wanted such a pile of cash last time, and as long as we don't make ICANN revenue a goal, ICANN getting money might be the lesser of two evils. Rubens
Jim, Thanks for putting your proposal together for the WG's consideration; I hope it will be discussed further some time next week. In the meantime, how do you envisage your proposed bid credit (or the multiplier equivalent) featuring in your proposal for applicants who have qualified for Applicant Support and that end up in contention sets? Would it be applicable for both the ICANN Auction of Last Resort and the 3rd Party Auctions? Should it? What would be the consequence to the sum paid for either type of auctions? Thanks, Justine --- On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 10:27, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
On 1 Jul 2020, at 21:28, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
Jim, Many thanks for this . I have been working on a very similar proposal. This is excellent and eliminates many of the problems and issues that applicants encountered at great cost and delay in Round 1. The issue I have is there are so many moving parts and so many different scenarios that could happen still and certainly did happen last time. I guess we simply can’t cover all bases. This is a great start and clearly lays out the ground rules and a clear timeline for implementation guidance . Perhaps further down the line it can be tweaked for special / exceptional scenarios. I have a couple of points . Firstly , I think 90 days is too short a period ( from once an applicant find itself in a contention set on Reveal Day ) to then have to put a bid valuation together, to completely revise it business model & strategy to then go out to the market to raise substantial $Ms to win the auction. Could they not let be know earlier by ICANN ?
I believe Jim mentioned as early as the required string evaluations are done, so it can't be earlier. It could be longer.
2 I’m assuming that the financial and technical evaluation will / must
come AFTER the contention set is resolved( and paid out/ back to the losers ). Surely the winner will need to resubmit their business models / financials to reflect the cost of winning the auction / its funding / its cashflows to enable it to pass the (old) Q46.
As we now know many applicants totally overpaid to win their auction in Round 1 , revenues and registrations are substantially below original evaluation budgets , such that many current TLDs are not viable . I think Q46 needs to much tougher this time around to get a financial evaluation pass.
The WG decided to go pretty much in the opposite direction on Q46, in a way to match expectations with reality. ICANN didn't evaluate business models at all. Note also that technical evaluation might be very quick for applicants that decided to go with an approved RSP and vanilla-only services.
3. How do we incorporate a scenario of a losing CPE applicant having to
go to a contention set - which it will very likely lose through lack of extra auction funds. I guess the CPE applications will need to go first as priority for initial evaluation ,so if it fails IE & EE , only then can the private resolution / auction start.
Does this x ref to CPE recommendations ?
I understood Jim's proposal to have already factored that, by starting the resolution clock only after CPE results are published.
4 . What of the same scenario but with an Applicant Support application
that finds itself in a contention set .
A multiplier is currently under discussion but it would make sense to apply in multiple scenarios.
5. I really don’t like & many applicants didn’t want at all to go to
the ICANN public auction last time because it is just that - public .
A private auction this time might not be secretive as last time, so this might not be a factor.
I totally agree with your idea that this Round that all proceeds from an ICANN public auction are redistributed back to the losing applicants as soon as possible. ICANN can’t be seen to be making any money from these auctions .
ICANN making money shouldn't be a goal, but it's not a problem per se, if that prevents other issues. I don't think even ICANN wanted such a pile of cash last time, and as long as we don't make ICANN revenue a goal, ICANN getting money might be the lesser of two evils.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Jim. I appreciate you putting this out there. Somewhat complicated, so I hope we are given sufficient time by the Co-chairs to think through it over the holiday weekend. All, below is my proposal, which has essentially been hashed out on the last several calls, which I think is more straightforward and doesn’t rush to solve a problem that not everyone agrees exists: I propose that application terms and conditions include a representation that: 1. The applicant has a bona fide intention to run the registry if awarded. The “examiners” would be able to issue additional questions if it appears that the business plan is rudimentary or if there is evidence that the applicant does not really have the needed intent. Applicants would be able to supplement the record to assure “examiners.” 2. The application is not being submitted solely for the purpose of being able to participate in private auctions. So, how would these terms be policed? A. If an applicant does not actually launch the registry if awarded or sells it in the aftermarket within 2 years of delegation, that will be noted for purposes of any future rounds and could create a rebuttal presumption of non-intent for that applicant. B. If an applicant only “sells” applications in private auctions and does not actually proceed with any to contracting, that will be noted for purposes of any future rounds and could create a rebuttal presumption that the applicant is only participating in the new gTLD program to speculate on registries. Let’s collect data for the next Round and not assume mal-intent or “frivolity” from the last round. If an applicant violates the application terms and conditions, they will face problems in future rounds (just like cybersquatting applicants were supposed to). Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-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. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 3:26 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Compromise proposal on Auctions In the interest of compromise and in hopes of not reverting to the 2012 rules and thereby ignoring the Board’s request that we make a recommendation on this issue, please consider this proposal to allow contention resolution via creative means as well as auctions, with guardrails and tweaks made to the well-received hybrid proposal. It is a blend of many of the compromise solutions proposed. It also accommodates those who do not want ICANN to end up with all auction proceeds but at the same time minimizes the entire pool of money committed, thereby not disadvantaging single applicants. Objective: Increase transparency and accountability in contention resolution to improve the perception of ICANN and the new gTLD program. Proposed process: * String Similarity evaluation completed * On Reveal Day, all contention sets are announced (number and entities are revealed) * A 90-day Resolution Period begins * Members of a contention set may * Form a JV * Withdraw * Find a creative private resolution * Fail to resolve * Members of a contention set may NOT * Participate in a private auction or auction like mechanism. * No later than the close of the 90-day Resolution Period, remaining contention sets will be required to provide ICANN with their decision on how to resolve the contention. They will have decided to: * Agree to create a partnership or other form of joint venture that would allow two or more applicants within a contention set to jointly run and/or operate the applied for string. Application Change Request requirements will apply, including public comment period. * Agree to participate in a sealed bid “3rd Party Auction” which is overseen by ICANN. Proceeds are distributed amongst the losing applicants in the contention set. * Agree to participate in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort using the sealed bids. Proceeds go to ICANN Auctions Proceeds fund. * Auctions of Last Resort and 3rd Party Auctions will take place immediately after the 90 day Private Resolution Period * For 3rd Party Auctions * All auctions are conducted as sealed bids by the same auction provider ICANN chooses for Last Resort auctions. The applicant that submitted the highest sealed bid amount pays the second-highest bid amount. The auction provider must attest that the participants fully disclosed all information and followed the rules before the funds are released to the losers. * All bids for all unresolved contention sets are due on the same date, no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. Auctions for contention sets involving objections, CPE or other outstanding accountability challenges may be delayed but bids are still due no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. * All auctions are to be conducted in an identical fashion using publicly available procedures. * All auctions should be finalized as quickly as possible after the 90 day deadline. * All results are disclosed on a similar timeline as ICANN auctions of last resort from 2012 round, which was usually 72 hours. All parties partaking in the auction as well as winning bidder and amount paid are disclosed. * Auctions of Last Resort * All bids for all unresolved contention sets are due on the same date, no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. Auctions for contention sets involving objections, CPE or other outstanding accountability challenges may be delayed but bids are still due no more than 30 days after reveal of contention sets/into the resolution period. * On the auction date, the applicant that submitted the highest sealed bid amount pays the second-highest bid amount. * Once payment is received, the applicant may proceed to evaluation and eventually the Transition to Delegation. * In the unlikely event that a winning bidder in either auction format does not pass evaluation (none failed in 2012), the next highest bidder is selected for evaluation. Requirements: * Add T&Cs warning applicants that they may not participate in any of the following activities (Prohibited Application Activities): * They shall not submit applications largely for the purpose of financially benefiting from the resolution of contention sets * During the 90-day Resolution Period, they will not participate in the resolution of contention sets where non-winning applicants receive financial benefit to withdraw. * The Registry Agreement must include a mandatory Public Interest Commitment stating that the registry: * has not submitted applications for the purpose of financially benefiting from the resolution of contention sets. * has not participated in an auction or auction like mechanisms outside of the ICANN 3rd party and ICANN Auction of Last Resort. * agrees to punitive measures for violations listed above, which may include the potential loss of the registry as well as a bar on participation in any future rounds (both for the individuals as well as the entities (and their affiliates) involved. * The auction provider must agree to fully disclose all information about the auctions * The auction provider must assert that all rules were followed before releasing auction funds * All contention set resolutions including creative resolutions, 3rd Party Auction and ICANN Auctions of last resort must be submitted by ICANN to relevant competition authorities for review. Benefits: Full transparency, ICANN oversight and competition authority review mitigate community concerns about nefarious activity. Unlike the 2012 round, access to data from this point forward can inform future policy making efforts in the program. Private auctions are eliminated but applicants can still receive proceeds from a 3rd Party Auction if all applicants in a contention set agree. Sealed bids tend to result in lower auction prices so decreased auctions proceeds to ICANN fund. Speeds up the process allowing more applicants to withdraw applications prior to evaluations resulting in greater refund amounts and faster processing of remaining applications. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:44 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 02 July at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear WG Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WG meeting on Thursday, 02 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Complete review of "Can't Live With" comments on Work Track 5 – see attached document. 3. Continue to review Private Resolutions: Hybrid Proposal 2+ and Proposal 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZz... 4. Review the updated Predictability Framework, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTw.... Also attached, please find the updated concerns/mitigation document and process flow. 5. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. 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<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
participants (5)
-
Jim Prendergast -
Justine Chew -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Phil Buckingham -
Rubens Kuhl