Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 07 May at 0300 UTC. 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/2020-05-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: ACTION ITEM: Add this text to the Working Document. 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only] Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): ACTION ITEM: Change the text of the second sentence to, “In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the finalization and publication of the next Applicant Guidebook...” Include a comment that Some WG Members are advocating to maintain the gap between finalization of the AGB and launch of the application period. ACTION ITEM: Consider on the WG list whether this should be a Recommendation or Implementation Guidance and consider the placement. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): ACTION ITEM: Add a reference in the rationale that the WG discussed the additional government comments from the GAC. 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) ACTION ITEM: Leadership will consider how to revisit this subject. ACTION ITEM: Consider the new idea from Rubens Kuhl that the information on number of applications in the contention set should include whether there are self-designated community or geo applications in the contention set. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52... a. 2.8.1 Objections [GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warning Only]:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_PArk_pO... ACTION ITEM: Add this text to the Working Document. Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2): Suggested language from Paul, Anne, Justine: Recommendation xx: “To the extent that the GAC provides GAC Consensus Advice (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws) in the future on categories of TLDs, the GAC should provide this Advice prior to the finalization of the next Applicant Guidebook. In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the application period has begun and whether the GAC Consensus Advice applies to categories, groups or classes of applications or string types, or to a particular string, the ICANN Board should take into account the circumstances resulting in such timing and the possible detrimental effect of such timing in determining whether to accept or override such GAC Consensus Advice as provided in the Bylaws." Discussion: -- In GAC comments most governments pushed back and said they needed some flexibility on particular unexpected categories. -- This WG has discussed that there needs to be balance between providing advice on categories to the extent it could have been provided prior to the round opening up. -- Could say “after the opening of the application submission period”. -- The language on timing has a gap where it says to provide the advice before the final version of the AGB and if issue after the application submission period has begun. Do we want it at the publishing of the final AGB? Or should it be after the opening of the application submission period? -- Fine to ask for GAC action prior to the finalization of the AGB then after the application submission period has begun then the rest would apply. -- But there is a gap between the publishing of the AGB and the opening of the application submission window – potentially a 4-month period. The next sentence should be “in the event the GAC advice is issued after the finalization of the AGB” – but change to publication of the final version of the AGB. -- If we keep the gap in we should note that we knowingly did so for the Implementation Team. -- Publication of the final AGB is consistent with the predictability framework language. -- In the evolution of this text, we changed it to a recommendation, but it had been implementation guidance. Seems like if it isn’t binding it should be Implementation Guidance (says “should” not “must”). -- Question: Does this mean it won’t be implemented? Answer: We would say in the preamble that Implementation Guidance should be implemented unless it’s not feasible. The idea is to be transparent if something is implemented differently. ACTION ITEM: Change the text of the second sentence to, “In the event that GAC Consensus Advice is issued after the finalization and publication of the next Applicant Guidebook...” Include a comment that Some WG Members are advocating to maintain the gap between finalization of the AGB and launch of the application period. ACTION ITEM: Consider on the WG list whether this should be a Recommendation or Implementation Guidance and consider the placement. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): Re: “Section 3.1 of the 2012 Applicant Guidebook states that GAC Consensus Advice “will create a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved.” Noting that this language does not have a basis in the current version of the ICANN Bylaws, the Working Group recommends omitting this language in future versions of the Applicant Guidebook to bring the Applicant Guidebook in line with the Bylaws language.” Discussion: -- Many governments wanted to keep the strong presumption language in the AGB, unless there is strong consensus in the community to take it out. -- Question: Don’t we indicate in our recommendations an acceptance of Early Warning, so aren’t we recognizing that advice comes after applicants are made? Answer: GAC Early Warnings do not constitute consensus advice. -- The language is from a time that has gone by. Hate to miss an opportunity to have protective language for applicants. -- GAC can provide advice on this Final Report. -- Not all of the governments agree with keeping the presumption in, such as the US. Belgium was the only one that addressed the point we tried to make, that we think it provides a disincentive to come up with other solutions than rejecting the application outright. Could hamper a direct dialog with the applicant to reach a solution. -- A lot of governments do not agree with the removal of the language. -- Let the Bylaws take over and take out all reference to the presumption. -- Should we modify “strong presumption” instead and rewrite the text to reflect the fact that there was support from some countries to keep in “strong presumption”. ACTION ITEM: Add a reference in the rationale that the WG discussed the additional government comments from the GAC. b. 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) Discussion: -- Question: Are private auctions off the table? Answer: Looking at the bulk of the comments and the letter from the Board and the previous work it seems like there is much more support for not allowing private auctions than there is support for keeping them. -- Thought we decided that private solutions could still be allowed. -- Does private solutions include private auctions? -- We describe private auctions as a perceived problem; if it’s just perceived then private auctions should be back on the table. -- If we do allow private auctions to go forward there are limiting elements that the WG could consider. -- NEW IDEA (from Rubens): When the contention sets are revealed for the types of applications to be identified – such as community or geo: “I still believe that the information on number of applications in the contention set should include whether there are self-designated community or geo applications in the contention set. Like this example: there are 7 applications in the provisional contention set, 1 is community and 1 is both geo and community.” ACTION ITEM: Leadership will consider how to revisit this subject. ACTION ITEM: Consider the new idea from Rubens Kuhl that the information on number of applications in the contention set should include whether there are self-designated community or geo applications in the contention set.