Hi Emily: Attached is my response to the consensus call. Please let me know if you need this in another form. Best regards, Kurt

On Dec 22, 2020, at 8:29 AM, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:

Dear WG members,

On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WGOutputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> where the Consensus Call process was described.

This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support.

The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why.

For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; Topic 23: Closed Generics; Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and All other Outputs in the report.

As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021.

On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report.

Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021.

Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

<SubPro - Final Report - upd 22 Dec 2020 - Consensus Call.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.

Dear Emily Please find attached the inputs of the Swiss Federal Office of Communications regarding the draft final report circulated in this consensus call process. Kind regards Jorge Jorge Cancio Deputy Head of International Affairs Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication DETEC Federal Office of Communications OFCOM Zukunftstrasse 44, CH 2501 Biel mailto: jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:mailto:%20jorge.cancio@bakom.admin.ch> www.bakom.admin.ch<http://www.bakom.admin.ch/> Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Emily Barabas Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Dezember 2020 17:30 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

Dear Emily, Thank you and the rest of the team supporting this working group for your efforts to bring us to the consensus call; it’s been quite a journey. Appreciating all of the discussions and community input that have led us to this point, which include many compromises, there is one specific recommendation I am unable to support. This is Recommendation 35.4, which recommends the use of sealed bids; something which remains a major concern, especially for dotBrand applicants, and will discourage applications. Please refer to the comments submitted during the Public Comments for the draft Final Report for specific details. Please accept this response in my personal capacity and on behalf of the Brand Registry Group. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. On 22 Dec 2020, at 16:29, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WGOutputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team <SubPro - Final Report - upd 22 Dec 2020 - Consensus Call.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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.

Jeff, Cheryl, and members of the working group Congratulations for reaching this historic milestone. This report is the culmination of many years of hard work by members of the WG, leadership of the WG and of course – the ICANN policy support staff without whom none of this would be possible. The process was not easy and as nearly everyone agrees, it took longer than we had hoped. After all is said and done, I believe that for the most part, we are in a very good place. With the following exceptions, I am proud to offer my support for the final document. Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments. Recommendation 9.10 Most of the work on this topic was initiated AFTER the final public comments were received. The ICANN Board raised very serious concerns about the potential conflict between Registry Voluntary Commitments and the ICANN bylaws. The group was hurried in its work on this critical area because of an arbitrary deadline. The impacts to contracted parties are not fully known since this recommendation was never put out for public comment as drafted. Critical to this recommendation, is the Working Group’s failure to respond directly to the specific concerns with this section raised by the Board. We have kicked the can down the road by saying we will respond with a letter when we should have taken additional time to respond to the Board as part of this recommendation. Topic 23: Closed Generics. Recommendation 23.1 I agree with the conclusion of the report that states “the Working Group was not able to agree on ‘policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs’” but I do think that there needs to be further policy work on this topic. The Board resolution directed the GNSO Council to “develop policy advice” on closed Generics. We as Sub Pro have not done so. It may have been a case of one too many critical topics for a WG of this scope to handle. Complicating this is outstanding GAC advice which is not going away. To address the ambiguity around this topic that was properly described in the report, the GNSO Council should launch a narrowly focused PDP to respond to the Board with recommendations. Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets. Recommendation 35.2 Recommendation 35.3 Recommendation 35.5 The recommendations as written are a good faith effort by leadership to try and craft a compromise solution that addresses the concerns of a wide variety of interests. Despite several comments from the community opposing private auctions, a small but vocal group within the WG protested the ban on private auctions that was in a previous leadership proposal and it is now included in the proposal. To mitigate the concerns expressed about private auctions, a series of Bona Fide requirements were developed, and a sealed bid auction was proposed for ICANN Auctions of Last Resort. Some additional disclosure requirements were also included. The phrase “It’s a good deal when everyone is a little unhappy” comes to mind but in this case, it is not about being happy or unhappy, it is about developing sound policy recommendations and this proposal fails that test. The inclusion of private auctions poses institutional risks to ICANN. Knowing that the process will repeat itself and tens of millions will change hands outside of ICANN oversight, despite ICANN being responsible for the execution of this program, will only open ICANN up to external criticism that it is not exercising appropriate oversight. As we saw with the proposed .ORG transaction, when money and ICANN are in play, the spotlight will shine brightly on ICANN. That will continue going forward. The proposal attempts to address the concerns about gaming raised by the ICANN Board using Bona Fide commitments. Despite great effort and even greater complexity, it does not effectively stop the practice. Comments from the community make this abundantly clear but those were summarily dismissed as “having already been discussed.” If this proposal does move forward, I would urge the IRT and the ICANN Board to consider the following changes: * Private auctions should be prohibited, and contention sets should be settled by an ICANN Auction of Last Resort as conducted in the 2012 round. There should be a period for contention resolution without auctions and if successful, appropriate disclosures should be made to ICANN. This eliminates the complexity inherent in this proposal and places ICANN in the proper oversight position. * If ICANN or the IRT deems that private auctions will be allowed, they should be overseen by ICANN, not by a private provider and a web of NDAs. Lack of information really hampered this working group. Coincidentally, the only auction provider who agreed to speak with the group suggested the ICANN Auction of Last resort implemented using the Vickrey method as the best method for settling contention sets. If either of these processes had been in place for the 2012 round, this working group and the larger community would have had the data it needed to do a proper assessment of what worked and what did not. In addition, having ICANN oversee both processes will ensure integrity and transparency, and allows ICANN to appropriately exercise its authority over the delegation of new gTLDs. Again, thanks for the effort of all. I look forward to the next steps including our call next week. Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202-285-3699 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

Emily – Please find attached my Consensus Call response. Jeff, Cheryl and members of the Working Group, This consensus call marks a momentous milestone in our work. Having been a member of this WG from the beginning, these past 4-5 years have provided me not only with a unique view into the development of new ideas, procedures, and policies related to new gTLDs, but have also yielded new perspectives as I listened to the many viewpoints communicated within the WG. Thanks to all who led, participated, and supported the work of this PDP. Many thanks, Jessica Hooper Jessica Hooper | Senior Manager, Naming Operations | jhooper@verisign.com<mailto:jhooper@verisign.com> | O: 703-948-4553 |C: 1-571-230-2801 | verisign.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear WG members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WG Outputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1pBmFa93W6SK8kgoUwsYmw1hj3uhHAapy3gPKj1RXdheQ2S...>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1NZ4h3AsiezXkhp9596GrMyAaQ0L_n4e5kWTJT5OmmeKqLr...> where the Consensus Call process was described. This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support. The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why. For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly: * Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments; * Topic 23: Closed Generics; * Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE; * Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and * All other Outputs in the report. As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021. On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report. Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021. Kind regards, Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

Dear all, Emily, Please find attached my response to this consensus call, submitted on behalf of the ALAC. I would like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Jeff Neuman, Christa Taylor, Mike Flemming, Rubens Kuhl, Sara Bockey, Robin Gross, Karen Day, Phil Buckingham, Sophia Feng, Martin Sutton, Annebeth Lang, Olga Cavalli, Javier Rua-Jovet, Julie Hedlund, Steve Chan and Emily Barabas, for their persistence, leadership and support in getting us through this PDP. Thank you also to the members of this WG for your dedication in following its proceedings. It has been a pleasure to have participated in this PDP, WG and various WG tracks, sub-groups and small teams, in arriving to this point. Kind regards, Justine Chew On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 00:29, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:

Dear WG members,

On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the *opening of the online Consensus Call on the **WG Outputs *(i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> where the Consensus Call process was described.

This Consensus Call opens *today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020** and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021** at 23:59 UTC*. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> , *WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs.* If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support.

The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. *Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the **Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why.*

For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly:

- *Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments;* - *Topic 23: Closed **G**enerics;* - *Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE;* - *Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and* - *All other Outputs in the report.*

As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they *explicitly state in their response* that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on *January 11, 2021*.

On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report.

Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of* 18 January 2021*.

Kind regards,

Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

_______________________________________________ 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.

I hereby submit my response to the Consensus Call. I am submitting this in my personal capacity, and not on behalf of my employer or any ICANN structure. Except as noted below, my response is that I support or do not object to the Recommendations in the Final Report. - *Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments;* I strongly support PICs and RVCs. However, it should be clear that PICS/RVCs, by definition, DO NOT and CANNOT violate Section 1.1(c) of the ICANN ByLaws, which reads: ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority. Simply put, a PIC/RVC is a mutually agreed term in a contract and thus is not the *imposition* of a rule or restriction by ICANN. This was a heavily discussed provision during the IANA transition and I participated directly in those discussions. If ICANN believes that ICANN cannot agree to a PIC/RVC because it violates the Bylaws, ICANN should not agree to these PICS//RVCs in the first place. Once a PIC/RVC is agreed to and in place, registries need to comply and ICANN needs to enforce it as it would with any other contract term.. - *Topic 23: Closed Generics;* *I agree with Justine Chew's statement (on behalf of ALAC) and with Anne Aikman Scalese's statement on this Recommendation, which reads as follows:* I agree that the WG members did not reach Consensus on this topic. I disagree with WG members who maintain that the “status quo” is no prohibition on Closed Generics. After the 2012 implementation, applicants for Closed Generics were permitted to convert to open registries or to withdraw applications with refunds pursuant to Board Resolution. I support the proposal made by Greg Shatan in the December 10, 2020 WG call (at 1 hour 7 minutes into the call) to allow applications for Closed Generics but to “suspend” such applications subject to further policy work in the appropriate forum, e.g. EPDP. In this regard, it would be helpful for the ICANN Board to specify whether it intends to accept standing GAC Advice to the effect that a “Closed Generic” should serve a public interest goal. Such guidance would assist the GNSO Council in constructing a Charter for an EPDP. Here it is important to note that a finding that a particular Closed TLD “serves a public interest goal” does not need to be equal to a finding that a particular Closed TLD is “in the Global Public Interest”. The two standards are distinguishable and elements to establish the status of serving a public interest goal are ascertainable. Specific questions for evaluation of this status are suggested beginning on page 104 of the December 22 version of the Final Report. It should also be noted that if this Closed Generic topic is not resolved by adoption of policy prior to the opening of the next application window, it is certain there will be applications for Closed Generics by applicants who will be relying on the new policy contained in Implementation Guidance 3.4 that prohibits subsequent applications for the same string if any prior application for that string remains unresolved. This means that a future application for a Closed Generic could effectively block a subsequent round application for an Open Generic TLD for the same string. Such a result would violate the Principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression which has been affirmed by the Working Group as discussed in Topic 10. - *Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE;* *I support this with some reservations. On the one hand, I have some concerns about gaming and on the other hand, I have some concerns about how difficult it was for actual bona fide communities to satisfy these requirements.* - *Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets;* I do not support Recommendation 35.4. Thanks to all. Amazing work! Greg Shatan On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:29 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:

Dear WG members,

On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the *opening of the online Consensus Call on the **WG Outputs *(i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...> where the Consensus Call process was described.

This Consensus Call opens *today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020** and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021** at 23:59 UTC*. Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> , *WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs.* If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support.

The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. *Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the **Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why.*

For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly:

- *Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments;* - *Topic 23: Closed **G**enerics;* - *Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE;* - *Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and* - *All other Outputs in the report.*

As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate). Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they *explicitly state in their response* that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on *January 11, 2021*.

On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report.

Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of* 18 January 2021*.

Kind regards,

Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

_______________________________________________ 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.