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
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.
Hi Emily and Everyone: I am resubmitting my Consensus Call response, not because I think it merits a re-reading, but rather to correct an error. In my original document, I stated I could not support Recommendation 17.2. The disagreement was actually with Recommendation 17.1, The remaining text and references remains the same as the material all refers to 17.1. I am sorry for the inconvenience and thanks to Emily for finding the iinconsistency. Best regards, Kurt
On Jan 7, 2021, at 1:41 PM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Emily:
Attached is my response to the consensus call. Please let me know if you need this in another form.
Best regards,
Kurt
<SubPro Consensus call response.pdf>
On Dec 22, 2020, at 8:29 AM, 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 <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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
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: Please find attached my replies to the draft final report circulated for the PDP consensus call.. Best regards Christopher Wilkinson
El 22 de diciembre de 2020 a las 17:29 Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> escribió:
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.
Hi Emily, Thank you to you and your other fabulous staff members for all of your hard work keeping us on task! Like Kurt and Martin, I too cannot support the proposed Recommendation 35.4 requiring sealed bids. Policy making within PDPs is supposed to be fact based. This recommendation appears to be simply a preference by a small group of ICANN insiders. No problem was ever identified and this proposed solution to the non-problem has never been studied to see if it would fix the problem which no one, in over four years, has located. This is simply not fact based policy development and the recommendation should have never made it into this final report in the first place. Unfortunately, the proposed solution without a problem has created significant problems including what appears to be a significant, and unnecessary, barrier to entry for new .brand applicants. In fact, the proposed recommendation seems tailor-made to exclude .brands from the New gTLD Program as it requires .brand applicants to participate in blind bidding, which cannot be increased, with no information about (1) who the other applicants are, (2) how those other applicants intend to use the TLD, and (3) whether or not the other applicants have put forward any Voluntary Registry Commitments to ensure that the TLD will not be used in conjunction with any goods or services that the .Brand applicant trades in. Additionally, it requires blind bids to be put in prior to the completion of prior rights objections, rendering that flawed objections process even more impotent. As a result, I ask that all of Recommendation 35.4 be marked as “No Consensus” which will allow the default 2012 ascending bids mechanism to remain in place. On a happier note, I am very pleased with the Work Track 5/Geo Term outcomes as well as the outcomes on PICs/RVCs and wanted to put in a special affirmation of those. Thanks! Regards, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com__;!!Hj9Y_P0nvg!FNKvIEyshxh...> / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> 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 Martin Sutton Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 1:17 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC [EXTERNAL MESSAGE] 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.
Dear all, First, I want to echo the thanks to ICANN Staff and the working group leadership team for their work throughout this PDP – seen and unseen. Second, unless otherwise stated, I support all recommendations in the spirit of compromise and consensus building, regardless of my own personal views. I do not support 35.4 on the timing of submitting a sealed bid for Auctions of Last Resort. I have a number of concerns about asking applicants to submit their valuation of a string so early in the process, without being able to take into consideration * the outcome of objection processes (particularly GAC Advice and Legal Rights Objections); * who the other applicants for the string are; and * the alternative business models for the string (for example, proposed rights protection mechanisms, eligibility restrictions). These concerns are exacerbated for dotBrand applicants as brand owners will be required to * Essentially provide a valuation of the brand to ICANN; * This valuation being irrelevant if objections or negotiations are successful (ie they have provided sensitive business information for no reason); * Not being able to provide a bid based on who else has applied for the string and the level of risk to their brand associated with the other applicants and/or their business model; * Having to secure internal approval for significant additional funding for their application right from the start of the process. Sophie Hey Policy Advisor Com Laude | Valideus D: +44 7535530404 E: sophie.hey@comlaude.com<mailto:sophie.hey@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: 08 January 2021 19:54 To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Hi Emily, Thank you to you and your other fabulous staff members for all of your hard work keeping us on task! Like Kurt and Martin, I too cannot support the proposed Recommendation 35.4 requiring sealed bids. Policy making within PDPs is supposed to be fact based. This recommendation appears to be simply a preference by a small group of ICANN insiders. No problem was ever identified and this proposed solution to the non-problem has never been studied to see if it would fix the problem which no one, in over four years, has located. This is simply not fact based policy development and the recommendation should have never made it into this final report in the first place. Unfortunately, the proposed solution without a problem has created significant problems including what appears to be a significant, and unnecessary, barrier to entry for new .brand applicants. In fact, the proposed recommendation seems tailor-made to exclude .brands from the New gTLD Program as it requires .brand applicants to participate in blind bidding, which cannot be increased, with no information about (1) who the other applicants are, (2) how those other applicants intend to use the TLD, and (3) whether or not the other applicants have put forward any Voluntary Registry Commitments to ensure that the TLD will not be used in conjunction with any goods or services that the .Brand applicant trades in. Additionally, it requires blind bids to be put in prior to the completion of prior rights objections, rendering that flawed objections process even more impotent. As a result, I ask that all of Recommendation 35.4 be marked as “No Consensus” which will allow the default 2012 ascending bids mechanism to remain in place. On a happier note, I am very pleased with the Work Track 5/Geo Term outcomes as well as the outcomes on PICs/RVCs and wanted to put in a special affirmation of those. Thanks! Regards, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com__;!!Hj9Y_P0nvg!FNKvIEyshxh...> / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Martin Sutton Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 1:17 PM To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC [EXTERNAL MESSAGE] 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. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland;Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
I also oppose 35.4, and support Paul McGrady's and Sophie's comments about it. No problem was ever identified to support such a drastic and foolish change to the program. [image: Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com phone: +1 (415) 738-8087 On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 12:13 PM Sophie Hey <sophie.hey@comlaude.com> wrote:
Dear all,
First, I want to echo the thanks to ICANN Staff and the working group leadership team for their work throughout this PDP – seen and unseen.
Second, unless otherwise stated, I support all recommendations in the spirit of compromise and consensus building, regardless of my own personal views.
I do not support 35.4 on the timing of submitting a sealed bid for Auctions of Last Resort. I have a number of concerns about asking applicants to submit their valuation of a string so early in the process, without being able to take into consideration
- the outcome of objection processes (particularly GAC Advice and Legal Rights Objections); - who the other applicants for the string are; and - the alternative business models for the string (for example, proposed rights protection mechanisms, eligibility restrictions).
These concerns are exacerbated for dotBrand applicants as brand owners will be required to
- Essentially provide a valuation of the brand to ICANN; - This valuation being irrelevant *if* objections or negotiations are successful (ie they have provided sensitive business information for no reason); - Not being able to provide a bid based on who else has applied for the string and the level of risk to their brand associated with the other applicants and/or their business model; - Having to secure internal approval for significant additional funding for their application right from the start of the process.
*Sophie Hey*
Policy Advisor
*Com Laude | Valideus *D: +44 7535530404 E: sophie.hey@comlaude.com
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *McGrady, Paul D. *Sent:* 08 January 2021 19:54 *To:* Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>; Emily Barabas < emily.barabas@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
Hi Emily,
Thank you to you and your other fabulous staff members for all of your hard work keeping us on task!
Like Kurt and Martin, I too cannot support the proposed Recommendation 35.4 requiring sealed bids. Policy making within PDPs is supposed to be fact based. This recommendation appears to be simply a preference by a small group of ICANN insiders. No problem was ever identified and this proposed solution to the non-problem has never been studied to see if it would fix the problem which no one, in over four years, has located. This is simply not fact based policy development and the recommendation should have never made it into this final report in the first place.
Unfortunately, the proposed solution without a problem has created significant problems including what appears to be a significant, and unnecessary, barrier to entry for new .brand applicants. In fact, the proposed recommendation seems tailor-made to exclude .brands from the New gTLD Program as it requires .brand applicants to participate in blind bidding, which cannot be increased, with no information about (1) who the other applicants are, (2) how those other applicants intend to use the TLD, and (3) whether or not the other applicants have put forward any Voluntary Registry Commitments to ensure that the TLD will not be used in conjunction with any goods or services that the .Brand applicant trades in. Additionally, it requires blind bids to be put in prior to the completion of prior rights objections, rendering that flawed objections process even more impotent. As a result, I ask that all of Recommendation 35.4 be marked as “No Consensus” which will allow the default 2012 ascending bids mechanism to remain in place.
On a happier note, I am very pleased with the Work Track 5/Geo Term outcomes as well as the outcomes on PICs/RVCs and wanted to put in a special affirmation of those. Thanks!
Regards,
Paul
*Taft * */ * *Paul* *D. McGrady* / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 *www.taftlaw.com <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com__;!!Hj9Y_P0nvg!FNKvIEyshxh...> * / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com
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 *Martin Sutton *Sent:* Friday, January 8, 2021 1:17 PM *To:* Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
[EXTERNAL MESSAGE]
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> 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 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.
------------------------------ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland;Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com> _______________________________________________ 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.
You guys have done great work to get to this milestone. Thank you all for a long and grueling effort. I rarely comment but must include my voice in opposition to sealed bids articulated in 35.4. I concur with the comments/positions from Martin, Sophie, Paul and Mike related to dotBrands. It's simply not workable for a dotBrand application in particular. TLD auction bid value decisions must consider the market conditions/dynamics which requires foreknowledge of and number of competing TLD applicants. Peter On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 15:18, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
I also oppose 35.4, and support Paul McGrady's and Sophie's comments about it. No problem was ever identified to support such a drastic and foolish change to the program.
[image: Logo]
Mike Rodenbaugh
address:
548 Market Street, Box 55819
San Francisco, CA 94104
email:
mike@rodenbaugh.com
phone:
+1 (415) 738-8087
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 12:13 PM Sophie Hey <sophie.hey@comlaude.com> wrote:
Dear all,
First, I want to echo the thanks to ICANN Staff and the working group leadership team for their work throughout this PDP – seen and unseen.
Second, unless otherwise stated, I support all recommendations in the spirit of compromise and consensus building, regardless of my own personal views.
I do not support 35.4 on the timing of submitting a sealed bid for Auctions of Last Resort. I have a number of concerns about asking applicants to submit their valuation of a string so early in the process, without being able to take into consideration
- the outcome of objection processes (particularly GAC Advice and Legal Rights Objections); - who the other applicants for the string are; and - the alternative business models for the string (for example, proposed rights protection mechanisms, eligibility restrictions).
These concerns are exacerbated for dotBrand applicants as brand owners will be required to
- Essentially provide a valuation of the brand to ICANN; - This valuation being irrelevant *if* objections or negotiations are successful (ie they have provided sensitive business information for no reason); - Not being able to provide a bid based on who else has applied for the string and the level of risk to their brand associated with the other applicants and/or their business model; - Having to secure internal approval for significant additional funding for their application right from the start of the process.
*Sophie Hey*
Policy Advisor
*Com Laude | Valideus *D: +44 7535530404 E: sophie.hey@comlaude.com
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *McGrady, Paul D. *Sent:* 08 January 2021 19:54 *To:* Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>; Emily Barabas < emily.barabas@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
Hi Emily,
Thank you to you and your other fabulous staff members for all of your hard work keeping us on task!
Like Kurt and Martin, I too cannot support the proposed Recommendation 35.4 requiring sealed bids. Policy making within PDPs is supposed to be fact based. This recommendation appears to be simply a preference by a small group of ICANN insiders. No problem was ever identified and this proposed solution to the non-problem has never been studied to see if it would fix the problem which no one, in over four years, has located. This is simply not fact based policy development and the recommendation should have never made it into this final report in the first place.
Unfortunately, the proposed solution without a problem has created significant problems including what appears to be a significant, and unnecessary, barrier to entry for new .brand applicants. In fact, the proposed recommendation seems tailor-made to exclude .brands from the New gTLD Program as it requires .brand applicants to participate in blind bidding, which cannot be increased, with no information about (1) who the other applicants are, (2) how those other applicants intend to use the TLD, and (3) whether or not the other applicants have put forward any Voluntary Registry Commitments to ensure that the TLD will not be used in conjunction with any goods or services that the .Brand applicant trades in. Additionally, it requires blind bids to be put in prior to the completion of prior rights objections, rendering that flawed objections process even more impotent. As a result, I ask that all of Recommendation 35.4 be marked as “No Consensus” which will allow the default 2012 ascending bids mechanism to remain in place.
On a happier note, I am very pleased with the Work Track 5/Geo Term outcomes as well as the outcomes on PICs/RVCs and wanted to put in a special affirmation of those. Thanks!
Regards,
Paul
*Taft * */ * *Paul* *D. McGrady* / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 *www.taftlaw.com <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com__;!!Hj9Y_P0nvg!FNKvIEyshxh...> * / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com
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 *Martin Sutton *Sent:* Friday, January 8, 2021 1:17 PM *To:* Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC
[EXTERNAL MESSAGE]
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> 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 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.
------------------------------ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland;Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com> _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- Peter LaMantia, CEO authenticweb.com *Dozens of leading brands showcased using their Brand TLDs. Go to
brandtld.news <http://brandtld.news/> *
Dear Emily, Responding on behalf of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, I support all of the recommendations put forth in the Final Report of the Subsequent Procedures PDP. That said, however, I have concerns that some of the recommendations, including but not limited to Recommendation 9.1, should be made stronger to ensure public safety. I will explain and file these concerns in a separate minority report. Thank you, Gertrude “Gg” Levine Digital Health Manager 847/391-4497 [cid:image002.png@01D6E5CA.054D6100]National Association of Boards of Pharmacy 1600 Feehanville Dr, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 www.nabp.pharmacy<http://www.nabp.pharmacy> | glevine@nabp.pharmacy<mailto:glevine@nabp.pharmacy> [cid:image003.png@01D6E5C8.1B8836E0]<https://www.facebook.com/NABP1904/> [cid:image004.png@01D6E5C8.1B8836E0]<https://twitter.com/nabp> [cid:image005.png@01D6E5C8.1B8836E0]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/national-association-of-boards-of-pharmacy/> [cid:image006.png@01D6E5C8.1B8836E0]<https://www.youtube.com/c/NationalAssociationofBoardsofPharmacy> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 10:30 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
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
On 22 Dec 2020, at 13:29, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
<SubPro - Final Report - upd 22 Dec 2020 - Consensus Call.pdf>
My only comment on the final report is - In 9.15, DNS Abuse, we say "Potentially ccTLDs". I wonder whether this exceeds the scope of a GNSO WG, even considering that the language is speculative. To be clear, this is not about substance; a community-wide DNS-Abuse effort might eventually be joined by ccTLDs so the phrase is not incorrect. This comment is made on behalf of me and my employer (NIC.br), not on behalf of any other group or organisation I'm part of. I would like to also take this opportunity to thank policy staff and community volunteers for the time and effort in this odyssey, and hope to see most of you in implementation discussions. Rubens
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 Jeff, Cheryl, WG Team Members and Staff, Please see below my response to the Consensus Call on the Final Report, submitted with many thanks to Leadership and ICANN Staff for their tenacity in this effort: In general, I support the Recommendations, Affirmations, and Implementation Guidance contained in the Final Report and am registering that support in relation to the topics not specifically addressed below. Having said that, I believe the Working Group should have spent more time addressing the Recommendations of the CCT-RT. In particular, in relation to 9.15 of the Final Report, I believe the Working Group should have made a formal Recommendation to GNSO Council to undertake an EPDP in relation to DNS Abuse. Failure to make that recommendation simply delayed policy work that is clearly necessary. In some cases, I summarize specific areas of support in anticipation of expressions of non-support from other WG members. For certain recommendations which I do not support, the Recommendation or Implementation Guidance is referred to by topic and number. Topic 2: Predictability Framework. Given that the SPIRT cannot make policy and is subject in all proceedings to GNSO Council mechanisms for handling issues, I strongly support the proposed Predictability Framework. I believe that open participation following the same rules as IRT representation on the SPIRT is critical. Public comment confirmed that the community supports a “Standing IRT”. Although Leadership took the view that GNSO Council might vary the structure of the SPIRT to limit its numbers, full participation by the wider community is critical to the success of this new Framework and invitations should be issued to all members of the Sub Pro Working Group and the Sub Pro IRT as codified in Annex E to the Final Report, Item 1.c. under the heading “SPIRT Chartering, SPIRT Recruitment”. As stated in Topic 2 d. of the Final Report, “The Working Group therefore agreed that the SPIRT is needed to utilize the Predictability Framework and accordingly has provided detailed guidance in Annex E regarding the establishment of the structure.” (Emphasis mine.) Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments. I strongly support the system of PICS and RVCs adopted in the Final Report. I subscribe to the IPC informal position submitted to the Sub Pro list on this topic (and pasted below) which underlines why such PICs and RVCs are not outside ICANN’s powers under the ByLaws. I support enforcement of mandatory PICs within ICANN and enforcement of RVCs by an independent third party Dispute Resolution Provider. In this manner, ICANN can avoid even the appearance of content regulation. An important part of the Recommendations is that RVCs are always subject to public comment. I would not support a system of RVCs which are not subject to public comment. All PICs and RVCs should be included in the applicable Registry Agreement. IPC Informal Position on PICs/RVCs as submitted to the Sub Pro list pursuant to Leadership’s request for input: “1. ICANN can enter into and enforce PICS in service of its Mission. 1.1 (d) B (iv) “(iv) ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements, including public interest commitments, with any party in service of its Mission.” 2. ICANN is not “imposing” rules and restrictions on parties by acceptance of PICs and RVCs. RVCs don’t constitute “regulation” of any type, much less content regulation. (refer to history of Accountability Workstream 1 ). The ByLaws provision re “imposing” rules and restrictions in 1.1 (c) states as follows: . (c) 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. This language makes it clear that ICANN does not intend to act as a government regulator. It does not prohibit adoption and enforcement of PICs. The ByLaws clearly state that all previously-adopted PICs are in force and may be renewed going forward. See 1.1 (d) which states as follows: (d) For the avoidance of doubt and notwithstanding the foregoing: (i) the foregoing prohibitions are not intended to limit ICANN’s authority or ability to adopt or implement policies or procedures that take into account the use of domain names as natural-language identifiers; (ii) Notwithstanding any provision of the Bylaws to the contrary, the terms and conditions of the documents listed in subsections (A) through (C) below, and ICANN’s performance of its obligations or duties thereunder, may not be challenged by any party in any proceeding against, or process involving, ICANN (including a request for reconsideration or an independent review process pursuant to Article 4) on the basis that such terms and conditions conflict with, or are in violation of, ICANN’s Mission or otherwise exceed the scope of ICANN’s authority or powers pursuant to these Bylaws (“Bylaws”) or ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation (“Articles of Incorporation”): (A) (1) all registry agreements and registrar accreditation agreements between ICANN and registry operators or registrars in force on [1 October 2016]1, including, in each case, any terms or conditions therein that are not contained in the underlying form of registry agreement and registrar accreditation agreement; (2) any registry agreement or registrar accreditation agreement not encompassed by (1) above to the extent its terms do not vary materially from the form of registry agreement or registrar accreditation agreement that existed on [1 October 2016]; (B)any renewals of agreements described in subsection (A) pursuant to their terms and conditions for renewal; The fact that even voluntary PICS may be renewed going forward confirms without a doubt that they are not outside of ICANN’s power under the new ByLaws. Thus, adoption and enforcement of voluntary PICs (RVCs) is not ultra vires. Unfortunately the recently proposed “guardrails” around the adoption of voluntary PICs and Registry Voluntary commitments would in fact make ICANN a regulator of content, making ICANN the judge of a Registry’s Human Rights compliance and making ICANN (rather than the Registry) the arbiter of whether a particular RVC addresses content. In other words, the guardrails proposed increase the danger that ICANN would be acting as a content regulator. 3. No revision to the ByLaws is necessary for ICANN to accept and approve the PICs and RVC policy developed by the WG. The ICANN ByLaws clearly state in the Mission section that the PDP process acts as a “guiding light” in the development of policy that relates to ICANN’s Mission. Current ByLaws Section 1.1. (a) states: Specifically, ICANN: (i) Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”) and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”). In this role, ICANN’s scope is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies: • For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registries, policies in the areas described in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2; and • That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names systems. During its deliberations, the Sub Pro Working Group majority implicitly determined that the recommended system of PICs and RVCs is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, resilience, and stability of the DNS. The policies developed are perfectly aligned with the scope of the Mission and do NOT constitute governmental content “regulation”. In fact, PICs and RVCs are not about content at all. They are about resolving potential disputes that might otherwise lead to litigation and/or a chilling effect of preventing the launch of a TLD. This means that the system of PICs and RVCs will serve ICANN’s Mission to preserve and support security, stability, and resiliency. Furthermore, all voluntary PICs and RVCs will be open for public comment and super transparent. ICANN has the power and even a duty to enforce PICs that shore up security, resiliency, and stability as determined via PDP recommendations unless such recommendations are voted down by a 2/3 majority of the Board. In addition, if RVCs are not entered into and enforced within the ICANN system, transparency is defeated because back room deals can still be made as a matter of private contract law. PICs and RVCs keep these commitments out in the open. 4. If ICANN is concerned about the burden of enforcement, it can refer RVCs to an independent panel that ICANN does not pay and cannot override, just like UDRP. The RVC-DRP can be created in a way to allow ICANN to step back from any ICANN.org determination re RVC compliance.” Topic 12 – Applicant Guidebook. Recommendation 12.9 - Rather than the two months period specified for AGB versions other than English, the Applicant Guidebook should be available in all 6 UN languages at the same time, i.e. four(4) months prior to the commencement of the opening of the window for applications. Topic 23 - Closed Generics. 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 29 – Name Collisions. I strongly support Recommendation 29.1 stating that ICANN “must” have ready a mechanism to evaluate the risk of name collisions. The portion of the recommendation that specifies the timing as “in the evaluation process as well as during the transition to the delegation phase” is ill-advised as the mechanism should be developed before the application window opens. Such a “gating mechanism” will assist applicants in knowing whether or not to go to the trouble and expense of preparing full blown application. I DO NOT SUPPORT Affirmation 29.2 which affirms continued use of the current Name Collision Occurrence Management framework in relation to a new round of gTLDs “unless and until the ICANN Board adopts a new mitigation framework”. The harm from name collisions is not limited to “human-life threatening conditions”. Pursuant to SSAC Advice, the Board should properly assess name collision risk before adding TLDs to the root. Accordingly, the Board should await the outcome of the NCAP work and SSAC Advice on questions posed by the Board on this topic and should adopt a new Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework before accepting applications for the next round of new gTLDs. This will avoid unnecessary expense and work for applicants and for ICANN staff which could proliferate AFTER the application window opens if the appropriate name collision work is not done prior to that time. Topic 34 – Community Applications. I strongly support the recommendations and implementation guidelines adopted by the Working Group on this Topic. Special thanks to the ALAC, in particular to ALAC rep Justine Chew, and to Jamie Baxter for their contributions to these improvements. Topic 35 – Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort/Private Resolution of Contention Sets. Regarding Recommendation 35.4, in connection with the Implementation phase, applications designated as Specification 13 Brand applications should not be subject to the “Last Resort Sealed Bid” process unless the brand applicant retains all rights to file a Legal Rights Objection and to negotiate for Registry Voluntary Commitments in relation to the winning bidder. This is due to the fact that after String Similarity Evaluation, no other information regarding the applications may be shared prior to submitting the sealed bid. For trademark holders/brand owners, the intended use and actual use of the TLD is very important, as are possible restrictions via RVCs to limit the potential injury to brands which may be posed by the ownership and operation of the TLD by a third party other than the brand owner. Forcing brand applicants to file Objections and submit sealed bids without full information regarding the application that matches the brand encourages litigation (with its corresponding expense for all parties and delays in delegation). Respectfully submitted, Anne Aikman-Scalese 8 January, 2021 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 9:30 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
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.
Of course, I meant to refer to the Final Report of 22 Dec 202*0*. Justine On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 at 07:20, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Hello All, A big thank-you to everyone with a special applause to Cheryl, Jeff, Steve, Emily, Julie and all of the ICANN staff who worked tirelessly throughout the years. It couldn’t have happened without you! Below is my response in my personal capacity. Opposed: Recommendation 17.3: “…outreach and education should commence no later than the start of the Communications Period”. The Communication Period is not sufficient for applicant support applicants who require additional languages other than English. The translation of the AGB is “-2 months” before the Application Submission begins, which does not provide sufficient time for potential AS applicants to gain the requisite knowledge, assess, prepare and secure the resources required if they are requiring another language. I believe we initially had a minimum of four-months and would suggest this be the minimum amount of time after the translation of the AGB or have the AGB published in the additional languages a lot sooner. Recommendation 17.17 and 35.2 – Protection mechanisms to protect and prevent the use of joint ventures to game the bidding credit system are needed to protect the applicants, the AS program and auction applicants. Recommendation 35.3 – Bona fide intent is better reflected in the amount of funds used/received in auction over the volume of applications (see prior comments with suggestions). Recommendation 35.4 – Submitting all bids at once is unfair and puts an undue amount of work on applicants both large and small who need time to arrange financing, evaluate all potential outcomes and potentially increases the probability of default if the applicant has multiple applications as an applicant may unexpectedly win application they expected to lose and unable to fund future bids already submitted. As mentioned by others, dotBrands and auctions create additional risks to all applicants within that contention set. Recommendation 35.5 – “…within 72 hours of resolution” needs to reflect a more reasonable time frame. Again, I’m suggesting five business days as the 72-hour requirement on an auction that occurs on a Thursday/Friday almost guarantees that the condition cannot be met without additional resources and costs. Let’s be kind and support applicant winners who are excited about their new venture instead of having them worry about losing their investment by not being able to fulfil a requirement they have no control over during a weekend. Rescind: Recommendation 17.15 – ‘…a bid credit, multiplier, or other similar mechanism must apply to the bid submitted by that applicant’. I find it difficult to form an opinion as it's too generic and I’m unable to assess the impacts to AS applicants, standard applicants, revenue neutrality, financing, etc. Kind regards, Christa Taylor From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: December 22, 2020 8:30 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
participants (17)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Christa Taylor -
Emily Barabas -
Greg Shatan -
Hooper, Jessica -
Jim Prendergast -
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch -
Justine Chew -
Kurt Pritz -
Levine, Gertrude -
mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW -
Martin Sutton -
McGrady, Paul D. -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Peter LaMantia -
Rubens Kuhl -
Sophie Hey