Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
Cheryl and Jeff I understand from the last call that it’s your intent to wrap up discussion on the supplemental interim report on Monday’s call and finalize the report soon thereafter. While that timeline made sense a week ago, I’m not so sure it does now. In the last week, there have been three developments that I think warrant further deliberation: 1) There has been renewed discussion around contention resolution via auctions (private or ICANN). And it continues. It’s brought more voices (new and dormant) into the debate and as a result we have more issues that are being worked into the document. This is a good thing as we want to present as many options to the community as possible. The document is better because of that. 2) The comment period on the initial report closed and while I haven’t been through all of them yet, I have seen a few instances where the issue of auctions was raised. For example: * Some members of the RYSG and the ALAC said the legality of private auctions should be discussed. * The ICANN Board said that they had concerns around private auctions and how they can be reconciled with ICANN’s commitments and core values. I think we need to get more clarity from the Board on that. * The IPC asked for a study on abuse of private auctions to take place before it could make a full determination 3) Related to the last bullet point, as part of our deliberations, there was supposed to be outreach to auction providers to determine if there were additional instances of irregularities. We haven’t had an update on that recently, but the results of that outreach need to be in this report otherwise it is incomplete. We as a group would be remiss if we proceeded to another public comment period without looking at those comments and try to determine how they should be reflected in this document before us. As many of us know, a lot of time, energy and effort was put into those and for this group to not even consider them in this document would send a terrible message. As you said when asking for liaisons, comments from SGs and ACs hold more weight than individual comments so we should give them such deference. I understand this might lead to delaying releasing the interim till after Barcelona, but the reality is no one outside this group will be looking at it leading into and during the meeting. There is too much other material to digest prepping for and during the meeting. Curious to hear what others think. Thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 5:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
I don't disagree with Jim. In fact, spending a bit more time to flesh out Sarah's "draw" mechanism could prove useful, and as may getting feedback from ICANN Legal on whether there might be impediments to prohibiting non-ICANN private auctions. Justine Chew ----- On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 19:34, Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com> wrote:
Cheryl and Jeff
I understand from the last call that it’s your intent to wrap up discussion on the supplemental interim report on Monday’s call and finalize the report soon thereafter. While that timeline made sense a week ago, I’m not so sure it does now.
In the last week, there have been three developments that I think warrant further deliberation:
1) There has been renewed discussion around contention resolution via auctions (private or ICANN). And it continues. It’s brought more voices (new and dormant) into the debate and as a result we have more issues that are being worked into the document. This is a good thing as we want to present as many options to the community as possible. The document is better because of that.
2) The comment period on the initial report closed and while I haven’t been through all of them yet, I have seen a few instances where the issue of auctions was raised. For example:
- Some members of the RYSG and the ALAC said the legality of private auctions should be discussed. - The ICANN Board said that they had concerns around private auctions and how they can be reconciled with ICANN’s commitments and core values. I think we need to get more clarity from the Board on that. - The IPC asked for a study on abuse of private auctions to take place before it could make a full determination
3) Related to the last bullet point, as part of our deliberations, there was supposed to be outreach to auction providers to determine if there were additional instances of irregularities. We haven’t had an update on that recently, but the results of that outreach need to be in this report otherwise it is incomplete.
We as a group would be remiss if we proceeded to another public comment period without looking at those comments and try to determine how they should be reflected in this document before us. As many of us know, a lot of time, energy and effort was put into those and for this group to not even consider them in this document would send a terrible message.
As you said when asking for liaisons, comments from SGs and ACs hold more weight than individual comments so we should give them such deference.
I understand this might lead to delaying releasing the interim till after Barcelona, but the reality is no one outside this group will be looking at it leading into and during the meeting. There is too much other material to digest prepping for and during the meeting.
Curious to hear what others think.
Thanks
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan *Sent:* Friday, October 05, 2018 5:42 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear WG Members,
Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.
1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB
For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft.
For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings).
Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org).
Best,
Steve 2
*Steven Chan*
Policy Director, GNSO Support
*ICANN*
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Offic
e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800
Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...> .
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
All, We can discuss further on our call in a few hours, but the release of a Supplemental Initial Report does not in any way mean that additional discussions cannot take place about any of the options. We are working on getting some additional data and have reached out to several of the providers of private auction services to get some data (if possible). One of the providers has responded so far indicating a willingness to discuss certain ideas for improvements that they have, but we are need to work out scheduling issues. Although they are willing to discuss ideas for improvements, they have not indicated that they are at liberty to disclose any data due to confidentiality concerns. Again, we do not see a reason at this point to hold up the comment period on the Supplemental Initial Report. Remember, one of the purposes of releasing the Supplemental Initial Report is to try and get additional data points. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 9:07 AM To: jim@galwaysg.com; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC I don't disagree with Jim. In fact, spending a bit more time to flesh out Sarah's "draw" mechanism could prove useful, and as may getting feedback from ICANN Legal on whether there might be impediments to prohibiting non-ICANN private auctions. Justine Chew ----- On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 19:34, Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com>> wrote: Cheryl and Jeff I understand from the last call that it’s your intent to wrap up discussion on the supplemental interim report on Monday’s call and finalize the report soon thereafter. While that timeline made sense a week ago, I’m not so sure it does now. In the last week, there have been three developments that I think warrant further deliberation: 1) There has been renewed discussion around contention resolution via auctions (private or ICANN). And it continues. It’s brought more voices (new and dormant) into the debate and as a result we have more issues that are being worked into the document. This is a good thing as we want to present as many options to the community as possible. The document is better because of that. 2) The comment period on the initial report closed and while I haven’t been through all of them yet, I have seen a few instances where the issue of auctions was raised. For example: * Some members of the RYSG and the ALAC said the legality of private auctions should be discussed. * The ICANN Board said that they had concerns around private auctions and how they can be reconciled with ICANN’s commitments and core values. I think we need to get more clarity from the Board on that. * The IPC asked for a study on abuse of private auctions to take place before it could make a full determination 3) Related to the last bullet point, as part of our deliberations, there was supposed to be outreach to auction providers to determine if there were additional instances of irregularities. We haven’t had an update on that recently, but the results of that outreach need to be in this report otherwise it is incomplete. We as a group would be remiss if we proceeded to another public comment period without looking at those comments and try to determine how they should be reflected in this document before us. As many of us know, a lot of time, energy and effort was put into those and for this group to not even consider them in this document would send a terrible message. As you said when asking for liaisons, comments from SGs and ACs hold more weight than individual comments so we should give them such deference. I understand this might lead to delaying releasing the interim till after Barcelona, but the reality is no one outside this group will be looking at it leading into and during the meeting. There is too much other material to digest prepping for and during the meeting. Curious to hear what others think. Thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 5:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ _______________________________________________ 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
Jeff I am working to get some language together for the suggested addition of the “second-price, sealed-bid” for suggested inclusion in the report. Will get that over to you for consideration shortly, thanks Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Verisign Inc This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 2:39 PM To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>; jim@galwaysg.com; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC All, We can discuss further on our call in a few hours, but the release of a Supplemental Initial Report does not in any way mean that additional discussions cannot take place about any of the options. We are working on getting some additional data and have reached out to several of the providers of private auction services to get some data (if possible). One of the providers has responded so far indicating a willingness to discuss certain ideas for improvements that they have, but we are need to work out scheduling issues. Although they are willing to discuss ideas for improvements, they have not indicated that they are at liberty to disclose any data due to confidentiality concerns. Again, we do not see a reason at this point to hold up the comment period on the Supplemental Initial Report. Remember, one of the purposes of releasing the Supplemental Initial Report is to try and get additional data points. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 9:07 AM To: jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC I don't disagree with Jim. In fact, spending a bit more time to flesh out Sarah's "draw" mechanism could prove useful, and as may getting feedback from ICANN Legal on whether there might be impediments to prohibiting non-ICANN private auctions. Justine Chew ----- On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 19:34, Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com>> wrote: Cheryl and Jeff I understand from the last call that it’s your intent to wrap up discussion on the supplemental interim report on Monday’s call and finalize the report soon thereafter. While that timeline made sense a week ago, I’m not so sure it does now. In the last week, there have been three developments that I think warrant further deliberation: 1) There has been renewed discussion around contention resolution via auctions (private or ICANN). And it continues. It’s brought more voices (new and dormant) into the debate and as a result we have more issues that are being worked into the document. This is a good thing as we want to present as many options to the community as possible. The document is better because of that. 2) The comment period on the initial report closed and while I haven’t been through all of them yet, I have seen a few instances where the issue of auctions was raised. For example: * Some members of the RYSG and the ALAC said the legality of private auctions should be discussed. * The ICANN Board said that they had concerns around private auctions and how they can be reconciled with ICANN’s commitments and core values. I think we need to get more clarity from the Board on that. * The IPC asked for a study on abuse of private auctions to take place before it could make a full determination 3) Related to the last bullet point, as part of our deliberations, there was supposed to be outreach to auction providers to determine if there were additional instances of irregularities. We haven’t had an update on that recently, but the results of that outreach need to be in this report otherwise it is incomplete. We as a group would be remiss if we proceeded to another public comment period without looking at those comments and try to determine how they should be reflected in this document before us. As many of us know, a lot of time, energy and effort was put into those and for this group to not even consider them in this document would send a terrible message. As you said when asking for liaisons, comments from SGs and ACs hold more weight than individual comments so we should give them such deference. I understand this might lead to delaying releasing the interim till after Barcelona, but the reality is no one outside this group will be looking at it leading into and during the meeting. There is too much other material to digest prepping for and during the meeting. Curious to hear what others think. Thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 5:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ _______________________________________________ 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
Dear all, I would like to offer my support for Jim’s proposal. Re private auctions, the IPC’s recent comment on the draft initial report supported study of abusive behavior and/or gaming that may have occurred in the 2012 round, as well as further resolution mechanisms outside of auctions. It would be helpful to look to incorporate this viewpoint and others related to auctions into the new document. I am not troubled by a release after the Barcelona meeting if taking some more time can help us improve this PDP’s important work. Best regards, Brian Scarpelli Senior Global Policy Counsel +1 517-507-1446<mailto:+1%20517-507-1446> | bscarpelli@actonline.org<mailto:bscarpelli@actonline.org> ACT | The App Association 1401 K St NW (Ste 501) Washington, DC 20005 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Langstone, Sarah via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 10:19 AM To: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; justine.chew@gmail.com; jim@galwaysg.com; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Jeff I am working to get some language together for the suggested addition of the “second-price, sealed-bid” for suggested inclusion in the report. Will get that over to you for consideration shortly, thanks Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Verisign Inc This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 2:39 PM To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>; jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC All, We can discuss further on our call in a few hours, but the release of a Supplemental Initial Report does not in any way mean that additional discussions cannot take place about any of the options. We are working on getting some additional data and have reached out to several of the providers of private auction services to get some data (if possible). One of the providers has responded so far indicating a willingness to discuss certain ideas for improvements that they have, but we are need to work out scheduling issues. Although they are willing to discuss ideas for improvements, they have not indicated that they are at liberty to disclose any data due to confidentiality concerns. Again, we do not see a reason at this point to hold up the comment period on the Supplemental Initial Report. Remember, one of the purposes of releasing the Supplemental Initial Report is to try and get additional data points. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Justine Chew Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2018 9:07 AM To: jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC I don't disagree with Jim. In fact, spending a bit more time to flesh out Sarah's "draw" mechanism could prove useful, and as may getting feedback from ICANN Legal on whether there might be impediments to prohibiting non-ICANN private auctions. Justine Chew ----- On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 19:34, Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com>> wrote: Cheryl and Jeff I understand from the last call that it’s your intent to wrap up discussion on the supplemental interim report on Monday’s call and finalize the report soon thereafter. While that timeline made sense a week ago, I’m not so sure it does now. In the last week, there have been three developments that I think warrant further deliberation: 1) There has been renewed discussion around contention resolution via auctions (private or ICANN). And it continues. It’s brought more voices (new and dormant) into the debate and as a result we have more issues that are being worked into the document. This is a good thing as we want to present as many options to the community as possible. The document is better because of that. 2) The comment period on the initial report closed and while I haven’t been through all of them yet, I have seen a few instances where the issue of auctions was raised. For example: * Some members of the RYSG and the ALAC said the legality of private auctions should be discussed. * The ICANN Board said that they had concerns around private auctions and how they can be reconciled with ICANN’s commitments and core values. I think we need to get more clarity from the Board on that. * The IPC asked for a study on abuse of private auctions to take place before it could make a full determination 3) Related to the last bullet point, as part of our deliberations, there was supposed to be outreach to auction providers to determine if there were additional instances of irregularities. We haven’t had an update on that recently, but the results of that outreach need to be in this report otherwise it is incomplete. We as a group would be remiss if we proceeded to another public comment period without looking at those comments and try to determine how they should be reflected in this document before us. As many of us know, a lot of time, energy and effort was put into those and for this group to not even consider them in this document would send a terrible message. As you said when asking for liaisons, comments from SGs and ACs hold more weight than individual comments so we should give them such deference. I understand this might lead to delaying releasing the interim till after Barcelona, but the reality is no one outside this group will be looking at it leading into and during the meeting. There is too much other material to digest prepping for and during the meeting. Curious to hear what others think. Thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 5:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ _______________________________________________ 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
Hello everyone http://domainincite.com/23555-icann-blocks-islam-after-government-veto <http://domainincite.com/23555-icann-blocks-islam-after-government-veto> You can see here the link to the ICANN Board resolutions around three strings….islam, .halal and .persiangulf. This news is relevant to us all. The decisions speak to a) any proposed string and objections to it noting that the applicant did everything it could to comply with the application rules, b) the role and utility of GAC advice (even where there is no consensus on that advice and c) evaluation procedures. Without much improved policy recommendations from the 2012 round we are destined to repeat these expensive (and not only in financial terms) mistakes. For me, the final decision to reject the applications six years after the application process closed, speaks to the confidence (or lack of it) we can have in the robustness of community derived policy and its subsequent implementation. Without wishing to be overly dramatic, this is an existential crisis for all of us who care about the work that we do and the way in which that work is used to expand the domain name space. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net S: lizwilliams1963 Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 6 Oct 2018, at 12:34 pm, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> wrote:
Cheryl and Jeff
I understand from the last call that it’s your intent to wrap up discussion on the supplemental interim report on Monday’s call and finalize the report soon thereafter. While that timeline made sense a week ago, I’m not so sure it does now.
In the last week, there have been three developments that I think warrant further deliberation:
1) There has been renewed discussion around contention resolution via auctions (private or ICANN). And it continues. It’s brought more voices (new and dormant) into the debate and as a result we have more issues that are being worked into the document. This is a good thing as we want to present as many options to the community as possible. The document is better because of that. 2) The comment period on the initial report closed and while I haven’t been through all of them yet, I have seen a few instances where the issue of auctions was raised. For example: Some members of the RYSG and the ALAC said the legality of private auctions should be discussed. The ICANN Board said that they had concerns around private auctions and how they can be reconciled with ICANN’s commitments and core values. I think we need to get more clarity from the Board on that. The IPC asked for a study on abuse of private auctions to take place before it could make a full determination 3) Related to the last bullet point, as part of our deliberations, there was supposed to be outreach to auction providers to determine if there were additional instances of irregularities. We haven’t had an update on that recently, but the results of that outreach need to be in this report otherwise it is incomplete.
We as a group would be remiss if we proceeded to another public comment period without looking at those comments and try to determine how they should be reflected in this document before us. As many of us know, a lot of time, energy and effort was put into those and for this group to not even consider them in this document would send a terrible message.
As you said when asking for liaisons, comments from SGs and ACs hold more weight than individual comments so we should give them such deference.
I understand this might lead to delaying releasing the interim till after Barcelona, but the reality is no one outside this group will be looking at it leading into and during the meeting. There is too much other material to digest prepping for and during the meeting.
Curious to hear what others think.
Thanks
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 5:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Dear WG Members,
Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.
Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB
For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ>). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft.
For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings>).
Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>).
Best, Steve 2
Steven Chan > Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic
e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ <http://gnso.icann.org/en/>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Thanks all for the conversation on these drafts about 12 hours ago. As promised, attached are some suggested changes to Sections 1.1 and 1.2 to clarify the reality of the various positions. Best, Jon
On Oct 5, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.
Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB
For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ>). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft.
For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings>).
Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>).
Best, Steve 2
Steven Chan > Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic
e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ <http://gnso.icann.org/en/>
<New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.pdf><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.docx>_______________________________________________ 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>
Hello everyone I was listening carefully to the conversation yesterday about the use of auctions (private or ICANN last resort) yesterday and thought it may be useful to consider a few other elements. 1. If there are no auctions, how does one objectively resolve contention sets? As we know, auctions are used widely to resolve "contention sets” for everything from Banksy artworks, racehorses and houses. They are an effective and quick mechanism that demonstrates immediate clarity about who is a winner. If we don’t have an auction option, we are left with a rather big mess to sort out because there will be contention again. 2. Are we being cautious because we weren’t/aren’t satisfied with the use of auction proceeds and that rather large amount of cash sitting on ICANN’s balance sheet? Likely yes but that doesn’t mean that auctions are a bad thing. It means we have to improve the distribution for last resort auction proceeds. 3. Are we worried about “big bucks squashing out smaller players”? Again, likely yes but we don’t have a reasonable alternative that solves the issue of contention. Some suggested that applicants “gamed” a contention set. That was impossible until the reveal of potentially competing strings. Should there be a reveal at all in the early stages? Likely yes because we want to give applicants the option of opting out early in the process if they see who their competitors are and the likelihood of winning a bi/multi lateral negotiation or an auction. 4. Some have suggested that some applicants “profited” from auctions. Yes, that is the nature of auctions. But what wasn’t anticipated that “losing” at auction became a windfall of operating cash for some applicants and were, in some cases, the only way an applicant recouped any of the investment in their application. Not sure how we deal with this or if we should even be concerned about it as long as applicants know what they are in for at the beginning of the process. Looking forward to hearing other’s views. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net S: lizwilliams1963 Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 9 Oct 2018, at 4:56 am, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote:
<jnNew gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.docx>
Liz, Please see responses below your questions in red. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 6:54 AM To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Hello everyone I was listening carefully to the conversation yesterday about the use of auctions (private or ICANN last resort) yesterday and thought it may be useful to consider a few other elements. 1. If there are no auctions, how does one objectively resolve contention sets? As we know, auctions are used widely to resolve "contention sets” for everything from Banksy artworks, racehorses and houses. They are an effective and quick mechanism that demonstrates immediate clarity about who is a winner. If we don’t have an auction option, we are left with a rather big mess to sort out because there will be contention again. [Jeff] In Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the draft Supplemental Initial Report (a new version to come out shortly), you will see that there are a number of mechanisms that are options. Rather than engage in a new substantive dialogue on this issue now, please refer to the draft and let us know if there are additional questions that need to be added. 2. Are we being cautious because we weren’t/aren’t satisfied with the use of auction proceeds and that rather large amount of cash sitting on ICANN’s balance sheet? Likely yes but that doesn’t mean that auctions are a bad thing. It means we have to improve the distribution for last resort auction proceeds. [Jeff] Though there is a reference in section 1.1 of the Supplemental Initial Report to the Cross Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds and wanting to see those recommendations before opining on future ICANN Auctions, most of Sections 1.1 and 1.2 on Auctions are not really aimed at being satisfied at the use of auction proceeds, but rather on the processes involved, the tendency to favor big players, the use of private auctions to fund other applications, etc. Other than that, the distribution of funds is not really an issue we are considering in this group. 3. Are we worried about “big bucks squashing out smaller players”? Again, likely yes but we don’t have a reasonable alternative that solves the issue of contention. Some suggested that applicants “gamed” a contention set. That was impossible until the reveal of potentially competing strings. Should there be a reveal at all in the early stages? Likely yes because we want to give applicants the option of opting out early in the process if they see who their competitors are and the likelihood of winning a bi/multi lateral negotiation or an auction. [Jeff] One of the concerns expressed is consistent with your comments, but there are a number of other concerns that are listed in Supplemental Initial Report. In addition, there are also other options presented which we should not yet jump to the conclusion (prior to any public comment) that they are not “reasonable alternatives”. The group has not discussed the possibility of “not revealing” the applications at the early stage. In addition to the reason against not disclosing applications that you indicate, if we did not reveal the strings or the applicants, then objecting or filing disputes, along with public comments would not be possible. 4. Some have suggested that some applicants “profited” from auctions. Yes, that is the nature of auctions. But what wasn’t anticipated that “losing” at auction became a windfall of operating cash for some applicants and were, in some cases, the only way an applicant recouped any of the investment in their application. Not sure how we deal with this or if we should even be concerned about it as long as applicants know what they are in for at the beginning of the process. [Jeff] The purpose of putting these alternatives out for comment in the Supplemental Initial Report is to test whether the community is concerned and whether or not there are alternatives to the use of private auctions / private resolution. We will have much more information after the public comment period to determine whether there are concerns or not and how we can reasonably deal with the concerns (if any). Looking forward to hearing other’s views. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net<http://www.lizwilliams.net> S: lizwilliams1963 Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. On 9 Oct 2018, at 4:56 am, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>> wrote: <jnNew gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.docx>
Many thanks Jeff Very helpful. Liz …. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net S: lizwilliams1963 Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 9 Oct 2018, at 5:08 pm, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Liz,
Please see responses below your questions in red.
Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA
D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/>
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com <http://attachment.com/> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Liz Williams via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 6:54 AM To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Hello everyone
I was listening carefully to the conversation yesterday about the use of auctions (private or ICANN last resort) yesterday and thought it may be useful to consider a few other elements.
1. If there are no auctions, how does one objectively resolve contention sets? As we know, auctions are used widely to resolve "contention sets” for everything from Banksy artworks, racehorses and houses. They are an effective and quick mechanism that demonstrates immediate clarity about who is a winner. If we don’t have an auction option, we are left with a rather big mess to sort out because there will be contention again.
[Jeff] In Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the draft Supplemental Initial Report (a new version to come out shortly), you will see that there are a number of mechanisms that are options. Rather than engage in a new substantive dialogue on this issue now, please refer to the draft and let us know if there are additional questions that need to be added.
2. Are we being cautious because we weren’t/aren’t satisfied with the use of auction proceeds and that rather large amount of cash sitting on ICANN’s balance sheet? Likely yes but that doesn’t mean that auctions are a bad thing. It means we have to improve the distribution for last resort auction proceeds.
[Jeff] Though there is a reference in section 1.1 of the Supplemental Initial Report to the Cross Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds and wanting to see those recommendations before opining on future ICANN Auctions, most of Sections 1.1 and 1.2 on Auctions are not really aimed at being satisfied at the use of auction proceeds, but rather on the processes involved, the tendency to favor big players, the use of private auctions to fund other applications, etc. Other than that, the distribution of funds is not really an issue we are considering in this group.
3. Are we worried about “big bucks squashing out smaller players”? Again, likely yes but we don’t have a reasonable alternative that solves the issue of contention. Some suggested that applicants “gamed” a contention set. That was impossible until the reveal of potentially competing strings. Should there be a reveal at all in the early stages? Likely yes because we want to give applicants the option of opting out early in the process if they see who their competitors are and the likelihood of winning a bi/multi lateral negotiation or an auction.
[Jeff] One of the concerns expressed is consistent with your comments, but there are a number of other concerns that are listed in Supplemental Initial Report. In addition, there are also other options presented which we should not yet jump to the conclusion (prior to any public comment) that they are not “reasonable alternatives”.
The group has not discussed the possibility of “not revealing” the applications at the early stage. In addition to the reason against not disclosing applications that you indicate, if we did not reveal the strings or the applicants, then objecting or filing disputes, along with public comments would not be possible.
4. Some have suggested that some applicants “profited” from auctions. Yes, that is the nature of auctions. But what wasn’t anticipated that “losing” at auction became a windfall of operating cash for some applicants and were, in some cases, the only way an applicant recouped any of the investment in their application. Not sure how we deal with this or if we should even be concerned about it as long as applicants know what they are in for at the beginning of the process.
[Jeff] The purpose of putting these alternatives out for comment in the Supplemental Initial Report is to test whether the community is concerned and whether or not there are alternatives to the use of private auctions / private resolution. We will have much more information after the public comment period to determine whether there are concerns or not and how we can reasonably deal with the concerns (if any).
Looking forward to hearing other’s views.
Liz
…. Dr Liz Williams | Internet Governance M: +44 7824 877757 :: +61 436 020 595 W: www.lizwilliams.net <http://www.lizwilliams.net/> S: lizwilliams1963
Important Notice This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
On 9 Oct 2018, at 4:56 am, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>> wrote:
<jnNew gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.docx>
Thanks Jon. I have no issues with any of your revisions. They are all consistent with the discussions. I didn’t see any outstanding questions in your comments/revisions, but just want to double check that I have not missed anything. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 11:56 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks all for the conversation on these drafts about 12 hours ago. As promised, attached are some suggested changes to Sections 1.1 and 1.2 to clarify the reality of the various positions. Best, Jon On Oct 5, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ <New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.pdf><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Jeff! No questions. See you all soon. Safe travels. Jon
On Oct 9, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Thanks Jon. I have no issues with any of your revisions. They are all consistent with the discussions. I didn’t see any outstanding questions in your comments/revisions, but just want to double check that I have not missed anything.
Best regards,
Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA
D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com <http://www.comlaude.com/>
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com <http://attachment.com/> Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 11:56 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks all for the conversation on these drafts about 12 hours ago. As promised, attached are some suggested changes to Sections 1.1 and 1.2 to clarify the reality of the various positions. Best, Jon
On Oct 5, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.
Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB
For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ>). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft.
For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings>).
Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>).
Best, Steve 2
Steven Chan > Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic
e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ <http://gnso.icann.org/en/>
<New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.pdf><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.docx>_______________________________________________ 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>
Thanks for your comments Jon! Steve thank you for working the Vickery Auction language into the draft – requested tweaks in red. 1.1.d Different Types of Auctions and 1.1 f Deliberations. Some Working Group members proposed alternative ways to implement an auction. One such suggestion was to utilize a sealed-bid auction, or sometimes known as a Vickrey auction, where in this instance, applicants would submit their single highest bid upon application submission. If an applicant’s applied-for string is in contention, the highest bidder would be placed first in the queue to have their application evaluated and if successful, would pay the second highest bid. It was suggested that this type of auction allows for applicants to bid the precise value of the string. This could almost entirely eliminate contention sets at the beginning of the application process. Some noted concerns that evaluators, knowing the value placed on the string by an applicant, could be biased in some manner. Others noted that utilizing a different form of auction is still a mechanism that relies heavily on having deep pockets. It was also noted that this form of auction would need to consider how it handles Applicant Support and community-based applications. Finally, others raised concerns about ICANN securing this highly proprietary information and it was acknowledged that this would need to be factored into the mechanisms that support this auction style. (To answers Jon’s comment, yes we discussed that the proceeds from these Auctions be distributed to ICANN - so this should be reflected in the doc Steve) 1.1.d Random Draw. Another possible alternative discussed was the use of a determinative drawing mechanism to select a “winner” in the contention set, noting that a drawing is simple, effective, and fair. A determinative drawing seems to eliminate a number of issues with resolving string contention in that it does not favor those with the most money, it does not result in losing applicants receiving a financial benefit (e.g., in the case of most private resolutions), and it could eliminate comparative evaluations. However, it was pointed out that running a determinative drawing could be encounter issues with being considered a lottery and would therefore be disallowed without would require proper licensing. We also discussed that the Vickery Auction model should be referenced in 1.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) because it is an umbrella concept that would almost entirely eliminate the need for Auctions of Last Resort and Private Auctions. Thanks folks! Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Verisign Inc This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 4:56 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks all for the conversation on these drafts about 12 hours ago. As promised, attached are some suggested changes to Sections 1.1 and 1.2 to clarify the reality of the various positions. Best, Jon On Oct 5, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ <New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.pdf><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
Looks good Sarah. Thanks!! Jon
On Oct 9, 2018, at 12:29 PM, Langstone, Sarah <slangstone@Verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks for your comments Jon! Steve thank you for working the Vickery Auction language into the draft – requested tweaks in red.
1.1.d Different Types of Auctions and 1.1 f Deliberations. Some Working Group members proposed alternative ways to implement an auction. One such suggestion was to utilize a sealed-bid auction, or sometimes known as a Vickrey auction, where in this instance, applicants would submit their single highest bid upon application submission. If an applicant’s applied-for string is in contention, the highest bidder would be placed first in the queue to have their application evaluated and if successful, would pay the second highest bid. It was suggested that this type of auction allows for applicants to bid the precise value of the string. This could almost entirely eliminate contention sets at the beginning of the application process. Some noted concerns that evaluators, knowing the value placed on the string by an applicant, could be biased in some manner. Others noted that utilizing a different form of auction is still a mechanism that relies heavily on having deep pockets. It was also noted that this form of auction would need to consider how it handles Applicant Support and community-based applications. Finally, others raised concerns about ICANN securing this highly proprietary information and it was acknowledged that this would need to be factored into the mechanisms that support this auction style.
(To answers Jon’s comment, yes we discussed that the proceeds from these Auctions be distributed to ICANN - so this should be reflected in the doc Steve)
1.1.d Random Draw. Another possible alternative discussed was the use of a determinative drawing mechanism to select a “winner” in the contention set, noting that a drawing is simple, effective, and fair. A determinative drawing seems to eliminate a number of issues with resolving string contention in that it does not favor those with the most money, it does not result in losing applicants receiving a financial benefit (e.g., in the case of most private resolutions), and it could eliminate comparative evaluations. However, it was pointed out that running a determinative drawing could be encounter issues with being considered a lottery and would therefore be disallowed without would require proper licensing.
We also discussed that the Vickery Auction model should be referenced in 1.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) because it is an umbrella concept that would almost entirely eliminate the need for Auctions of Last Resort and Private Auctions.
Thanks folks!
Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Verisign Inc
This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 4:56 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks all for the conversation on these drafts about 12 hours ago. As promised, attached are some suggested changes to Sections 1.1 and 1.2 to clarify the reality of the various positions. Best, Jon
On Oct 5, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.
Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB
For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ>). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft.
For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings>).
Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>).
Best, Steve 2
Steven Chan > Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic
e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ <http://gnso.icann.org/en/>
<New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.pdf><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.docx>_______________________________________________ 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>
Dear Sarah, Thanks as well for your suggested edits, which have also been integrated into the redlined working document. Best, Steve From: "Langstone, Sarah" <slangstone@Verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 9:29 AM To: "jon@donuts.email" <jon@donuts.email>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks for your comments Jon! Steve thank you for working the Vickery Auction language into the draft – requested tweaks in red. 1.1.d Different Types of Auctions and 1.1 f Deliberations. Some Working Group members proposed alternative ways to implement an auction. One such suggestion was to utilize a sealed-bid auction, or sometimes known as a Vickrey auction, where in this instance, applicants would submit their single highest bid upon application submission. If an applicant’s applied-for string is in contention, the highest bidder would be placed first in the queue to have their application evaluated and if successful, would pay the second highest bid. It was suggested that this type of auction allows for applicants to bid the precise value of the string. This could almost entirely eliminate contention sets at the beginning of the application process. Some noted concerns that evaluators, knowing the value placed on the string by an applicant, could be biased in some manner. Others noted that utilizing a different form of auction is still a mechanism that relies heavily on having deep pockets. It was also noted that this form of auction would need to consider how it handles Applicant Support and community-based applications. Finally, others raised concerns about ICANN securing this highly proprietary information and it was acknowledged that this would need to be factored into the mechanisms that support this auction style. (To answers Jon’s comment, yes we discussed that the proceeds from these Auctions be distributed to ICANN - so this should be reflected in the doc Steve) 1.1.d Random Draw. Another possible alternative discussed was the use of a determinative drawing mechanism to select a “winner” in the contention set, noting that a drawing is simple, effective, and fair. A determinative drawing seems to eliminate a number of issues with resolving string contention in that it does not favor those with the most money, it does not result in losing applicants receiving a financial benefit (e.g., in the case of most private resolutions), and it could eliminate comparative evaluations. However, it was pointed out that running a determinative drawing could be encounter issues with being considered a lottery and would therefore be disallowed without would require proper licensing. We also discussed that the Vickery Auction model should be referenced in 1.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions) because it is an umbrella concept that would almost entirely eliminate the need for Auctions of Last Resort and Private Auctions. Thanks folks! Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Verisign Inc This email (and any attachments) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the recipient and, therefore, may not be retransmitted or otherwise disseminated by the recipient to any other person without the prior written consent of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and immediately delete/destroy the original email (including any attachments) without making a copy or otherwise using, disseminating, or distributing the email or its contents. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 4:56 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks all for the conversation on these drafts about 12 hours ago. As promised, attached are some suggested changes to Sections 1.1 and 1.2 to clarify the reality of the various positions. Best, Jon On Oct 5, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda review/SOIs Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued Planning for ICANN63 AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings [63.schedule.icann.org]). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org] <New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.pdf><New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Additional Topics_5Oct2018.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Dear Jon, Thanks for your suggested edits. They have been worked into the working draft as redlines, which you and the rest of the WG will see when the next version is released in the near future. Best, Steve From: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:59 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks all for the conversation on these drafts about 12 hours ago. As promised, attached are some suggested changes to Sections 1.1 and 1.2 to clarify the reality of the various positions. Best, Jon
Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: ● A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D45FAA.F2083450] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ 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.
Thanks Anne. This revision makes sense to me. Absent objection, we will include this. Any objections? Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 11:35 AM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Thanks Steve. As mentioned on yesterday’s call, I have comments and language for the last bullet point under 1.2 (d). After considering this language more carefully, please see the following change in red: * A third option a Working Group Member proposed was allowing certain types of private resolutions, but disallowing others. For example, as discussed in several sections of the Initial Report and in this Supplemental Initial Report, many Working Group members favored allowing applicants in a contention set to change their applied-for-string if that change is mutually agreed by the members of the contention set and the newly changes strings (a) were reasonably related to the original applications and (b) did not move the applicants’ newly selected strings into a different contention set. Under this option, the Working Group member proposed that changes would need to be approved by ICANN. Another Working Group member noted that under this option, any proposed newly selected string that ICANN intended to approve would need to be (a) subject to name collision risk assessment, (b) put out for public comment and (c) open to established Objection procedures. If parties are found to have engaged in non-acceptable forms of private resolution, that will result in (a) withdrawing of an application – if an agreement was not signed by the time it is discovered, or (b) forfeiture of the registry (if after a contract is signed). Some members of the Working Group, however, were not comfortable in putting ICANN in a position of approving (or disapproving) mechanisms of private resolution. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D45FC8.E4CB1780] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 2:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting scheduled for 8 October 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda review/SOIs 2. Supplemental Report: Review of sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 continued 3. Planning for ICANN63 4. AOB For agenda item 2, please find the latest draft, which accepted all red-lined edits made prior to the 2 October meeting (you can find that draft here: https://community.icann.org/x/4QirBQ). As it was anticipated that changes would be non-trivial, it was believed that accepting red-lines prior to making new proposed edits would improve the readability of this latest draft. For Item 3, we will further discuss plans for the sessions scheduled for day 1 of ICANN63, Saturday 20 October (see the published schedule here: https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings). Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>). Best, Steve 2 Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Offic e Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ 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.
participants (9)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Brian Scarpelli -
Jeff Neuman -
Jim Prendergast -
Jon Nevett -
Justine Chew -
Langstone, Sarah -
Liz Williams -
Steve Chan