Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 08 June at 1500 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-06-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: a. Community Applications (independent research, GAC input) [Recommendation xx (rationale 6): ACTION ITEM: Accept the additional text and clarify who is able to respond (applicant). ACTION ITEM: Change the language from “verify the community status of the applicant” to “evaluate the application”. b. Application Queuing (IDNs proposal), ACTION ITEM: Accept the new text and include in the “Can’t Live With” package #6. c. Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), page 6 c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. [The Working Group considered a proposal that a fixed multiplier should apply to bids submitted by certain qualified applicants in sealed-bid auctions of last resort. As an example, applicants that have qualified for support under the Applicant Support Program (ASP) could have their bid automatically upgraded by a fixed multiplier, such as factor of 1.5. As an illustration of this example, an applicant’s bid of $400,000 would count as a bid of $600,000 in the auction. Some Working Group members believe that a multiplier would “level the playing field” for qualified applicants who might not otherwise be in a position to submit winning bids. The Working Group did not reach a conclusion on this proposal.] ACTION ITEM: Add as recommendation under Applicant Support. There must be a bid credit in the form of a multiplier or other mechanism, but that bid credit should be established by the IRT with public comment. Integrate research component to be completed in implementation. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: a. Community Applications (independent research, GAC input), pages 129, 131, and 133 Page 129: [Recommendation xx (rationale 6): If the Community Priority Evaluation Panel conducts independent research while evaluating an application, limitations on this research and additional requirements must apply. The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: “The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against such community status.”] Discussion: -- Not sure how ICANN would determine compliance. -- At the end of the day we have to rely on the integrity of the panelists. -- Question: What is the timing of the reveal of the research/sources to the applicant? Answer: Before the evaluation decision is rendered, whether positive or negative. The applicant has 30 days to respond. It was the intent that the applicant would have the information before the ruling so the applicant could see what might need to be rebutted. -- Question: Does anyone other than the applicant see this? Wouldn’t it have to be publicly available? Answer: This is a one-party proceeding. Opening up would make it too complicated. This isn’t an objection proceeding. -- Question: What if the applicant wanted someone else to comment? Answer: The applicant can include that in the response. -- Question: Can we make the language more specific about who is involved in this process? If we don’t specifically say that this is a one-party process then it can be opened up to others. Answer: If you look elsewhere in this recommendation we have details about the public comment period, etc. We need to look at it in context. The opponent has the opportunity to appeal. -- "Relevant" or "adopted" material to be appended to determination. Provides material for establishing grounds for challenge / appeal. -- Anything relied on by the evaluator to make the decision needs to be disclosed. -- Question re: the “status of the applicant” -- is research limited to this option or applied to all 4 elements of the evaluation or is Nexus an option? Answer: Concern was that the panelist shouldn’t act as an advocate. As far as the elements, it would be strange to limit it to a single element. -- Change the language from “verify the community status of the applicant” to “evaluate the application”. ACTION ITEM: Accept the additional text and clarify who is able to respond (applicant). ACTION ITEM: Change the language from “verify the community status of the applicant” to “evaluate the application”. b. Application Queuing (IDNs proposal), page 50 Given that no agreement has been reached in the Working Group, the status quo as implemented controls, meaning continued prioritization of IDNs in future application rounds. Recommendation xx: For Subsequent rounds, the Working Group recommends that the following formula must be used with respect to giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name applications…[See details on page 50, 51, and 52 of https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52...] Discussion: -- Question: Why assume batches and 500? Answer: Because that is what the AGB already has to keep it simple. -- It doesn’t matter if it is batches of 500, if you maintain the principle (the percentages). -- Question: If we have 10,000 applications, what would be the batch for IDNs? Answer: See the example in the rationale on page 52. -- The only thing that is limiting is the number of IDN applications. -- Concern about the use of the term “batch” as that was not what was done in 2012. ACTION ITEM: Accept the new text and include in the “Can’t Live With” package #6. c. Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), page 6 c. New issues raised in deliberations since publication of the Initial Report, if applicable. The Working Group considered a proposal that a fixed multiplier should apply to bids submitted by certain qualified applicants in sealed-bid auctions of last resort. As an example, applicants that have qualified for support under the Applicant Support Program (ASP) could have their bid automatically upgraded by a fixed multiplier, such as factor of 1.5. As an illustration of this example, an applicant’s bid of $400,000 would count as a bid of $600,000 in the auction. Some Working Group members believe that a multiplier would “level the playing field” for qualified applicants who might not otherwise be in a position to submit winning bids. The Working Group did not reach a conclusion on this proposal. Discussion: -- We should limit the multiplier to a maximum, and leave the IRT to pick a number between 1 and ceiling. -- From a policy perspective we support a multiplier but leave it up to the IRT to determine the multiplier. -- Question: Do we want this to be a recommendation or implementation guidance? Answer: Change to a recommendation. -- Need to have something in here to prevent transfer of ownership from being gamed, such as a time period. ACTION ITEM: Add as recommendation under Applicant Support. There must be a bid credit in the form of a multiplier or other mechanism, but that bid credit should be established by the IRT with public comment. Integrate research component to be completed in implementation.