Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 27 July at 15:00 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/2020-07-27+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: 1. Predictability Framework: Conflicts of Interest ACTION ITEM: Staff will pull language from Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures on Statements of Interest. 2. Private Resolutions and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort: Model 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZz... Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements ACTION ITEM: Send some suggested language to the WG re: where there is agreement on what to disclose. 3. Closed Generics ACTION ITEM: Give everyone until 03 August at 23:59 UTC to file other proposals. Put them out for public comment. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Predictability Framework: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTw... SPIRT Chartering d. Length of Term: -- Add a foot note about term limits. “e if participation is limited in some manner.” SPIRT Role: -- Addressed Kathy Kleiman’s comment on who can raise an issue. Added “For avoidance of doubt, the SPIRT cannot refer an issue to itself.” Who receives the Advice / Guidance issued by the SPIRT? -- “Role of GNSO Council where issue was forwarded by a party other than the Council. Upon being provided with a copy of the draft advice/guidance, the GNSO Council shall within no greater than 60 days:” -- Question: What happens if Council doesn’t respond in 60 days? -- Nothing in the guidelines would limit the Council if it needs more time. -- Any Councilor can request a deferral to the next meeting. -- Maybe add “unless a 30-day extension is requested by the Council.” Conflicts of Interest -- See also language in 2.d. "The Statement of Participation should include all of the usual elements of a GNSO Statement of Interest plus additional information the GNSO Council may see fit, including but not limited to, whether the participant is (or will be) employed by, under contract with, has a financial interest in, or providing consulting, financial, legal or other services to, any new gTLD applicant, objector, or commenter. The Statement of Participation is not intended to exclude any person/entity from participating, but rather to provide complete information about the participant to the community. All Statements of Participation shall be made public." -- You can disclose that you have clients who have interests without disclosing who they are. -- So 1) disclosure in realtime (I'm involved with an application in this set) prior to discussion and 2) recusal. ACTION ITEM: Staff will pull language from Section 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures on Statements of Interest. Code of Conduct: “Members of the SPIRT will be subject to a code of conduct stating that they may not take action that is designed to discriminate against any entity/applicant or group of entities/applicants.” -- Suggest: "disparate treatment from other TLDs similarly situated" 3. Private Resolutions and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort: Model 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZz... Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements -- Paul McGrady: I have yet to hear a basis for requiring JVs to disclose anything, since both parties are going to be involved in running the registry so there is no "happy loser" concern/ Even if we create a non-problem, there is no basis to require any information other than what is disclosed in Auctions of Last Resort and necessary application changes. -- What to have the data for how these are resolved, by any type of settlement. -- The addition of transparency and disclosure are compromise requirements for allowing private resolutions. -- This notion of disclosing the terms of a private resolution is unacceptable – it would prevent .brands applications. -- If the real parties and interests change during the process that should be discosed. -- What if a third party approaches a single applicant after they are delegated and pays a sum for the TLD in the after market? What can we disclose: -- Notice of settlement – Yes. -- Settled for compensation – No: don’t want to tell cyber squatters what brand owners are preparing to pay. -- That the settlement includes names, without naming them – Yes. -- If the private resolution of a contention set results in a change to the real party or interest the application must go the application change process. This is in theory required by all applicants. ACTION ITEM: Send some suggested language to the WG re: where this is agreement on what to disclose. 4. Closed Generics Proposal from George Sadowsky/Small Group (George with Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg, and Kathy Kleiman) Proposal from Kurt Pritz Proposal from Jeff Neuman Discussion: -- On the comment that we have to define the public interest – we decided that we can’t define it, but have to recognize it when the issue comes up. -- At this point in time there is no agreement on which way to go, but we still think it’s important to put these proposals before the community. If there are others we also can include them. ACTION ITEM: Give everyone until 03 August 23:59 UTC to file other proposals. Put them out for public comment.