Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 4 August at 3:00 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/2020-08-04+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... Kind regards, Emily Action Items: Closed Generics ACTION ITEM: Add paragraph to the Closed Generics section of the report about the new proposals that have been submitted. Auctions/Private Resolutions ACTION ITEM: In this sentence: “To the extent any contention sets are shrunk, by having other applications removed from the process (e.g., withdrawal, losing objections, failing evaluation, losing in CPE, etc.)” remove “losing in CPE.” Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest * No updates. 1. Final Report Structure and Public Comment Survey * On Thursday’s call, there will be demonstration of the public comment survey tool. On today’s call, we will go over the concepts at a higher level. * There have been many opportunities for the public to comment already in this PDP. The role of this upcoming public comment period is to get input on new information included in the report. We also want any new information that commenters want to provide the WG. * We do not intend to have commenters repeat comments from previous comment periods. * Google survey form will be used. * Pros – easy for users to put information in and save work, allows us to ask specific questions with specific choices, process results quickly for review, commenters don’t have to answer all questions in the form. * Cons – we can’t prevent people from entering whatever information they want in text boxes, there is a 2000 character limit in each comment box. * It will be possible to download the form so they can review the questions ahead of time. It will also be possible to submit the comments in Word for those unable to use the form. * There will be a space at the end of the form for general comments. * There were some complaints from those submitting comments through Google forms for the RPMs public comment. * Submitted responses will be displayed in a Google Sheet that is publicly available. * Google form will focus on asking about areas where there is a substantive difference between the Initial Report and the draft Final Report. For each section of the report, we will describe the difference in the Google Form. Commenters will choose one of several options indicating level of support and will be able to explain their response in a text box. * Before Thursday, the leadership team will provide a summary of what has changed from the Initial Report to draft Final Report. * Concern flagged about discouraging comments on things that are “decided.” There is a lot that the community has not seen before. * Response – We are trying to encourage comments on the new areas, and not looking for commenters to repeat old arguments. But when everyone sees this as one coherent document, if something jumps out, they will have an opportunity to comment. There will be a free text box for each section of the report and box for more general comments at the end. * Preamble will be shared with the group which will explain the approach. * Comment – We need to make sure to discuss how SO/AC comments will be treated vs. individual comments. * Response – This is something that will be especially important as we consider changes to make in response to comments. Don’t want to discourage comments from individuals, they can provide valuable information. Pre-determining how we handle to comments could discourage individuals from commenting. 1. Closed Generics * We gave a deadline to receive proposals by Monday, 03 August at 23:59 UTC * George provided a revised proposal on list. We have the paper previously submitted by Kurt. Jeff sent a new proposal to the mailing list. * At this point, we don’t have agreement on any one proposal. We have had many discussions on this topic and requested input through two public comments. * Leadership believes we should still publish for public comment the text that has previously agreed for the draft Final Report. * We will publish the proposals separately and ask commenters to provide comments on these proposals as part of the public comment period. We want to make sure people can access, review, and respond to these proposals without giving them special status in the report. * Would it be possible in the text itself to point out that it is important to converge on goals or principles as a starting point to develop proposals? * How could we frame this most effectively in the public comment question – perhaps, are any of these proposals heading down a path that that community wants to the WG to follow? Perhaps we can frame this in terms of goals, while not limiting commenters from saying what they want to say about the proposals. * Comment – It’s better not to lead community in any direction. We should just let commenters respond to the proposals as they choose. * Concern about lack of balance in the proposals, different level of detail. Concern that the WG has not yet discussed the proposals in detail. * One Working Group member expressed support for George’s proposal and noted that it would be helpful in the case of geographic names. * The Working Group will discuss all of the proposals while the rest of the community is commenting on the draft Final Report, including the proposals, but the report needs to go out for public comment. This is a compromise approach to accomplish both goals. * Question – Do we have a working definition of closed generics? * Response – We are using the definition in the Registry Agreement. * How are we going to present these proposals in the report in a way that we can get something useful back from the community? Is the question for the community, are there parts of these proposals that we can put together that can be acceptable to all? It is not clear how we are going to get to a place where everyone can get behind a solution. * Ultimately, if there is a considerable number of comments indicating that we should work on one of these proposals further, this may provide an indication that we should give this one more shot. * Comment – We should include some framing language about the goals in the public comment and make sure those responding to the public comment know where to focus their attention. The report section should be revised to include the new proposals. * We will add a paragraph on the new proposals in the Closed Generics section of the report and draft questions for the public comment. ACTION ITEM: Add paragraph to the Closed Generics section of the report about the new proposals that have been submitted. 1. Review Private Resolutions – Model * Model 5 has been revised with outcomes of the previous discussion, as understood by the leadership team. It is now called Model 6. * Redlines are the adjustments that have been made based on areas where there appeared to be agreement. Changes that were substantive and do not appear to have full support remain as comments in the document. * Review of Overview text. In second sub-bullet point, proposal from Paul to include [non-auction] in the first sentence. Jeff’s suggests not including this, to be more clear. No objections raised to Jeff’s suggestion. * Clarification – Does the private resolution of the contention sets refer to a resolution that involves all parties in contention or just a sub-set? * Response – Private resolution could involve just a sub-set or could involve all members of a contention set. * Question – What does partnership mean in sub-bullet 1? What is intended to be included in this definition? * Response – Partnership here does not mean a legal partnership. It means a combination or joint venture, anything that results in a combination of applications that results in one or more withdrawl of an application. * Section on transparency of information -- If a settlement has been reached, this should be disclosed. If it results in a settlement but is not something that requires an application change request, it still needs to be disclosed. This needs to be clarified in the text. * If there is some combination because of a private resolution that would ordinarily result in an application change request, you have to file an application change. * Comment -- Isn’t this superfluous, if the change request is required anyway? * Response – The text is meant to reinforce the concept. * Comment – Text needs to be clarified that the JV might not resolve the contention set. It could involve only a sub-set of applicants in the contention set. Members are encouraged to send proposed revisions to the list. * Concern – It would not be possible to meet disclosure requirements under the language in this proposal without disclosing trade secrets. * In this sentence: “To the extent any contention sets are shrunk, by having other applications removed from the process (e.g., withdrawal, losing objections, failing evaluation, losing in CPE, etc.)” losing in CPE will not shrink the contention set. This should be removed. ACTION ITEM: In this sentence: “To the extent any contention sets are shrunk, by having other applications removed from the process (e.g., withdrawal, losing objections, failing evaluation, losing in CPE, etc.)” remove “losing in CPE.” * Further discussion might be needed – suggestion to add language that if there are multiple CPE applicants and some fail, only one CPE applicant is remaining, it reduces the contention set. * Response – this will resolve the contention set. * For further discussion: “In the event of a partial resolution of a contention set through the formation of a joint venture and the corresponding withdrawal of one or more Applications, the partnership or joint venture must choose between the various Last Resort Auction Bid.” Original text suggested that new bids could be submitted by all parties. * On the next call, start on Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements. * Request – For Thursday, can the leadership team point out in the document where int is addressing Board’s concerns about using proceeds from one auction to fund another auction to fund another application? 1. AOB * None