Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 16 January at 300 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/2020-01-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest - No updates - Discussion of workplan, available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJyfcJT2rC6I7mjZL8TMmo19LVX1xOd6cXE-Llme... - Next topics are AGB, Communications, Systems, Application Fees and Variable Fees - By Friday, the leadership team will send out a draft document to review on these topics - This document focuses on recommendations and rationale as opposed to background. This is the type of document that we expect will go out for public comment. - The purpose of the review is in part to ensure that everyone agrees on the approach and format - If we continue at the same pace that we have been working, we don’t get to delivering the Final Report until after the end of summer. - This is still very much in draft form. It is not intended to be definitive. If we can cover topics more quickly, we will do so and are exploring options to speed up the work. - The budget intentionally leaves these projects off until they are formally approved by the Board and the community gives instructions to move forward. - There is a possibility of requesting extra face to face time for ICANN68. We are exploring a day zero of that policy meeting. Council liaisons will assist with taking any requests from the WG to the Council. We hope to bring this to Council during SPS. - Reminder that it is important that members have enough time to review documents in advance of calls. - If there is something like a day zero for ICANN68, important that we get this planned soon so people can plan their travel. - Any timelines we submit to Council should be realistic. 2. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTj... – Continue Discussion on Goal 8. See also attached flow chart. - Today we will seek to prioritize the goals discussed on the last call. The goal is ultimately to come up with a mechanism, but if we can only come up with goals, these will become part of the policy and the IRT would use these goals to develop a mechanism. - Question about whether it is better to provide feedback by email or as comments in the working document. Suggestion – provide comments on the mailing list so that they can be discussed. It can be helpful to have the comments in both places. - Goal 8: encourage new entrants into the field. If you had this as a goal, you could potentially implement multipliers. There was some discussion about whether this should be a goal for the mechanism or a goal for the program more broadly. - One perspective – the multiplier suggestion might not work in an auction process. It could be that if this was a priority, there could be preference for certain applicants the way there was preference for communities in 2012. If there was priority, it might need to be decided in the evaluation process before contention resolution. - Reminder that the purpose of the goals exercise is to clarify which goals should be considered in deciding between possible mechanisms. - Goal 9: Increase efficiencies – the group had thought that as a byproduct of selecting one of these mechanisms, we might be able to improve efficiency in application evaluation. - It could also mean that unsuccessful applicants get bigger refunds because they know sooner in the process where they stand. - Suggestion to adjust this text to efficiency of the overall process not just application evaluation. -- "Increase efficiencies in the process from application to delegation” - Suggestion that goal 9 could be a potential benefit but is not a goal. It may be a factor to consider rather than a goal. In the original drafting, we “backed into” this goal after looking at the different models. If it is considered a goal, it might be a secondary one. - Some models could increase efficiency in some respects while creating complexity in other respects. - Goal 10: Increased creativity in the resolution of contention sets. There were public comments supporting allowing changes to applications, potentially changes to strings, changes to address concerns expressed about an application and discussion that this could have a positive effect on the program. - While many were not in favor of private auctions, most of the comments did favor some form of private resolution among applicants. - Note that some goals may be in conflict with one another. For example, number 10 may not be compatible with 2 and 4. - We have a mentality coming out of the 2012 round that the only way out of a contention set is an auction of last resort. Our default setting shouldn’t be that our primary goal is to make ICANN money. - From another perspective, the goal of auctions of last resort are not to give ICANN money. They are a predictable mechanism that has been tested and has been decided by the community to be the most fair and efficient way to resolve contention. - In the 2012 round, forming a joint venture at the stage in the process where that would need to happen to avoid contention would involve creating a new entity. The entity that was evaluated for financial, technical, and operational capabilities would not be the same one that ended up signing the agreement. That was a key reason for the rules on joint ventures. - It was noted that joint ventures would need to go out for public comment, be subject to potential objections, etc. - Suggestion to write goal #10 to be more narrowly focused. - Response, if we only focus this goal on creativity via joint ventures, isn’t that narrowing the opportunity for creative solutions we are not specifically mentioning? - You could potentially narrow the scope of 10 so that you support creativity while also staying consistent with the goals of #4. - Goal 11: Board comment: “applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions, including for the purpose of using private auctions as a method of financing their other applications.” - Board comment raises concerns about using funds from the loss of one auction to fund another application. - Sorting and prioritizing goals – Number 1 and 10 relate to each other. If you are going to allow a period for private resolution, you are also going to be encouraging creativity. - Some support had been expressed in the comments about giving parties in contention a period of time to work things out privately. - One way to consider the goals is to sort them into high, medium and low priority. - Another is to rank the mechanisms based on how they align with each of the goals. One challenge with this approach is that some goals conflict with one another and they may not all be equally important. - Review of language provided by Donna Austin on the mailing list that seeks to combine 3 and 4: “iii) Reduce the risk of applicants or third parties engaging in unfair practices that would manipulate the outcome of a contention set resolution; or require applicants to decide the market value of the string absent relevant information.” The proposal seeks to capture concerns about things that we don’t want to be repeated from the 2012 round and also take into account that the value of a TLD is subjective and only the person or entity bidding can determine what the value will be for them. - With the Vickrey model, it’s hard for participants to consider the value of the TLD in a vacuum. Establishing what it may be worth and the number of applicants in contention might be enough for that. - Concerns that the new proposed text may be appropriate in addition to 3 and 4 but should not replace it. - Terminology would need to defined in the new proposed text, as well as the existing formulation of 3 and 4. - Perhaps if there is a specific type of activity that should not be allowed, this should be called out. - Will the goals see the “light of day”? For the moment, they are for internal use. Next steps will depend on whether the WG can come to agreement in further WG discussion. So they are internal unless and until decided by the group. - If the WG is not able to come to agreement on a mechanism, we need to determine the next step. If we can agree on goals, do we forward these goals to the IRT and say that we do not have a recommendation? - Clarification that proposed changes to number 3 is limited to removing “winner ultimately overpays for the TLD” as a goal. From one perspective, this is not consistent with what was discussed on the last call. 3. AOB - None Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976