Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Terri Agnew
31:03
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)
31:12
Hi to all
Emily Barabas
32:15
tomorrow!
Emily Barabas
32:22
correct
Julie Hedlund
32:36
See the Production document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing
Annebeth Lange
34:54
Greetings all, Sorry for being delayed
Paul McGrady
34:56
On the last call I asked that we make it clear that they could only ask to delay their own applications. I don't see that the edit was captured.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
35:11
SO sorry to be a few minutes late
Paul McGrady
36:15
@Jeff - agree. If a deal can't be done in 90 days, the applications need to march on.
Justine Chew
36:53
YEs
Emily Barabas
38:22
Sorry, document is very slow
Justine Chew
39:14
Yes please
Justine Chew
41:41
Makes the intent specific to .brand strings.
Justine Chew
43:45
Applicants "for" .Brand strings (instead of "of")
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:30
Noted @Justine
Emily Barabas
45:10
Thanks Justine, adjusted
Paul McGrady
45:41
There is no mechanism for the community to evaluate an application.
Susan Payne
46:21
why don't we just say "evaluation by ICANN and the public comment process"
Emily Barabas
46:24
Slowly appearing :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:02
Thanks @Susan
Paul McGrady
47:16
I don't think public comments is a "review"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:28
What is whonr woth those exact words (as stated by @Susan?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:47
sorry typos
Anne Aikman-Scalese
47:49
Agrre with Susan
Paul McGrady
47:58
Public comment should come first in the sentence and then evaluation by ICANN later in the sentence so that it tracks to how it really works
Susan Payne
48:22
what paul says
Justine Chew
48:23
Application changes would be subject to the public comment process and evaluation by ICANN ....
Anne Aikman-Scalese
48:25
Agree with Paul's language
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:42
Ahh I see what your getting at...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:13
I should be sharper at 0120 sorry
Anne Aikman-Scalese
51:55
+1 on Justine's suggested changge
Justine Chew
52:16
You've done it @Jeff
Justine Chew
52:31
I'll chime in if needed
Justine Chew
53:28
Passive didn't work the last round though
Christa Taylor
54:08
Also wanted to encourage other world organizations to help 'get the word out'
Becky Burr
54:15
fwiw, I agree that there are significant issues with ICANN participating in application submission process.
Phil Buckingham
54:32
proactively direct .... rather than proactively assist ?
Becky Burr
54:53
education and promotion is fine, but should be delivered generally and transparently
Rubens Kuhl
55:02
Outreach could be active.
Rubens Kuhl
55:21
But indeed avoiding in crafting the application.
Christa Taylor
56:06
Maybe mention the Communication Period section
Donna Austin, Neustar
56:38
@Christa, that's what I was thinking. Tie it back to the Communication Period section.
Susan Payne
57:17
the problem is the word "continue" in this sentence: "the Working Group recommends that ICANN continue to facilitate non-financial assistance" which may suggest what was done last time is adequate. What about deleting "continue"?
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
58:08
The existing language is far too passive. There should be an obligation to outreach and educate. “Facilitate”’ is far too vague.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:04
@Paul - the reality is that no one but you would be qualified to assist in a pro bono capacity. The qualified attorneys are few and far between. I honestly think ICANN should establish a fund for this purpose. I believe Auction Proceeds should also address this type of request.
Donna Austin, Neustar
59:25
Christa
Justine Chew
01:00:40
Can we replace "facilitate" with "actively coordinate" at least?
Jim Prendergast
01:01:04
ICANN needs to remain neutral in vendor suggestion, etc. Its a delicate dance
Paul McGrady
01:01:11
@Anne - you, me, David Taylor, Marc, Fab - 5 big firms off the top of my head that could provide . That said, I do support the idea of the auction proceeds going to something good for the ICANN community, not just to pet projects.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:01:31
"facilitate and promote"
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:01:43
QUESTION; Do we have anything about the timing of such outreach?
Christa Taylor
01:02:15
yes, its a min. of 6 months
Justine Chew
01:02:52
Like consulting services?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:03:33
Thanks
Paul McGrady
01:04:36
How many applicant support applications were there in the last round?
Vaibhav (Tiger) Aggarwal
01:04:43
+1 Anne
Justine Chew
01:05:18
@Paul, you keep asking that question and the answer is 3.
Paul McGrady
01:05:32
@Justine - sorry I can't remember that detail.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:05:40
ICANN has pretty good network now with GSE and ALAC that can do outreach.
Paul McGrady
01:05:45
I can't imagine we can't find 3 pro bono volunteers
Karen Lentz
01:05:52
@Paul there were 3, but we don’t know how many applicants may have sought or taken up offers of probono assistance that were there
Vaibhav (Tiger) Aggarwal
01:05:53
If we are able to get the Applicant Support in place then a possibly of more people wanting to start a TLD may join the community and more opportunity be created
Justine Chew
01:06:49
"utility" refers to usefulness
Justine Chew
01:08:10
"utility" as in usefulness of the ASP
Christa Taylor
01:10:06
Perhaps 'applicable' to avoid confusion
Christa Taylor
01:10:37
you got it
Paul McGrady
01:10:48
Useability?
Emily Barabas
01:11:02
Or “The Working Group recommends that ICANN improve outreach, awareness-raising, application evaluation, and program evaluation elements of the Applicant Support Program, [as well as usability of the Applicant Support Program] as proposed in the Implementation Guidance below.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:11:30
Emily's language works.
Justine Chew
01:11:36
that's fine
Susan Payne
01:11:39
+1 Emily
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:11:39
preferable terminology, thank @Emily
Annebeth Lange
01:11:50
Emily, +1
Martin Sutton
01:11:51
Sounds good, thx Emily
Martin Sutton
01:12:59
Awareness of business models
Emily Barabas
01:13:21
Hope about “Regional experts may be particularly helpful in providing insight on the evaluation of business plans from different parts of the world and providing information about business modelsthrough different business case studies.
Martin Sutton
01:13:32
ICANN created some short case studies of different TLDs - could be leveraged for this type of awareness
Annebeth Lange
01:13:54
That will work, Emily
Justine Chew
01:14:09
awareness of different business models?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:14:12
potential business model
Justine Chew
01:15:01
so long as you explain that in the rationale
Christa Taylor
01:16:44
I think it should be ref'g to regional concerns
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:18:03
Should it be 'evaluation' of business plans or 'development' of business plans?
Christa Taylor
01:18:47
+1 development
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:19:02
thanks
Justine Chew
01:19:22
Yep
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:23
the case for an variation in regional business case opportunities, could be best made by local or regional expertise was the inten ( @Christa said it well)
Emily Barabas
01:22:40
We are actually going to re-release this section in package 7 with text about the multiplier proposal. If the group agrees, we can integrate the concept from Justine with this text.
Emily Barabas
01:23:05
hand up
Justine Chew
01:25:57
Okay noted
Paul McGrady
01:29:24
Can someone start from the top on this?
Christa Taylor
01:30:19
I don't recall that specific wording re: banks
Justine Chew
01:31:16
What can we do to get ICANN org to pro-actively raise and secure funds for the ASP?
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:17
As long as ICANN provides the funding, I don't see why we need to bother.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:32:18
@Justine, the best you can do is a budget allocation. ICANN does not have to 'raise' funds for this program that is supposed to be cost neutral.
Vaibhav (Tiger) Aggarwal
01:32:30
There could be a Mechanism where a Letter can be issued by ICANN - Just like a Visa Invitation letter authenticating etc. etc. like to make the application legitimate for the Bank / Financial Institution to look at for Funding
Justine Chew
01:32:40
Because without the funding, the entire ASP is substantially weakened.
Justine Chew
01:33:47
Fine
Jim Prendergast
01:34:11
I wish ICANN had done outreach to banks around the COI process. Would have made life a lot easier on applicants.... and the banks.
Justine Chew
01:34:12
Let's move on
Emily Barabas
01:34:31
That was the last one
Justine Chew
01:35:32
Excluding a dissenting view on Geographic Names
Elaine Pruis
01:37:35
How do we enforce that? Who is going to determine if intent is bona fide or not?
Jim Prendergast
01:38:44
That's a BIG assumption Paul.
Elaine Pruis
01:39:25
What if an applicant changes their mind once they see the other applications?
Phil Buckingham
01:40:01
I would add on another guard rail , that an applicant will not be able to sell on its TLD within a specified time post launch
Elaine Pruis
01:40:07
Too easily gamed. I can think of 10 ways around this
Jim Prendergast
01:41:48
What is the purpose of preserving private auctions. Why are they so critical to this program? (aside from allowing large portfolio players to game this)
Justine Chew
01:42:15
Penalize for next round? Why not penalize "this" round? Bad actor can reconstitute in many ways to participate in the next round - how do we police that?
Elaine Pruis
01:42:16
Trust applicants? See Alp names. Famous Four. etc…
Becky Burr
01:42:28
without taking a position on the substance, and agreeing that bad intent should not be assumed, we should be realistic about the ability to enforce any attestation of intent.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:42:40
@Jim, because it's an equitable means of resolving contention.
Elaine Pruis
01:43:30
Oooh good idea Jeff
Justine Chew
01:43:35
And if they don't?
Rubens Kuhl
01:43:43
Would people agree in restricting private resolution to Brand TLDs ?
Rubens Kuhl
01:43:57
(And private resolution is not just private auction)
Christa Taylor
01:46:24
+1 Susan
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:46:24
Well said Susan
Becky Burr
01:47:00
probably correct,
Jeffrey Neuman
01:47:10
I believe complete transparency will limit gaming. Requiring all details of private resolution with ICANN (and potentially the community)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:47:26
Failure to be transparent will result in penalty and disclosure
Jeffrey Neuman
01:47:39
Continuing failure - loss of TLD?
Jim Prendergast
01:47:46
ICANN endorsing the concept of private auctions up front is a dangerous path in this this environment. Too big a spot light on them. You do Vickery up front - its transparent and takes out the possibility of all the collusions.
Elaine Pruis
01:48:16
Paul, except some applicants only have one lemon
Rubens Kuhl
01:48:18
Last rounds we didn't have any presumed gaming applications initially. But now it can be different.
Jim Prendergast
01:49:19
But they brought the lemons, the lemonade stand and the guy to make the lemonade. Donuts brought the private auction provider to this program. It was clearly their intent that this was going to be a revenue stream.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:49:48
@Elaine, that becomes a sour lemon if one of the applicants decides to go to Auction of last resort.
Rubens Kuhl
01:50:57
Jim, I don't believe - and many people don't - that people predicted private auctions at application time.
Rubens Kuhl
01:51:17
Which is different from them realising during the program and then going for it.
Elaine Pruis
01:51:25
@ donna, if a portfolio applicant loses at all the other private auctions and has to go to auction of last resort the single applicant is disadvantaged because the portfolio applicant has the payouts from the lost private auctions.
Elaine Pruis
01:51:59
The hold out for auction of last resort doesn’t matter when there are hundreds of private auctions funding the participants
Phil Buckingham
01:52:07
agreed Jim , we do the Vickey method up front . however the business models and financial evaluation must be much more difficult to pass , particularly around the proof of adequate funding Q in the event of an auction
Paul McGrady
01:52:53
+1 Rubens. Even if they did, not everybody believes its a problem. Even so, and assuming that was the Donuts plan, I think the certification that is being proposed would have greatly reduced it. Let's give peace a chance.
Jim Prendergast
01:53:42
And the ICANN auctions of last resort will be used for public benefit. Not being squirredl away to accounts in Caymans or Gibraltar.
Rubens Kuhl
01:53:50
Paul, I am not as optimistic as you on the effects of the guardrails... or as Jeff regarding transparency. But both are worthy efforts.
Paul McGrady
01:54:24
@Jim - 10 years on, to what good has the auctions been put? Zero.
Jim Prendergast
01:54:57
I think the difference now is we have the benefit of experience of what happened in 2012. We can learn from that. And with hundreds of millions up from grabs via private auctions, there will be plenty of players who bluff the bona fide questions just to play the game.
Justine Chew
01:55:10
@Paul, that's because the CCWG on Auction Proceeds have just finalized its report!
Paul McGrady
01:55:23
@Justine - 10 years
Katrin Ohlmer
01:55:25
+1 Jim - at least it is likely
Jim Prendergast
01:55:25
@paul - I think you are familiar with that process but if you need a brief Ill send you one.
Justine Chew
01:55:38
@Paul, ICANN MSM process for you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:14
Seems a good point to comr back to at a future call
Susan Payne
01:56:17
@Jim, we also have the knowledge that many of the TLDs fro the last round have not sold as many names as their optimistic applicants imagined they would - and so realism on what it a suitable price to pay at uction should also kick in
Jim Prendergast
01:58:19
@Susan So people will bid more realistically at Vickery - you wont see the run away prices. And you eliminate all the back from deals that give the entire community a bad rap.
Paul McGrady
01:58:46
@Justine - correct. And that model (hopefully) isn't changing. We've been through a global economic meltdown and pandemic and ICANN is sitting on millions of dollars that could have gone to support Registry businesses and Registry support of their own customers. So, if the big reason to ban private auctions is to give ICANN $300 million more dollars to put on the shelf, that isn't a great argument.
Elaine Pruis
01:59:02
Eliminates private auction up front but applicants can make whatever deals they want after delegation
Rubens Kuhl
01:59:25
@Paul, giving money to ICANN is an unfortunate side effect.
Phil Buckingham
01:59:29
agreed Donna . Still 7 years later a number of TLDs have not been launched .
Christa Taylor
01:59:38
If we had the data, what would we hope to use it for?
Justine Chew
01:59:39
@Paul, public benefit isn't limited to supporting Registry business, if at all.
Rubens Kuhl
01:59:44
But still worth it if it ends all gaming whatsoever.
Martin Sutton
01:59:48
The transparency angle sounds helpful to explore further
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:00:05
It's a good point Christa. What will the data tell us?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:00:07
Thanks everyone, lots to digest again on this topic, before we return to it... Bye for now...
Maxim Alzoba
02:00:12
bye all
Julie Hedlund
02:00:15
Next meeting: Thursday, 02 July at 0300 UTC
Terri Agnew
02:00:23
Next Meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled on Thursday, 02 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Annebeth Lange
02:00:27
Thanks and bye!
Paul McGrady
02:00:32
@Justine - public benefit isn't shelfing $300M for 10 years when applicants were told the funds would be put to good use.
Justine Chew
02:00:49
It will be