Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
29:53
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC.
Heather Forrest
31:12
I would be on if I were at home ;)
Jim Prendergast
31:14
heather
Heather Forrest
31:24
I'm moonlighting in Florida this week ;)
Jim Prendergast
31:32
hey Im in Europe this am - 4am
Heather Forrest
31:34
Thanks, Jim
Heather Forrest
31:46
we could house swap next time, Jim
Jim Prendergast
31:58
deal
Greg Shatan
32:04
How’s the moon in Florida, Heather?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
32:15
@Jim - you are a trooper!
Steve Chan
33:16
We will update and send out the official version - this is a working document for us.
Donna Austin, Chair
34:48
Who is currently the Leadership Team?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:19
So Robin, Rubens, Annabeth Martin
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:39
and occasionally Olga and Javier
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:53
Michael tries to join
Donna Austin, Chair
36:56
Thanks Jeff and Cheryl
Steve Chan
37:05
…and Christa
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:12
stops us being too narrow viewed
Heather Forrest
38:33
Bear in mind that the FY21 draft budget, which is out now for public comment, makes no provision for SubPro implementation
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:34
and By "summer" jeff is refering to the North American season
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
39:26
A very good point Heate=her, but we also note intentional planning has also been started by ICANN.org
Anne Aikman-Scalese
40:17
RE: ICANN budget - is it the case that every ICANN budget contains an item for a $5 to $6 Million dollar contingency?
Donna Austin, Chair
40:53
Is it possible to make an argument for dedicating significantly more time to face to face meetings at ICANN 68, particularly given it's a policy meeting.
Jim Prendergast
41:26
good point Donna
Anne Aikman-Scalese
41:46
+1 Donna
Heather Forrest
42:04
Brilliant thinking, Donna
Rubens Kuhl
42:40
And at least one item that has some overlap with SubPro, NameCollisions, will be funded out of the .com agreement.
Heather Forrest
43:04
Flip as GNSO Council liaison should be pushing the GNSO Council leadership team, who will develop the GNSO schedule for Cancun
Heather Forrest
43:12
sorry, I meant KL (both, really)
Rubens Kuhl
43:38
That's out for public comment.
Rubens Kuhl
43:45
And basically a done deal.
Donna Austin, Chair
44:29
And there's the Council Strategic Planning Session next week that I expect will be dedicating some time to understanding workload and discussing options for managing.
Rubens Kuhl
44:43
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/com/com-proposed-loi-03jan20-en.pdf
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:48
I am not included in Council Retreats @Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
44:54
"conducting, facilitating or supporting activities that preserve and enhance the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS, which may include, without limitation, active measures to promote and/or facilitate DNSSEC deployment, Security Threat mitigation, name collision mitigation, root server system governance and research into the operation of the DNS"
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
47:04
@jim - Good point
Paul McGrady
47:37
Many flights already well booked by now
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
47:49
@Paul for the June meeting?
Paul McGrady
48:21
@Jeff, sorry, thought Jim referenced Cancun.
Kathy Kleiman
48:40
+1 Jim -- realistic timelines make sense.
Steve Chan
49:56
Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTjKwk/edit#
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
52:08
But it is a fall back option
Paul McGrady
52:47
Is there any way to insert "solely" between "submitted" and "as" in the Board comment? Obviously, the only way to participate in a private auction is to have an application filed, so without "solely" the Board comment doesn't really make complete sense.
Justine Chew
53:22
@Donna, good question.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:37
I would think either works
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:41
equitably
Jim Prendergast
53:53
Im not comfortable with changing language quoted from the Board That's upto the Board
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:55
one can comment reply to comments IN a GDoc as well
Rubens Kuhl
54:02
More about word smithing -> Google Doc
Donna Austin, Neustar
54:30
I had suggested different language for 3.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
54:58
QUESTION; @Jeff - what is the difference between poicy items that, Lacking consensus, fall back to the 2012 AGB versus policy items where goal language is agreed but it's necessary to to refer to the IRT? How do we determine which is in which category and will that be clear in the final report? QUESTION
Paul McGrady
55:19
Not sure why we can't fix a Board comment. If it can't be modified to make better sense, it should be noted as a "Board Goal" rather than a WG goal
Rubens Kuhl
56:09
Paul, we might fix it and document that we got it with a different wording, if we believe that's what they meant.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:28
Sorry - must drop - will listen to the rest of the call before Tuesday's call. Thank you, Anne
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
59:01
Thanks for joining @Anne
Jim Prendergast
59:07
we have had the board input for months. I am very very uncomfortale in changing or "fixing" what they communicated to this group in writing. IF we want to seek clarification - Im ok with that but we cant do this on our own.
Alexander Schubert
01:00:04
what's a "new entrant"? A newly minted offshore company?
Jim Prendergast
01:00:30
we had questions about comments that came in from other parts of the community via the comment period and we always went back t them for clarity and never substituted our opinions for what they wrote
Paul McGrady
01:02:10
Thanks Jim. Do you have a problem renaming it "Board Goal"? Just because the Board has a goal, that isn't necessarily binding on a WG (although a warning that the Board may be watching for how it is treated in the Final Report. Or, is the rule that if the Board makes a comment, it is automatically a WG goal? Seems top down.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:04:25
And with that reminder, i think goal 8 is reasonable for that purpose.
Avri Doria
01:04:26
I do not think there is any such rule, or even expectation.
Avri Doria
01:05:28
my message was response to Paul, should have said so
Paul McGrady
01:05:46
@Avri - thanks.
Jim Prendergast
01:06:11
helps with not only efficiency but in many cases un successful applicants could see much lrger refunds upon withdrawl because ICANN didn't have to evaluate
Steve Chan
01:06:30
To Jeff’s point right now on 9, some of these goals were “backed into” in examining some of the models under consideration. 3 is also in that category I believe.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:06:50
I think it's simply "increase efficiencies in application evaluation", I don't think the additional text is required.
Alexander Schubert
01:07:31
Higher refunds equal more gTLD tasting. We shouldn't provide ANY refunds.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:07:54
Disagree Alexander.
Paul McGrady
01:08:18
Paul's hand was raised on #9
Steve Chan
01:09:30
Hand raised on 9 as well
Jim Prendergast
01:09:39
does "increase creativity in the resolutions of contentions sets" specifically include allowing for private auctions?
Alexander Schubert
01:09:45
Of the fee is truly a "cost based" issue - and my application doesn't even beed evaluation: the "cost" is ZERO. So I get 100% refund.
Alexander Schubert
01:09:57
beed = need
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:10:38
My understanding is that these goals would be used similar to selection criteria that would enable us to do some kind of objective assessment of the options for contention resolution.
Justine Chew
01:11:07
@Alexander, in what situation would an application not need evaluation at all?
Alexander Schubert
01:11:29
We just discussed such example
Alexander Schubert
01:11:48
Only the highest bidder would be evaluated....
Paul McGrady
01:12:16
How about: "Increase efficiencies in the process from application to delegation"?
Paul McGrady
01:12:43
@Jeff - blushing
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:12:48
Paul's text is ok with me
Alexander Schubert
01:12:57
I say: we can't have a low application fee PLUS super high percentage refunds (e.g
Alexander Schubert
01:13:05
.90%)
Steve Chan
01:15:30
Hand raised for 9 (again :) )
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:45
@Steve - could you repost the link to this doc? Tx!!
Steve Chan
01:15:55
Sure: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTjKwk/edit#
Paul McGrady
01:16:16
@Jim, there are other non-auction options that would increase the efficiencies, e.g. ability to agree to JV (modify applicant), modify applied-for strings, etc.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:42
:-)
Paul McGrady
01:18:02
@Steve - but would it then be the goal to have the aution process trump other processes, e.g. Legal RIghts Objections, challenges on community status, etc?
Justine Chew
01:19:10
Just playing Devil's advocate, would an evaluation process also disqualify applications/applicant? Which might then lead to not having contention sets?
Paul McGrady
01:19:19
Thanks Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
01:19:48
Justine, while this is possible we know from 2012 experience that few to none applications fail evaluation.
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:03
While a lot more ended up killed by objections.
Rubens Kuhl
01:21:19
So in the order of processing we should favor those criteria that has a higher likelihood of killing applications going first.
Justine Chew
01:21:37
Okay, thanks @Rubens.
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:30
Right!
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:23
Last time the "creative solution" was private auctions...
Justine Chew
01:23:31
I may be using the term incorrectly, but I consider the Objection process as an element of evaluation. Hence my original question to Alexander. All good.
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
01:23:40
almost 8
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
01:23:59
IN fact, application window opened up 8 years and 3 days ago
Rubens Kuhl
01:24:00
.sas was also a creative solution, a JV between possible applicants before the process.
Greg Shatan
01:24:35
Ideas that are not “I win, you lose” should be encouraged.
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:36
hello all, could not join earlier
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:03
welcome @Maxim
Rubens Kuhl
01:25:10
I think there is a consensus in not favouring ICANN getting money in auctions, since it's a non-profit.
Justine Chew
01:26:20
@Paul, thanks but I'm not aware of anyone saying that ICANN getting money through auctions would be a primary goal.
Paul McGrady
01:26:59
@Justine - but f the only way out of a contention set is an auction where ICANN ends up with money, than the outcome is the outcome, rather or not we call it a goal
Paul McGrady
01:27:16
whether or not
Jim Prendergast
01:27:25
do we anticipate that ICANN would continue to hold that position?
Rubens Kuhl
01:27:54
Jim, if evaluation starts after contention set is resolved, than it wouldn't be a problem.
Justine Chew
01:28:55
+1 Jeff
Justine Chew
01:29:33
It's a consequence if ICANN auction takes place, not a goal.
Rubens Kuhl
01:30:49
Perhaps "non-competitive resolution of contention sets"
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:57
I like Rubens language -- this offers a fair middle ground
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:01
if parties go into merger, they will became one company, which can not participate in auction against itself
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:09
Let's put it in now
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:14
Tx!
Paul McGrady
01:33:27
@Rubens - what if the CEO's decided to resolve it over who wins a pchess match? Competitive...
Paul McGrady
01:33:36
chess match
Paul McGrady
01:34:19
@Jeff - let's wordsmith this week
Rubens Kuhl
01:34:22
Sword fighting is best for TLDs.
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:39
Not sure 10 and 4 need to be tied.
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:44
Separate concepts...
Kathy Kleiman
01:35:40
Ah, OK. Tx!
Alexander Schubert
01:36:37
If we look at the 2012 contention sets: almost all constituted two or more entities owning "assets" - mostly being backed by VC money - and they NEEDED to monetize that asset. Joint ventures or "philanthropic contributions" were simply out of question.
Rubens Kuhl
01:38:01
But I don't think most people expected to make money out of private auctions until those started. But in the next round, that possibility will be on people minds from the start. That's one of the reasons we need new rules; this will increase by a large factor otherwise.
Rubens Kuhl
01:38:34
And Board comments and questions indicate they see that risk too.
Alexander Schubert
01:39:32
Rubens: TRUE!
Steve Chan
01:40:01
Instead of ranking in order, maybe high medium low might work?
Justine Chew
01:41:40
+1 Rubens
Paul McGrady
01:41:41
Can't we just say that all of these are goals and have to be balanced against each other an no one factor governs?
Jim Prendergast
01:41:58
@Rubens - when an applicant goes out and finds a Auction firm and brings them to the table, me thinks they had making $$ in mind.
Rubens Kuhl
01:42:07
As long as we don't take the number of goals achieved as a criteria, we don't have to rank them.
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:09
+1 Donna
Justine Chew
01:42:37
So what would be best way forward?
Rubens Kuhl
01:43:34
Jim, but for that to be true, that applicant would need a portfolio that made it very likely to have the good number of set members, which is not low so more money is made, but it is not high when there is a high chance of one not adopting private auction.
Rubens Kuhl
01:43:52
I don't see such a pattern in any portfolios.
Rubens Kuhl
01:45:04
But what seems likely is that after reveal day, that idea presented itself and then they started looking for a way to monetize it.
Jim Prendergast
01:45:07
like 300 applications?
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
01:45:39
@donna - thanks for the reminder
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
01:45:42
yep
Rubens Kuhl
01:45:46
No, the 300 one looks more like an incentive for brands to buy mark protection services. And it worked.
Jim Prendergast
01:46:07
haha - that we can agree on
Jim Prendergast
01:46:38
can we get Donnas language on screen?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:46:42
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.
Justine Chew
01:46:52
Can staff put up Donna's language?
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:25
I don't think this replaces 3 and 4. Perhaps something new?
Greg Shatan
01:48:04
bid rigging
Rubens Kuhl
01:48:41
"Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful agreement in order to deceive others, although not necessarily illegal, as is a conspiracy."
Rubens Kuhl
01:49:16
I like collusion since it's not a criminal accusation if it was found by a panel.
Jim Prendergast
01:51:27
On 4 if as you said our goal is to eliminate that type of activity from 2012 round outlined in #4, then we should call out that activity specifically as opposed to more generic language which is vague
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
01:51:53
@Jim - I was just going to get to that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:34
Explicit language would be beneficial
Rubens Kuhl
01:54:37
We shouldn't exclude only bad activities that happened in 2012, but also some that could happened now that people has discovered the golden goose of private auctions.
Rubens Kuhl
01:54:49
(could happen)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:54:53
@Jeff, will these goals actually see the light of day? I was under the impression that these were for our internal use so to speak.
Justine Chew
01:56:01
To clarify: the intention behind my suggested text change in #3 is limited to removing "winner ultimately overpays for the TLD" as a goal.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:56:42
If these goals may see the light of day, then that changes the intent of this discussion.
Rubens Kuhl
01:57:17
"What is agreed is not expensive" - Saying in my language.
Justine Chew
01:57:27
@jeff, thanks. yes, that's what I thought so but it wasn't reflected in the googledoc hence my edit.
Julie Bisland
01:57:38
NEXT CALL: Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
Paul McGrady
01:57:44
Thanks Jeff!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:45
Thanks everyone good discussion today thank you... Don't forget the homework assignment and of course much more in next weeks calls... Bye for now...
Rubens Kuhl
01:57:57
Martin Luther King Day in the US
Rubens Kuhl
01:58:01
(I believe)
Alberto Soto
01:58:07
Thanks, bye bye!!
Alexander Schubert
01:58:28
Bye!
Rubens Kuhl
01:58:32
Bye all!
Avri Doria
01:58:37
thanks, bye
Maxim Alzoba
01:58:50
bye all