Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
25:09
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Julie Bisland
25:47
Yes :)
Steve Chan
28:03
Work plan here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit#gid=839727774
Heather Forrest
28:18
Hi all - so sorry for joining 5 mins late
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
28:30
Thx for joining @Heather
Jim Prendergast
29:13
when will we get package #3?
Rubens Kuhl
31:23
All Summer vacations were cancelled by orders of Mr. Virus.
Kathy Kleiman
31:42
But not summer projects...
Kathy Kleiman
32:08
(Would that we could do both.)
Steve Chan
32:16
Document available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_PArk_pOwXo/edit
Paul McGrady
33:53
Looks right
Rubens Kuhl
33:54
Considering Early Warnings might take a high workload, it's encouraging they are willing to go thru those.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
34:15
Justine is ehere
Jim Prendergast
34:35
no need to answer now but I would like to ask that the proposed language on closed generics be published more than the Friday before the Monday 2 hour meeting. We need more than the weekend to review. thanks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
35:01
Noted @Jim we will do our very best
Rubens Kuhl
39:02
If we say "... applies to categories, groups or classes of application or string types, or to a particular string", we are saying that it applies to any possible advice, so we should remove this text.
Kathy Kleiman
39:04
Could Steve put this language directly underneath current language?
Kathy Kleiman
39:10
Easier to compare and contrast
Kathy Kleiman
39:29
Tx!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
41:46
Hi all - sorry to be late.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:07
O provisionally can we add the text nd note it as New proposed text then?
Paul McGrady
42:24
Correct. No limitations, just asking the Board to consider applicant impact.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:45
I was asking the WG ;-)
Justine Chew
44:18
Jeff has already said there is some tidying up needed
Rubens Kuhl
44:52
Publishing of AGB makes sense to me
Rubens Kuhl
46:48
If the GAC issues a Consensus Advice before application submissions, applicants can factor such advice in their plans. Creating a gap is counterproductive for applicants.
Paul McGrady
47:55
I am OK with that change Jeff, so long as Anne and Justine don't object.
Jim Prendergast
49:15
@Rubens I would generally agree - but issuance of GAC advice is not final - its up to the board to act on and if needed implement it
Justine Chew
49:30
Is it absolutely necessary to "close the gap"?
Rubens Kuhl
50:27
@Jim that's an uncertainty that comes with the territory. I prefer knowing the possibility, even though not final.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
51:45
I don't think the gap is that serious.
Rubens Kuhl
52:50
In 2012, the final AGB came after the close of the application submission period.
Paul McGrady
52:55
+1 Anne and Kathy. The GAC may want to use the gap to read the final guidebook and see what jumps out at them. Since the window isn't only 1 day, applicants can read the latest GAC Advice just before filing.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:01
Thanks everyone, so it we pin it to opening of the next round is that ok with you @Justine, Paul and Anne, Kathy?
Paul McGrady
53:16
+1 Cheryl
Rubens Kuhl
53:21
And we never knew which version was final, until new versions stopped coming.
Kathy Kleiman
53:33
I would encourage the GAC to try to make the AGB
Kathy Kleiman
53:42
I like current phrasing.
Justine Chew
53:44
Make sure GAC is well informed of deadline to finalize AGB
Jim Prendergast
53:46
does it square with the predictability framework language?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
53:53
I would also be ok with using the opening of the application period as the gap closer.
Jim Prendergast
54:33
ok - just want to make sure they are in synch
Paul McGrady
55:21
@Jeff - it seems like "keep the gap" has the momentum
Justine Chew
55:28
Fine with putting footnote to note gap.
Annebeth Lange
56:21
+1 re the footnote. That makes sense to avoid confusion for those that haven’t followed the discussion closely
Maxim Alzoba
56:52
hello all, sorry for being late
Anne Aikman-Scalese
56:57
I think the predictability framework exists in part because we recognize there could be a lack of synch timing because Consensus Advice gets rendered after applications come in, e.g. Early Warning.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:06
Welcome @Maxim
Rubens Kuhl
57:39
Was there such strong consensus in the community ?
Rubens Kuhl
01:00:14
And the same subject matter could get both Early Warning and Consensus Advice, like .amazon did, but in different points in time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:38
Thanks @Anne
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:05
Early Warnings are from a time gone by?
Rubens Kuhl
01:02:16
Early Warnings are still in.
Paul McGrady
01:03:26
@Kathy - Early Warnings, no. Presumption about how the Board will act after GAC Consensus Advice, yes.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:03:41
Switzerland just said that reference should be to the ByLaws - did not insist on leaving in the presumption language.
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:43
Great, tx Paul.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:22
I personally believe the ByLaws are the currency now
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:19
However it is UP to The SubPro WG
Justine Chew
01:05:38
Correct, Cheryl, I personally think we should just let the Bylaws take over and leave out all reference to any presumptions.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:41
and w can recognise the input from the GAC
Rubens Kuhl
01:05:49
.amazon and .africa are both living proofs that Consensus Advice is not a silver bullet against applications.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:50
Ind Govs that is
Annebeth Lange
01:05:50
+1 Cheryl
Paul McGrady
01:05:55
+1 Justine
Greg Shatan
01:06:17
+2 Justine
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:06:20
Language as modified by Justine before this meeting looks good.
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:24
Perhaps best to factor in the Governments' request now...
Rubens Kuhl
01:07:21
It seems we considered and rejected it.
Rubens Kuhl
01:08:09
If we use GAC's own criteria, there is no consensus.
Paul McGrady
01:08:14
Agree Jeff
Annebeth Lange
01:08:23
Agree Jeff
Greg Shatan
01:08:27
Yes, we have duly taken into account these comments.
Steve Chan
01:08:30
Quick hand on the previous item
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:49
Implementation Guidance
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:57
I will make the sugestion
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:10:29
instead of "create strong presumption", could we say "will create circumstances whereby the ICANN Board may choose to reject the application in accordance with the ByLaws"?
Rubens Kuhl
01:11:05
Anne, this also removes the strong presumption, so it's just a rewording of the IG as it's.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:11:54
Yes Rubens but I am taking into account Kathy's comment that we should address concerns - maybe by rewriting the language rather than deleting it entirely.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:11:56
Find a way to implement it and *if not able to* then come back with alternative and if substantive back to a WG process
karen.lentz
01:12:53
Agree with Jeff’s comment on implementation guidance - and the idea is to be transparent if something cannot be implemented exactly as specified
Annebeth Lange
01:13:57
+1 Karen
Justine Chew
01:14:13
@Cheryl, I thought that was a given, but thanks for bringing that up again.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:15:44
I tend to agree with Paul. Goes to predictability for applicants.
Rubens Kuhl
01:15:46
I believe this one amounts more to Recommendation than Implementation Guidance. But I am ok with both.
Justine Chew
01:16:27
Wrong place probably
Paul McGrady
01:17:43
Thanks Donna and Rubens
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:54
I suspect so @Justine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:02
so note to fix
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:37
+1 Anne. That makes sense!
Justine Chew
01:21:15
I think we need time to consider further proposed text amendments. Can we have clean and redline versions of text? And all in the right places please?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:44
Ok will do - agree with Justine that some time may be needed.
Justine Chew
01:23:22
Thanks @Jeff.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:27
Correct @Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:44
we will be doing it now
Justine Chew
01:23:48
@Steve, thank you for clarifying!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:56
One sections are quite fully discussed they get moved to the *authoritative* text , not a huge issue if we all understand that as we go forward
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:31
should be Once sections... Sorry
Rubens Kuhl
01:28:44
I still believe that the information on number of applications in the contention set should include whether there are self-designated community or geo applications in the contention set.
Rubens Kuhl
01:29:40
Like this example: there are 7 applications in the provisional contention set, 1 is community and 1 is both geo and community.
Heather Forrest
01:31:29
I hesitate to wade into the waters of private auctions when I have not been able to follow the debate sufficiently closely lately, but I too am inclined to leave the option on the table.
Rubens Kuhl
01:31:38
ICANN not getting the money is the only benefit of private auctions, IMHO.
christopher wilkinson
01:32:48
No private auctions. Supporting the Leadership’s assessment.
Annebeth Lange
01:33:48
@Rubens, +1
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:34:12
The fact that it is 'some' applicants and not 'all'.
Elaine Pruis
01:34:47
I felt like we made good progress Monday making sure private resolution is included. It sounds like we’re rehashing the same argument again
Paul McGrady
01:35:25
From the IPC's comments on this: "The IPC does not support mechanisms which would curtail or prohibit the parties in a contention set from seeking to resolve the matter bynegotiation. Such means of resolution are common practice incommerce."
Rubens Kuhl
01:35:26
No crystal ball needed to assess that with the 2012 rules, there will be many applications doing it next time.
Jim Prendergast
01:35:38
we know it from earnings releases from publicly traded companies
Justine Chew
01:35:54
@Elaine, the question is does "private resolution" include or exclude private auctions?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:36:00
Private resolution is included, and one of those options should be private auction.
Elaine Pruis
01:36:07
@justine, see the proposed Ts and Cs
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:17
There seems to be a "harm" if one is concerned with aspects of transparency I suppose
Justine Chew
01:36:50
+1 @Jeff
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:21
+1 All discussed at great length here...
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:38:08
I acknowledge that it did happen. I don't know if it was a deliberate strategy going into the application process or whether it was something that evolved once the evaluation process commenced.
Jim Prendergast
01:38:42
This is Mondays discussion all over again. just at a later hour
Rubens Kuhl
01:38:59
Donna, for that we can use a crystal ball and say people didn't plan for that. But using the same rules, people will plan for that.
Elaine Pruis
01:39:21
+1 Rubens
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:45
Something not being illegal" does not mean it is either desirable or acceptable in a future procedures POV as well I would strongly suggest
Justine Chew
01:40:02
@Elaine, yes, noted, the current text says "deter private auctions"
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:40:13
@Rubens, I don't think the circumstances will be the same. The market is very different and TLDS have not been the success or money making machines people thought they would be.
Rubens Kuhl
01:40:47
@Donna, this only reinforces that people will make business models of losing auctions instead of operating registries.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:41:36
@Rubens, that's a lot of money to invest in the possibility that you might make a return on a contention set.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:42:17
Also understanding that any applicant in a contention set can opt for an auction of last resort and the plan is foiled.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:23
I see the wording needs to be changed that refers to "with the purpose of financial gain" to read perhaps 'purpose of financial gain solely from the action of an action' Or some such...
Rubens Kuhl
01:42:50
USD 185k, or less if the cost decreases, is a small buy-in to enter such a game.
Justine Chew
01:43:06
There will always be difference in opinion on what is perceived as a problem to someone and not to others. So, I'm not sure where are we going with this.
Jim Prendergast
01:43:55
To CLOs point - yeah it happened, it surprised many. Including the Board. We have a chance to prevent that behavior from happening again, especially now that the spotlight is shining more brightly on ICANN and many of the parties who were pariticipants in private auctions. including some current TLD operators with dozens of TLDs
Rubens Kuhl
01:45:03
As I said before, ICANN not getting money was the only benefit of private auctions. ICANN mission is not that, but if money comes from ICANN fulfilling its mission, than it's fine.
Paul McGrady
01:45:25
Its only bad faith if it was purchased for resale IF there is a brand involved. There is a big difference between domain speculation and cybersquatting. Domain speculation is not illegal.
Elaine Pruis
01:45:45
This proposal is an excellent attempt at addressing the Board’s direction, and making an allowance for private resolution
Justine Chew
01:46:10
I agree @Elaine
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:22
I agree that the proposal on the screen is a good summary of our work to date.
Justine Chew
01:47:12
+1 @Jeff
Annebeth Lange
01:47:26
+1 @Jeff
Jim Prendergast
01:47:37
+1 JEff
Rubens Kuhl
01:48:38
A game of chance is more democratic than allocating to the applicant with larger pockets. But there is strong public policy experience pointing us to avoid random selection of registries.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:28
I assume we are all here to *improve* Subsequent Procedures in any New gTLD process, I trust everyone else does as well
Jeffrey Neuman
01:50:18
For the record, the bullet points do not refer to any particular TLD or private TLD auction
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:50:32
Just because we disagree on this Cheryl doesn't mean we're not looking to improve the experience of the past.
Rubens Kuhl
01:50:58
Let's use game of skill, and make Digital Archery great again.
Paul McGrady
01:51:03
Interesting mitigation ideas from Greg. Why not leave private auctions on the table for now and try to fix them instead of just toss them out when there is not consensus to do so.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:15
I sincerely hope so @Donna thus my hope that is the intention for all involved here...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:16
Time check @Jeff
Jeffrey Neuman
01:51:24
yep...thanks CLO
Justine Chew
01:51:45
@Paul, we can't all get what we want. ;)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:51:56
All I was asking was that we not take 'private auctions' off the table just yet until we finish exploring all options.
Rubens Kuhl
01:52:09
Donna, Greg, Paul: could you collaborate on a model that still has private auctions and make apply-to-lose business models to not be feasible ?
Elaine Pruis
01:52:10
a good way to reveal the “total pot” is Option 1— sealed bid at application
Jim Prendergast
01:52:20
so sealed bid up front Greg?
Julie Bisland
01:52:33
NEXT CALL:Monday, 11 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:07
we have some TBD spaces to use
Justine Chew
01:53:09
If it's a PRIVATE auction, who's going to police it?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:53:21
@Elaine, which will suit those with a big pot of money.
Rubens Kuhl
01:54:03
Justine, there could be some kind of whistle blower channel to know if a rule is broken.
Rubens Kuhl
01:55:32
If it's only a number review ("you have 8 contenders"), you don't know the applications.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:43
Bye for now THANKs everyone!
Rubens Kuhl
01:55:43
Both Community and Geo might impact that.
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:52
Tx Jeff!
Annebeth Lange
01:56:01
Thanks and bye for now