Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

Yes :)

Work plan here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit#gid=839727774

Hi all - so sorry for joining 5 mins late

Thx for joining @Heather

when will we get package #3?

All Summer vacations were cancelled by orders of Mr. Virus.

But not summer projects...

(Would that we could do both.)

Document available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1REdkptQvv6OTf3l5kyM2AhRG5Mk0vQpC_PArk_pOwXo/edit

Looks right

Considering Early Warnings might take a high workload, it's encouraging they are willing to go thru those.

Justine is ehere

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

Noted @Jim we will do our very best

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.

Could Steve put this language directly underneath current language?

Easier to compare and contrast

Tx!

Hi all - sorry to be late.

O provisionally can we add the text nd note it as New proposed text then?

Correct. No limitations, just asking the Board to consider applicant impact.

I was asking the WG ;-)

Jeff has already said there is some tidying up needed

Publishing of AGB makes sense to me

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.

I am OK with that change Jeff, so long as Anne and Justine don't object.

@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

Is it absolutely necessary to "close the gap"?

@Jim that's an uncertainty that comes with the territory. I prefer knowing the possibility, even though not final.

I don't think the gap is that serious.

In 2012, the final AGB came after the close of the application submission period.

+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.

Thanks everyone, so it we pin it to opening of the next round is that ok with you @Justine, Paul and Anne, Kathy?

+1 Cheryl

And we never knew which version was final, until new versions stopped coming.

I would encourage the GAC to try to make the AGB

I like current phrasing.

Make sure GAC is well informed of deadline to finalize AGB

does it square with the predictability framework language?

I would also be ok with using the opening of the application period as the gap closer.

ok - just want to make sure they are in synch

@Jeff - it seems like "keep the gap" has the momentum

Fine with putting footnote to note gap.

+1 re the footnote. That makes sense to avoid confusion for those that haven’t followed the discussion closely

hello all, sorry for being late

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.

Welcome @Maxim

Was there such strong consensus in the community ?

And the same subject matter could get both Early Warning and Consensus Advice, like .amazon did, but in different points in time.

Thanks @Anne

Early Warnings are from a time gone by?

Early Warnings are still in.

@Kathy - Early Warnings, no. Presumption about how the Board will act after GAC Consensus Advice, yes.

Switzerland just said that reference should be to the ByLaws - did not insist on leaving in the presumption language.

Great, tx Paul.

I personally believe the ByLaws are the currency now

However it is UP to The SubPro WG

Correct, Cheryl, I personally think we should just let the Bylaws take over and leave out all reference to any presumptions.

and w can recognise the input from the GAC

.amazon and .africa are both living proofs that Consensus Advice is not a silver bullet against applications.

Ind Govs that is

+1 Cheryl

+1 Justine

+2 Justine

Language as modified by Justine before this meeting looks good.

Perhaps best to factor in the Governments' request now...

It seems we considered and rejected it.

If we use GAC's own criteria, there is no consensus.

Agree Jeff

Agree Jeff

Yes, we have duly taken into account these comments.

Quick hand on the previous item

Implementation Guidance

I will make the sugestion

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"?

Anne, this also removes the strong presumption, so it's just a rewording of the IG as it's.

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.

Find a way to implement it and *if not able to* then come back with alternative and if substantive back to a WG process

Agree with Jeff’s comment on implementation guidance - and the idea is to be transparent if something cannot be implemented exactly as specified

+1 Karen

@Cheryl, I thought that was a given, but thanks for bringing that up again.

I tend to agree with Paul. Goes to predictability for applicants.

I believe this one amounts more to Recommendation than Implementation Guidance. But I am ok with both.

Wrong place probably

Thanks Donna and Rubens

I suspect so @Justine

so note to fix

+1 Anne. That makes sense!

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?

Ok will do - agree with Justine that some time may be needed.

Thanks @Jeff.

Correct @Jeff

we will be doing it now

@Steve, thank you for clarifying!

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

should be Once sections... Sorry

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.

Like this example: there are 7 applications in the provisional contention set, 1 is community and 1 is both geo and community.

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.

ICANN not getting the money is the only benefit of private auctions, IMHO.

No private auctions. Supporting the Leadership’s assessment.

@Rubens, +1

The fact that it is 'some' applicants and not 'all'.

I felt like we made good progress Monday making sure private resolution is included. It sounds like we’re rehashing the same argument again

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."

No crystal ball needed to assess that with the 2012 rules, there will be many applications doing it next time.

we know it from earnings releases from publicly traded companies

@Elaine, the question is does "private resolution" include or exclude private auctions?

Private resolution is included, and one of those options should be private auction.

@justine, see the proposed Ts and Cs

There seems to be a "harm" if one is concerned with aspects of transparency I suppose

+1 @Jeff

+1 All discussed at great length here...

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.

This is Mondays discussion all over again. just at a later hour

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.

+1 Rubens

Something not being illegal" does not mean it is either desirable or acceptable in a future procedures POV as well I would strongly suggest

@Elaine, yes, noted, the current text says "deter private auctions"

@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.

@Donna, this only reinforces that people will make business models of losing auctions instead of operating registries.

@Rubens, that's a lot of money to invest in the possibility that you might make a return on a contention set.

Also understanding that any applicant in a contention set can opt for an auction of last resort and the plan is foiled.

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...

USD 185k, or less if the cost decreases, is a small buy-in to enter such a game.

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.

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

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.

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.

This proposal is an excellent attempt at addressing the Board’s direction, and making an allowance for private resolution

I agree @Elaine

I agree that the proposal on the screen is a good summary of our work to date.

+1 @Jeff

+1 @Jeff

+1 JEff

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.

I assume we are all here to *improve* Subsequent Procedures in any New gTLD process, I trust everyone else does as well

For the record, the bullet points do not refer to any particular TLD or private TLD auction

Just because we disagree on this Cheryl doesn't mean we're not looking to improve the experience of the past.

Let's use game of skill, and make Digital Archery great again.

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.

I sincerely hope so @Donna thus my hope that is the intention for all involved here...

Time check @Jeff

yep...thanks CLO

@Paul, we can't all get what we want. ;)

All I was asking was that we not take 'private auctions' off the table just yet until we finish exploring all options.

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 ?

a good way to reveal the “total pot” is Option 1— sealed bid at application

so sealed bid up front Greg?

NEXT CALL:Monday, 11 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes

we have some TBD spaces to use

If it's a PRIVATE auction, who's going to police it?

@Elaine, which will suit those with a big pot of money.

Justine, there could be some kind of whistle blower channel to know if a rule is broken.

If it's only a number review ("you have 8 contenders"), you don't know the applications.

Bye for now THANKs everyone!

Both Community and Geo might impact that.

Tx Jeff!

Thanks and bye for now