051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing
I think that is captured in the second bullet
“raise issues or concerns….
it's a deferral
the last year there were two extraordinary meetings as I remember (of GNSO Council)
+1 Jeff - makes sense
We can always recommend! +1 Jeff
That works unless it is only one application that is under discussion.
But the SPIRT isn't supposed to target specific applications, so that isn't an issue
+1 Kathy - I also thought that Staff/Jeff would be proposing language.
Agree with Kathy and recuse is the answer if one application is involved and recuse is the answer as to the consensus vote.
Privilege is handled by not having to disclose who the client is.
But the SPIRT team may be looking at issues that impact small groups of applications
@Paul - good point
So 1) disclosure in realtime (I'm involved with an application in this set) prior to discussion and 2) recusal. +1 Paul
what does this mean?
"disparate treatment from other TLDs similarly situated"?
old man old hand
Donna Austin, Neustar
I had requested a process and timeline chart for the SPIRT, will that be forthcoming at some point.
We’ve sent it with each agenda as a PDF
It is included on the wiki page for today’s meeting
They are in comments now
annotated with autor name
I have yet to hear a basis for requiring JVs to disclose anything, since both parties are going to be involved in running the registry so there is no "happy loser" concern/ Even if we create a non-problem, there is no basis to require any information other than what is disclosed in Auctiosn of Last Resort and necessary application changes.
What Cheryl said, captured as comments now
It is very easy to constitute a JV where one party is essentially relinquishing and withdrawing to become a "silent partner" in the JV
Go away? Its a JV. as in "joint". No one is going away.
Settlements are even worse.
The addition of transparency and disclosure are compromise requirements for allowing private resolutions.
Unless the JV is timed so after contracting all the other parties are bought out.
The application doesn't have any financial information, the new model only requires the certification, not the actual information.
Jeff are these disclosure requirements in line with the research you did on FTC auctions?
FTC is last-resort-auction only, Elaine.
I think we need to lean on successful examples from the past
Elaine, a last-resort only model was already discussed and ruled out.
The rest of these JV and settlement disclosures are bridges too far.
Paul's Brand example (extortion) is valid for community-type applications as well: where they have to buy out another party.
Paul what’s your solution for preventing JVs from buying someone out after the TLD is delegated.
Settlements won't happen. Brands will not apply and will simply sue the applicant and ICANN.
If there are many applications for .brands, don't we rely on LRO?
Anne the LRO is worthless
@Elaine - ICANN has assignment controls already in place.
But Jeff, some of the information you refer to will be included in the revised application
@Jeff - those hundred names could be that brand owner's most sensitive names/terms. Brand owners will not want those published. This is way too much.
I don't think the primary issue in relation to string contention is the brand application. It is more likely the generic application.
Donna Austin, Neustar
why jeff, why should it be known? how does that address the supposed problem that the board raised and we are supposed to be fixing
Assignment is not the same as modifying the members of a JV
@Martin - not all of it needs to be disclosed in the application as a change
Lists of what terms a brand owner will go war over is exactly a trade secret
almost anything can be marked as a trade secret in an agreement
Paul what problem are you trying to avoid by not publishing names?
@elaine, I think Paul's been pretty clear in the chat about the sorts of problems
I’m asking about names of JV partners.
Number of terms would be enough, IMHO.
@Jeff - so our plan is to hand squatters the lists to best absue? In order to address abuse? Crazy.
Sealed bid auctions for private&ICANN auctions eliminates all these problems.
@Paul, I think Jeff agreed with you.
@Alexander - not that dead horse again... :-)
Sealed bid auctions all around were already discussed and ruled out.
i don't think that most cases will involve .brands anyway.
Rubens: Let's see how the community sees that.
The information could be disclosed after an embargo period.
Withouit naming the names?
Notice with "some description
Can live with
"not details as such
I agree with Paul that we create a squad roadmap. Hence: sealed bids. That will spook squatters away as they can't "make money".
Donna Austin, Neustar
What's the difference between a settlement and a withdrawal of an application? If there is a settlement does one applicant withdraw?
YES because the point is, applicants shouldn’t be paid extra money to go away
If the contract is made at contention set resolution, it's current market, not after market.
Then ICANN will follow its process
Donna Austin, Neustar
So putting aside contention set resolution, what if a third party approaches a single applicant after they are delegated and pays a sum for the TLD in the after market?
We are past the 60 minute point.
@Donna, if it was not decided in contention set resolution, then it's really after market.
+1 Susan - if we don't address it everywhere, why do we address it here?
@donna would that sumt be used to win against another applicant in that round?
Donna Austin, Neustar
@ Elaine, I don't understand the question.
needs to be criculated
could you repeat that
with public comment on the Application Change Request - that section has to make clear that a change in real party in interest requires public comment
and are we going to require that of all applicants? regardless of whether there's a contention set?
This seems like a good point to break on this issue and return after further list discussion and consideration by WG Members... So we can poke our noses into the "Closed Generics topic... Jeff?
Let's circulate this to full WG -- it's a big change from language on the screen.
@Jeff 0- some are reasonable. Some are not. Let's keep the kitchen sinks and Christmas lists out and get this done.
Has anyone even ran this past the AG of California? I think we should be careful using his name in vain unless we know that he prefers censorship (no open generics) over the free market.
bye all, have to drop
.bank is highly restrictive
there must have been a audio glitch with Alan
No merit in a new super-community application process. This isn't a compromise solution for closed generics - this is just another way to keep them out. While I appreciate George's last minute attempt to solve this problem, the proposal does not do that.
i think not
As far as I know, there is absolutely nothing in the current rules that would prevent the type of application being described by George's group. It is not a Closed Generic.
Limiting innovation to on;ly non-profits and IGO isn't allowing innovation. It is blocking it.
Anne, it is generic by nature of the string and closed since there will be no registrants.
@Alan - so the "registrants" are essentially licensees?
At the end of the day, will third parties have control over their own DNS / Content / e-mail / etc.
@Jeff - no.
So third parties would not be allowed to have an "A" record point to their own developed sites?
Kurt cut out
third parties would not have an "MX" record?
I hear Kurt
Anne - call it open, closed, semi-open,a hybrid, whatever. Our point is that it's just sufficiently different to rquire a partially unique way of handling them.
No problem hearing Kurt
Yes I suspect it is @Alan's audio
The fear is thst these Giants simply shut down the space or use it for market domination
Innovation isn't nefarious. Safety for IOT isn't nefarious. In fact, both are the public interest.
Blocking innovation and IOT safety in favor of the old second level DNS industry model is not in the public interest.
who else authored this paper?
Thanks Foe these papres/proposals
Kathy: it was me (Kurt), Mike Rodenbaugh, Marc Trachtenberg
Jeff - where is the needle now? If you're talking abut moving hte needle, you mist know where it is.
Are there any limits to the delegation in your paper?
Kathy - not other than the existing restrictions in the Guidebook
+1 Jeff - would like to see your proposed model
Time check @Jeff
Is it in the public interest to allow even more open, everyone can register, TLDs? Why aren't we asking that question?
I hear you....
George hand up
My proposal is that closed generics I propose should be allowed, the others should be blocked.
@Paul, I am sure there are some existing open TLDs that would suggest more open TLDs are not in the public interest :-)
@George - no need to address it again. Voices were excluded. It jhappens
one week from today is Monday, 03 August
Next meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled on Thursday, 30 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Thanks everyone great discussions today... More on Thursday :-) Bye for now...