Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Maxim Alzoba
31:09
hello all
Terri Agnew
31:48
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Kathy Kleiman
34:46
Document link?
Steve Chan
35:18
Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing
Kathy Kleiman
35:24
Tx Steve!
Kathy Kleiman
36:49
Good, tx
Martin Sutton
46:42
I think that is captured in the second bullet
Martin Sutton
46:55
“raise issues or concerns….
Maxim Alzoba
47:43
it's a deferral
Maxim Alzoba
48:44
the last year there were two extraordinary meetings as I remember (of GNSO Council)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
49:01
+1 Jeff - makes sense
Annebeth Lange
49:33
We can always recommend! +1 Jeff
Anne Aikman-Scalese
55:28
That works unless it is only one application that is under discussion.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
56:19
Maybe recuse?
Paul McGrady
56:33
But the SPIRT isn't supposed to target specific applications, so that isn't an issue
Paul McGrady
57:44
+1 Kathy - I also thought that Staff/Jeff would be proposing language.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:07
Noted
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:26
Agree with Kathy and recuse is the answer if one application is involved and recuse is the answer as to the consensus vote.
Paul McGrady
58:29
Privilege is handled by not having to disclose who the client is.
Kathy Kleiman
59:07
But the SPIRT team may be looking at issues that impact small groups of applications
Jeffrey Neuman
59:29
@Paul - good point
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:03
Thanks @Paul
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:06
So 1) disclosure in realtime (I'm involved with an application in this set) prior to discussion and 2) recusal. +1 Paul
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:47
what does this mean?
Paul McGrady
01:01:55
"disparate treatment from other TLDs similarly situated"?
Paul McGrady
01:02:57
old man old hand
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:04:27
I had requested a process and timeline chart for the SPIRT, will that be forthcoming at some point.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:53
Flow chart
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:12
link please?
Emily Barabas
01:06:34
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-07-27+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP
Julie Hedlund
01:06:37
We’ve sent it with each agenda as a PDF
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:40
Tx Emily!
Emily Barabas
01:06:46
It is included on the wiki page for today’s meeting
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:14
They are in comments now
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:31
annotated with autor name
Paul McGrady
01:09:37
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.
Steve Chan
01:09:58
What Cheryl said, captured as comments now
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:11:17
It is very easy to constitute a JV where one party is essentially relinquishing and withdrawing to become a "silent partner" in the JV
Paul McGrady
01:12:05
Go away? Its a JV. as in "joint". No one is going away.
Paul McGrady
01:12:10
Settlements are even worse.
Paul McGrady
01:12:20
hand up
Elaine Pruis
01:12:22
The addition of transparency and disclosure are compromise requirements for allowing private resolutions.
Rubens Kuhl
01:13:25
Unless the JV is timed so after contracting all the other parties are bought out.
Rubens Kuhl
01:14:08
The application doesn't have any financial information, the new model only requires the certification, not the actual information.
Elaine Pruis
01:14:23
Jeff are these disclosure requirements in line with the research you did on FTC auctions?
Rubens Kuhl
01:14:51
FTC is last-resort-auction only, Elaine.
Elaine Pruis
01:15:10
I think we need to lean on successful examples from the past
Rubens Kuhl
01:15:42
Elaine, a last-resort only model was already discussed and ruled out.
Paul McGrady
01:16:32
Fine
Paul McGrady
01:17:05
The rest of these JV and settlement disclosures are bridges too far.
Paul McGrady
01:17:39
+1 Susan
Alexander Schubert
01:17:50
Paul's Brand example (extortion) is valid for community-type applications as well: where they have to buy out another party.
Elaine Pruis
01:18:01
Paul what’s your solution for preventing JVs from buying someone out after the TLD is delegated.
Paul McGrady
01:18:09
Settlements won't happen. Brands will not apply and will simply sue the applicant and ICANN.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:18:13
If there are many applications for .brands, don't we rely on LRO?
Susan.Payne
01:18:29
Anne the LRO is worthless
Paul McGrady
01:18:35
@Elaine - ICANN has assignment controls already in place.
Martin Sutton
01:19:29
But Jeff, some of the information you refer to will be included in the revised application
Paul McGrady
01:19:37
@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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:19:40
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
01:19:46
Agree Martin
Susan.Payne
01:19:48
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
Elaine Pruis
01:19:55
Assignment is not the same as modifying the members of a JV
Jeffrey Neuman
01:19:57
@Martin - not all of it needs to be disclosed in the application as a change
Paul McGrady
01:20:38
Lists of what terms a brand owner will go war over is exactly a trade secret
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:43
almost anything can be marked as a trade secret in an agreement
Elaine Pruis
01:20:45
Paul what problem are you trying to avoid by not publishing names?
Susan.Payne
01:21:18
@elaine, I think Paul's been pretty clear in the chat about the sorts of problems
Elaine Pruis
01:21:53
I’m asking about names of JV partners.
Rubens Kuhl
01:22:33
Number of terms would be enough, IMHO.
Paul McGrady
01:24:05
@Jeff - so our plan is to hand squatters the lists to best absue? In order to address abuse? Crazy.
Alexander Schubert
01:24:32
Sealed bid auctions for private&ICANN auctions eliminates all these problems.
Elaine Pruis
01:24:45
+1 Alex
Rubens Kuhl
01:24:48
@Paul, I think Jeff agreed with you.
Paul McGrady
01:25:03
@Alexander - not that dead horse again... :-)
Rubens Kuhl
01:25:13
Sealed bid auctions all around were already discussed and ruled out.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:25:53
i don't think that most cases will involve .brands anyway.
Alexander Schubert
01:26:03
Rubens: Let's see how the community sees that.
Paul McGrady
01:26:47
Yes
Elaine Pruis
01:26:50
yes
Susan.Payne
01:26:57
yes
Rubens Kuhl
01:27:32
The information could be disclosed after an embargo period.
Martin Sutton
01:27:35
+1 Paul
Paul McGrady
01:28:03
Withouit naming the names?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:04
Notice with "some description
Paul McGrady
01:28:12
Can live with
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:19
"not details as such
Alexander Schubert
01:28:39
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
01:28:50
What's the difference between a settlement and a withdrawal of an application? If there is a settlement does one applicant withdraw?
Elaine Pruis
01:28:53
YES
Susan.Payne
01:29:11
quite Paul
Elaine Pruis
01:29:13
YES because the point is, applicants shouldn’t be paid extra money to go away
Rubens Kuhl
01:29:46
If the contract is made at contention set resolution, it's current market, not after market.
Paul McGrady
01:30:44
?
Paul McGrady
01:31:36
Then ICANN will follow its process
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:32:47
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?
Alan Greenberg
01:33:31
We are past the 60 minute point.
Rubens Kuhl
01:33:32
@Donna, if it was not decided in contention set resolution, then it's really after market.
Paul McGrady
01:33:33
+1 Susan - if we don't address it everywhere, why do we address it here?
Elaine Pruis
01:34:18
@donna would that sumt be used to win against another applicant in that round?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:34:34
+1 Jeff
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:34:39
@ Elaine, I don't understand the question.
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:41
needs to be criculated
Martin Sutton
01:34:42
could you repeat that
Martin Sutton
01:34:45
please
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:47
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
Susan.Payne
01:35:50
and are we going to require that of all applicants? regardless of whether there's a contention set?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:33
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?
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:02
Let's circulate this to full WG -- it's a big change from language on the screen.
Paul McGrady
01:37:49
@Jeff 0- some are reasonable. Some are not. Let's keep the kitchen sinks and Christmas lists out and get this done.
Paul McGrady
01:42:56
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.
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:24
bye all, have to drop
Martin Sutton
01:43:58
.bank is highly restrictive
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:58
there must have been a audio glitch with Alan
Alexander Schubert
01:45:07
yup
Paul McGrady
01:45:54
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.
Alexander Schubert
01:46:04
i think not
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:46:10
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.
Paul McGrady
01:47:33
Limiting innovation to on;ly non-profits and IGO isn't allowing innovation. It is blocking it.
Alan Greenberg
01:47:49
Anne, it is generic by nature of the string and closed since there will be no registrants.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:48:24
@Alan - so the "registrants" are essentially licensees?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:48:44
At the end of the day, will third parties have control over their own DNS / Content / e-mail / etc.
Kathy Kleiman
01:49:07
@Jeff - no.
Paul McGrady
01:49:28
Insurance companies
Jeffrey Neuman
01:49:36
So third parties would not be allowed to have an "A" record point to their own developed sites?
Alan Greenberg
01:49:46
Kurt cut out
Jeffrey Neuman
01:49:52
third parties would not have an "MX" record?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:49:57
I hear Kurt
George Sadowsky
01:50:10
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.
Paul McGrady
01:50:14
No problem hearing Kurt
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:14
Yes I suspect it is @Alan's audio
Alexander Schubert
01:50:30
The fear is thst these Giants simply shut down the space or use it for market domination
Paul McGrady
01:51:00
Innovation isn't nefarious. Safety for IOT isn't nefarious. In fact, both are the public interest.
Paul McGrady
01:52:12
Blocking innovation and IOT safety in favor of the old second level DNS industry model is not in the public interest.
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:17
who else authored this paper?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:30
Thanks Foe these papres/proposals
Kurt Pritz
01:53:38
Kathy: it was me (Kurt), Mike Rodenbaugh, Marc Trachtenberg
George Sadowsky
01:54:00
Jeff - where is the needle now? If you're talking abut moving hte needle, you mist know where it is.
Kathy Kleiman
01:54:01
Tx Kurt.
Kathy Kleiman
01:54:07
Are there any limits to the delegation in your paper?
Kurt Pritz
01:55:43
Kathy - not other than the existing restrictions in the Guidebook
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:55:45
+1 Jeff - would like to see your proposed model
Alexander Schubert
01:56:01
hand raised
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:22
Time check @Jeff
Paul McGrady
01:57:35
Is it in the public interest to allow even more open, everyone can register, TLDs? Why aren't we asking that question?
Alexander Schubert
01:58:47
I hear you....
Kathy Kleiman
01:59:04
George hand up
Rubens Kuhl
01:59:41
My proposal is that closed generics I propose should be allowed, the others should be blocked.
Martin Sutton
02:00:21
@Paul, I am sure there are some existing open TLDs that would suggest more open TLDs are not in the public interest :-)
Paul McGrady
02:00:23
@George - no need to address it again. Voices were excluded. It jhappens
Terri Agnew
02:01:11
one week from today is Monday, 03 August
Terri Agnew
02:01:28
Next meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled on Thursday, 30 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Alexander Schubert
02:01:36
bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:11
Thanks everyone great discussions today... More on Thursday :-) Bye for now...