Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Emily Barabas
24:05
ICANN68 schedule: https://68.schedule.icann.org/
Michelle DeSmyter
25:49
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Jamie Baxter
30:53
Thanks Christopher. We’ll see how the ease of restrictions goes over the coming weeks.
Kathy Kleiman
31:32
I think it works - tx to Paul and Anne
Paul McGrady
32:18
Christopher is right. At the end of the day we just have to rely on the integrity of the Panelists. But, as Christopher says, I think this text is as good as we are going to get.
Julie Hedlund
33:05
hand up from Jamie Baxter
Paul McGrady
33:55
Before the evaluation decision is rendered
Anne Aikman-Scalese
34:36
agree with paul
Paul McGrady
34:51
correct
Jamie Baxter
35:19
And does anyone else have the ability to respond to the independent research other than the applicant
Paul McGrady
35:53
Yes
Jamie Baxter
36:59
@Paul .. but this language suggests that only the applicant gets the heads up on the independent research that was used and no one else
Gg Levine (NABP)
37:12
Can the applicant change the application based on evaluator research findings?
Katrin Ohlmer
37:58
@Gg: In 2012 this was not possible.
Jamie Baxter
38:19
@Jeff .. not sure it’s fair to say that CPE is a one party process because that is not how it was conducted in the 2012 round
Paul McGrady
38:31
@Jaime - as Jeff mentioned, this is a one party evaluation. This appeals process has it s own rules/procedures.
Gg Levine (NABP)
39:37
@Katrin. Right. I'm wondering if applicants would have that option in the proposed recommendation.
Rubens Kuhl
40:41
@Gg, I believe this text doesn't recommend for or against that, and that is addressed (or should be) in the applicant change requests section.
Gg Levine (NABP)
42:28
Thanks.
Katrin Ohlmer
42:37
+1 Jamie - including delays for community applicants
Jamie Baxter
44:39
@Jeff .. let’s not lose sight of the fact that CPE was a disaster in 2012, so guidance is likely helpful here
Rubens Kuhl
44:47
A contender could also fail technical evaluation, and even so the non-published part of the application is not made available for people to challenge it.
Justine Chew
44:59
I agree with Jeff. Keep this process between the applicant and CPE evaluator.
Jamie Baxter
45:14
+1 Justine
Justine Chew
46:42
"Relevant" or "adopted" material to be appended to determination. Provides material for establishing grounds for challenge / appeal.
Justine Chew
47:17
Deteminations are public.
Kathy Kleiman
47:54
when?
Rubens Kuhl
48:16
Let's say I submit an affidavit from Steve Jobs for my .apple application. Evaluator dismisses it because he is dead. No need to publish that.
Justine Chew
48:48
+1 Rubens. I would use that as evidence of "abuse of process"!
Jim Prendergast
49:06
Jamie would know what is and is not available
Kathy Kleiman
49:18
Those filing a community objection would need the data *before* the filing.
Jim Prendergast
49:22
at least for last round
Kathy Kleiman
49:23
It's an expedited process
Jamie Baxter
50:33
do clarifying questions become part of the record on appeals?
Paul McGrady
50:35
Thanks Jeff. Agree with Justine and Jaime. Let's keep it simple.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
51:22
Thanks for getting this drafting to where it is now, as stated we seem to be at the "good as it gets," and we do "have to rely on integrity of the CPEP evaluator as some stage...
Paul McGrady
52:27
Agree Cheryl. At some point we have to have faith in the system we are building/refining.
Justine Chew
54:38
Good point, @jeff, I don't know what "community status" means
Justine Chew
55:15
I suspect independent research could apply to 3 of the 4 criteria.
martinsutton
55:40
Apologies for my late arrival.
Rubens Kuhl
56:41
community preference status
Rubens Kuhl
57:00
community priority status
Jeffrey Neuman
57:08
to "evaluate the applicant"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:11
Welcome @Martin
Rubens Kuhl
57:42
Which is what is being evaluated, failing CPE does not meaning an application does not serve a community, that it does not warrant priority.
Paul McGrady
57:57
No objection
Jamie Baxter
58:05
@Jeff.. works for me
Rubens Kuhl
58:53
Community applications that doesn't face contention are not CPE-evaluated, and they keep being community TLDs (by having Spec 12).
Jeffrey Neuman
59:01
ok, "to evaluation the application"
Paul McGrady
59:06
Justine's formulation also works.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
59:09
Noted @Justine... Thanks
Jeffrey Neuman
59:09
oops to evaluation the application
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:30
agree with Justine
Paul McGrady
59:34
Yep
Justine Chew
01:01:33
I should say that At-Large is looking to propose something that will touch on processes for CPE criteria, guidelines and evaluator. We're working on the packaging of it now.
Justine Chew
01:02:54
I will have a look to see if the At-Large proposal might be inconsistent with any of the draft recommendations associated with Community Applications and CPE. Off the top of my head, I don't think so.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:04:09
Good to know Justine.
Rubens Kuhl
01:04:49
The problem with this proposal is assuming batches, and assuming a size of 500.
Rubens Kuhl
01:05:24
Which IMHO we should change.
Rubens Kuhl
01:05:36
And that was not the 2012 implementation.
Jim Prendergast
01:06:03
its a formula that scales
Rubens Kuhl
01:06:06
By changing it to batches, we are in fact changing what was done in 2012.
Paul McGrady
01:06:59
@Jeff - are we supposed to formally decide this today? Or is there time to take your language and think it through?
Paul McGrady
01:07:47
@Staff, can you please send the link out to this text? Sorry I don't have it handy.
Julie Hedlund
01:08:04
Here it is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing page 50
Emily Barabas
01:08:20
Here is the email from Jeff: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/2020-April/002698.html
Paul McGrady
01:08:37
@Emily - thanks.
Emily Barabas
01:08:46
Yes, this should be the final one
Paul McGrady
01:08:58
@Jeff 0- why so much green if nothing is new? If nothing new, why are we discussing it?
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:06
new hand
Justine Chew
01:12:47
Can't hear Jeff
Phil Buckingham
01:14:03
I agree with this as Step 1 . Step 2 would be the specialist evaluators allocating / splitting out these batches by application type ?
Justine Chew
01:14:41
Is there a way to put this in a chart? :)
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:17
500 of 10,000
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:27
that's what we did in the first round
Rubens Kuhl
01:16:33
Note that in evaluation there is an affirmation that the evaluation is to be done in the most efficient way possible, so we could refer here to results publication, not to processing.
Rubens Kuhl
01:16:52
Yes, I can't.
Rubens Kuhl
01:17:02
Not due to IDN priority, which I don't have a problem.
Rubens Kuhl
01:17:13
But due to batching language and processing language.
Rubens Kuhl
01:17:42
Just batches and the references to processing.
Jamie Baxter
01:18:06
My apologizes for having to drop off early today for another commitment
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:18:57
Apologies all, I need to drop for another call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:03
Thanks for Joining @Jammie
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:17
Package is yet to come @Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:24
this is pre pack
Paul McGrady
01:20:22
So this is a pre-can't live with can't live with? :-). I promise to give this a deep read and come back with any issues on the list
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:32
BTW, it's possible to keep calling it batches if we restrict the definition to the prioritisation process.
Rubens Kuhl
01:21:25
But to distinguish from 2012 AGB, which was not 2012 Implementation in this case, it's probably better to get different terminology.
Phil Buckingham
01:22:32
absolutely agree Christopher
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:23:48
Agree with you Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
01:23:53
But, they used no batches at all in 2012, despite what AGB said.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:58
We need a line drawn ar some stage
Annebeth Lange
01:25:31
I agree, Cheryl and Jeff.
Rubens Kuhl
01:26:36
And due to the way technical evaluation was reformulated, whatever capacity forecast there was, doesn't apply anymore.
Paul McGrady
01:26:42
@Jeff - thanks. Will do, but won't tinker for its own sake
Rubens Kuhl
01:29:13
I like a multiplier for ASP. 1.5x or 2x are the numbers that come to mind.
Justine Chew
01:29:18
Support!
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:26
Yes
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:29:57
Support!
christopher wilkinson
01:30:06
Support absolute priority for Applicant support
Annebeth Lange
01:30:53
Support
Rubens Kuhl
01:30:55
Support multiplier, doesn't support absolute priority.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:31:07
I think it's IRT stuff
Paul McGrady
01:31:45
Can we walk through how one gets applicant support? How many got it last time? Is this a big change or a small change?
Rubens Kuhl
01:31:54
But I do think we should limit the multiplier to a maximum, and leave the IRT to pick a number between 1 and ceiling.
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:13
Paul, only one got it last time, .kids.
Justine Chew
01:32:37
Out of 3 applications for ASP
Justine Chew
01:32:58
But small number due to lack of outreach/awareness
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:33:20
indeed!
Rubens Kuhl
01:33:28
Justine, rules also made people scare to apply for ASP and get thrown out of the process. Which I believe we changed for SubPro.
Justine Chew
01:33:51
True @Rubens. But that will change :)
Paul McGrady
01:33:59
@Rubens. Thanks. @Justine, how many do we think will get it with better outreach? I'm trying to figure out is this multiplier is a big ask or a small ask.
Rubens Kuhl
01:34:30
Paul, something ,more closer to 10 than to a 100 is my guess.
Justine Chew
01:34:39
@Paul, ask my crystal ball. Plus it onward issue is the ASP kitty is unknown.
Paul McGrady
01:34:58
10? 100? 1000?
Rubens Kuhl
01:35:02
So it would change one order of magnitude, but not two or more.
Paul McGrady
01:35:31
Thanks Jeff.
Justine Chew
01:35:36
The 2012 kitty was only USD2mil
Jim Prendergast
01:35:49
old sorry
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:58
Yes rescource limited
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:36:43
Need bigger kitty!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:36:56
MUST
Justine Chew
01:37:00
Yes, recommendation please
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:08
recommendation
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:37:20
recommendation
Rubens Kuhl
01:37:24
It's a MUST for ICANN but a SHOULD for IRT, IMHO.
Paul McGrady
01:37:52
+1 Ruben
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:37:57
should is as to amount of multiplier - not whether or not
Jim Prendergast
01:38:00
With the Bid credit, the supported applicant pays a percentage (less than 100%) of the winning bid, so its not cash out of ICANN budget. Just not as much going to them from the proceeds.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:38:20
right
Rubens Kuhl
01:38:26
If multiplier is 1, then there is no benefit. And this could be the number IRT comes to.
Paul McGrady
01:38:34
Should we have a ceiling on the multiplier?
Jim Prendergast
01:38:42
new hand
Rubens Kuhl
01:38:45
Paul, I would put a ceiling of 2x.
Rubens Kuhl
01:38:51
But that's just me.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:38:57
no - we lack expertise - let is be IRT
Rubens Kuhl
01:39:38
I believe we lost JIm
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:38
losy @Jim?
Paul McGrady
01:39:40
Is that Jim or us?
Paul McGrady
01:39:44
Yes
Justine Chew
01:39:45
Yes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:46
Yes
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:39:54
yes jeff - lost jim
Justine Chew
01:40:18
Concept of multiplier
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:40:25
"bid credit in the form of a multiplier or other mechanism"
Jim Prendergast
01:40:37
I got cut off - multiplier is one type but bid credit is another. Lets not specific the exact typ of support but have the auction provider make a recommendation to IRT
Rubens Kuhl
01:40:38
So it could be a +amount, if I understood Jim.
Jim Prendergast
01:41:47
that auction provder made enough off ICANN that they would probably offer advice for free
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:42:26
NO CAP - we don't have the expertise
christopher wilkinson
01:42:31
I still have the strongest reservations about having auctions at all.
Jim Prendergast
01:42:43
i think my audio is back
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:56
yes
Rubens Kuhl
01:43:58
The examples I know from public sector in Brazil are always multipliers, but leaving it to IRT discretion is fine.
Justine Chew
01:45:16
Ok thanks
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:21
Percentage bid credit or multiplier as developed by the IRT with public comment?
Paul McGrady
01:45:22
Paul hand
Rubens Kuhl
01:45:45
Percentage is a multiplier
Jim Prendergast
01:47:13
lets put that kind of restriction in.
Maxim Alzoba
01:47:22
hope they don't keep the change
Jim Prendergast
01:47:29
ICANN has to approve the transfer of registr agreements
Susan.Payne
01:47:40
yeah right jim
Elaine Pruis
01:47:40
have them pay back the offset
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:49
Safeguard would be at that stage I bekeive @Jim yes
Paul McGrady
01:48:03
Can we keep going with this on the next call? We have 4 minutes left and this is important stuff.
Susan.Payne
01:48:07
I don't think paying back is adequate if they beat other applicants as a result of it
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:48:13
stay With a status or pay back the $$$$
Rubens Kuhl
01:48:16
More to ASP in general, ICANN should also look into ASP status before approving a transaction.
Rubens Kuhl
01:48:56
But a change of cost control does not automatically imply profit, it could be a save-the-TLD operation like .HIV.
Jim Prendergast
01:49:01
5 years and 200% of the offset
Rubens Kuhl
01:49:03
(change of control)
Paul McGrady
01:49:40
Can we keep going with this on the next call? We have 4 minutes left and this is important stuff.
Poncelet Ileleji
01:49:41
Voice lost
Poncelet Ileleji
01:49:43
Okay
Jim Prendergast
01:49:47
i thought for a sec the call just ended
Annebeth Lange
01:50:19
I do think the question from Susan makes sense
Paul McGrady
01:50:32
Thanks Jeff. Lots to think about so a little more air time on the call would be appreciated.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:50:37
No transfer of ownership during first contract period of ten years?
Julie Hedlund
01:51:07
Next Meeting is Thursday, 11 June at 2000 UTC.
Annebeth Lange
01:51:30
Bye all
Kathy Kleiman
01:51:41
Tx Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:08
Again Great progress again today... Thanks everyone! Use the list please … Bye for now...
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:22
bye all