<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Book Antiqua";
panose-1:2 4 6 2 5 3 5 3 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 7 2 5 8 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal0;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.plaintextchar0
{mso-style-name:plaintextchar;}
span.emailstyle21
{mso-style-name:emailstyle21;}
span.emailstyle22
{mso-style-name:emailstyle22;}
span.emailstyle23
{mso-style-name:emailstyle23;}
span.emailstyle24
{mso-style-name:emailstyle24;}
span.emailstyle25
{mso-style-name:emailstyle25;}
span.emailstyle26
{mso-style-name:emailstyle26;}
span.emailstyle27
{mso-style-name:emailstyle27;}
span.emailstyle28
{mso-style-name:emailstyle28;}
span.emailstyle29
{mso-style-name:emailstyle29;}
span.emailstyle30
{mso-style-name:emailstyle30;}
span.emailstyle31
{mso-style-name:emailstyle31;}
span.emailstyle32
{mso-style-name:emailstyle32;}
span.emailstyle33
{mso-style-name:emailstyle33;}
span.emailstyle34
{mso-style-name:emailstyle34;}
span.emailstyle35
{mso-style-name:emailstyle35;}
span.emailstyle36
{mso-style-name:emailstyle36;}
span.emailstyle37
{mso-style-name:emailstyle37;}
span.emailstyle38
{mso-style-name:emailstyle38;}
span.emailstyle39
{mso-style-name:emailstyle39;}
p.msonormal1, li.msonormal1, div.msonormal1
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle43
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle44
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle45
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle46
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle47
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle48
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle49
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle50
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle51
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle52
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle53
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle54
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle55
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle56
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle57
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle58
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle59
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle60
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle61
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle62
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#000000" vlink="#000000"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Additionally to Jamie’s thoughtful thoughts I would like to point out the 2012 issue of “community designation gaming”:<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>A few applicants had (and more would do in the next round if we do not close that loophole) applied for the same string as standard and community based application.<br><br>As the refund was 80% you could this way for US $35k “buy an insurance”:<br>If you had no contention – then you would ditch your community applicant and circumvented the clearly stated requirement to keep the restrictions the AGB imposed on community applicants (namely being authenticated). If you HAD contention – you could ditch the standard applicant! Either way the total cost was just 35k! <br><br>Why would we allow to circumvent essential AGB provisions for a few ten thousand USD? If the application floor is 50k – and we have ridiculous high refunds of 80% again: such “insurance” would then even only cost US $10k! We need to close that loophole. Someone who is controlling (directly or indirectly) a community and a standard application for the identical string should be ENTIRELY kicked out of the round – and no refund either. Alternatively we do strike the provision that community applicants have to keep their restrictions even if they do NOT have contention or do NOT win the CPE. Which I wouldn’t recommend as it leads to even more gaming. <br><br>Thoughts?<br><br>Alexander<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jamie Baxter<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 09, 2019 5:03 PM<br><b>To:</b> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 August 2019<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>To follow on from Thursday’s conversation of prioritizing Community applications, I would offer the following.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>Results of implementation decisions from the 2012 round resulted in all Community applications in contention being forced to endure one of the longest paths to contention resolution, regardless of how low their prioritization number was in the lottery draw. Without changes, this will absolutely happen again in subsequent procedures.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>A core reason for Community applications in contention enduring long delays en route to contention resolution was the implementation decision to hold all Community Priority Evaluations (CPE) until the entire contention set was through initial evaluation. With some contention sets having more than half a dozen applicants, or even a single applicant at the end of the prioritization queuing, this immediately forced community applicants into unexpected delays to reach resolution (CPE or otherwise). Contention sets without Community applicants did not endure the same long delays of CPE results before moving to contention resolution.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>We now know that CPE was not fully designed or ready for prime time at the start of the 2012 round (fact, not opinion), with many decisions about CPE procedures and evaluators happening well after reveal day and into the initial evaluation stage. This may have been why ICANN choose to place CPE at the end of the 2012 round, however I would like to think we are in a better place going into subsequent procedures to avoid the same mistakes.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>Under the current implementation guidance, a Standard applicants choice to not be in the prioritization draw could also become a gaming tactic used to further delay Community applicants from learning the results of CPE. Are we comfortable with that?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>What is dysfunctional about this implementation decision is that it takes the longest and most expensive route for the entire contention set to reach decisions on CPE. CPE is actually the quickest way to resolve a contention set, and a positive CPE result could spare Standard applicants in the contention set any expense for initial evaluation. CPE should be at the front of the process and not at the end, which means prioritizing Community applicants during initial evaluation is important.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>Concern was expressed by Paul McGrady on the call about giving priority to “so-called communities,” however if that is the concern it seems even more prudent that you get to the bottom of CPE decisions early in the process and not at the end. There is no advantage actually offered or given to anyone if a Community applicant cannot pass CPE, however it does help answer a key contention resolution question upfront before thousands of dollars are spent on the initial evaluation of Standards in the contention set, or thousands of dollars are handed over to ICANN’s litigation fund from applicants that have no chance to proceed because of a successful CPE in their contention set. Are we comfortable spending money that does not need to be spent?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>I’ve tried to look at this issue from the viewpoint of a Standard applicant as well. I would like to think that if my Standard application was in contention with a Community applicant that it would be helpful to know if they succeed in CPE before my application fee gets wasted on an initial evaluation that will have no meaning. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>Having heard the concerns and comments, my suggestion would be that Community applicants in contention be prioritized during initial evaluation so that they can elect to start CPE as early as possible. This would also put a requirement on the Community applicant to commit to the CPE costs upfront in order to take part in the prioritization drawing. If their initial evaluation is successful they will immediately begin CPE. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>Standard applicants could choose to delay their initial evaluation pending CPE results, or elect to proceed as per their prioritization number knowing evaluation costs against their application fee will begin to accumulate and be un-recoupable. In the event of an unsuccessful CPE, Standard applicants could elect to merge into the initial evaluation schedule in accordance with their prioritization number. This does give options to Standard applicants, but it also helps de-prioritize initial evaluations that have no urgency attached to them. Urgency does exist with Community applicants in contention because of the lengthy CPE process that still needs to follow. I will remind everyone that CPE has taken up to 9 months in the past, whereas initial evaluation was a much shorter time period.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>I also believe that this helps reduce gaming, both from applicants trying to use the community path to their advantage and those trying to derail applicants on the community path. If CPE can be resolved up front then much time, resources and money is saved, but if CPE is unsuccessful then it is at least known upfront and gives no further priority to the Community applicant on the alternative route to contention resolution.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>Let’s be sure to remember that the 2012 round was made up along the way with respect to Community applicants and CPE (fact, not opinion), and it didn’t actually benefit any type of application in the end. Standard applicants in the contention set waited just as long to get resolve in contention resolution, but everyone could get some benefit (time & cost) from prioritizing Community applicants and moving CPE to a much earlier place in the proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>Thanks for hearing me out on this topic.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>Jamie<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:6.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' id=replyBlockquote><div id=wmQuoteWrapper><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent<br>Procedures PDP WG - 08 August 2019<br>From: Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org"><span style='color:windowtext'>julie.hedlund@icann.org</span></a>><br>Date: Thu, August 08, 2019 6:09 pm<br>To: "<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"><span style='color:windowtext'>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</span></a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"><span style='color:windowtext'>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</span></a>><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Dear Working Group members,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 August 2019. <b><i>These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat,</i></b> which will be posted at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-08-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP" target="_blank"><u><span style='color:blue'>https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-08-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP</span></u></a>. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Notes and Action Items:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span></b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Actions:</span></b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Proposal: Make priority numbers transferable between applications in an applicant portfolio:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>ACTION ITEM: See whether there is enough support to keep this as a recommendation. Christa Taylor and Paul McGrady will work on language.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Proposal: Priority processing for certain strings:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>ACTION ITEM: Explore further the proposal to have community applications be prioritized. Jamie Baxter to propose language in a separate thread.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Proposal: Prioritization of applications in the next round over those in subsequent rounds/windows:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>ACTION ITEM: Susan Payne to send the proposal to the list to see if there is support.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Proposal: Change to the applied-for string to a closely related string to avoid contention. Re-evaluation would be required. There would be possible additional costs to applicant:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>ACTION ITEM: Jeff to write up a proposal.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Notes:</span></b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>2. Review of summary document:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>a. Application Queuing (continued), beginning on page 2 – See: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhEcNGM/edit" target="_blank"><u><span style='color:blue'>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhEcNGM/edit#</span></u></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Make priority numbers transferable between applications in an applicant portfolio:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- ICANN Org concern about secondary market for priority numbers<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- So you can't do this if your string is in contention.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- That sounds sensible and there is broad support for this (only Registrars and 1 individual stated they were against it).</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- See if we can find that there is enough support for this proposal. Not enough support in the comments to support or not support.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Priority numbers transferred with same owner should be fine. Should not be creating a secondary market in priority numbers.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>ACTION ITEM: See whether there is enough support to keep this as a recommendation. Christa Taylor and Paul McGrady will work on language.</span></b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Application Queuing if there is a first-come first-serve process:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- No consensus on having a first-come, first-served, process.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Priority processing for certain strings:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Default would be to keep the default as in 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Add a priority to application support applications.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Order from the 2012 round: Drawing 1: IDN applications for which a ticket had been purchased</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>● Drawing 2: Non-IDN applications for which a ticket had been purchased</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>● Drawing 3: IDN applications for which a ticket had NOT been purchased</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>● Drawing 4: Non-IDN applications for which a ticket had NOT been purchased</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Concern that portfolio applications undermine the basic commitment to enhancing competition and choice.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Evaluate community applications first since it is generally a longer cycle because of CPE. There is a larger issue about the expectation that a community application has to endure a longer application evaluation period.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Support that IDNs go first.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Do not support - As we saw from the last round, so-called community applications are quite controversial. I think AGB 2012 already gave them enough special rights.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- There was also discussion on having Applicant Support Applicants going first.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- IDNs could be treated as communities (people speaking the same language).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- It seems to me that if CPE occurs early and that application fails CPE, it may clear the way for other applicants for that string and they will get to market sooner. It makes sense for everyone and the marketplace in general to get to CPE as early as possible.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- What about an Applicant Support applicant who needs time to raise funds if they are not eligible for AS funds?</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Only heard 2 individuals supporting the new special treatment for community applications. Is that enough to keep itu alive? Seems like we could put that one to rest.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- ALAC also expressed a preference for giving community applications priority.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>ACTION ITEM: Explore further the proposal to have community applications be prioritized. Jamie Baxter to propose language in a separate thread.</span></b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Prioritization of applications in the next round over those in subsequent rounds/windows:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- COMMENT: 2012 applications are out of scope for this policy process - not in the PDP Charter. The other issue is that applications made in 2012 may or may not meet the policies adopted for the next round. In addition, a determination as to what is "confusingly similar' is a matter for the String Confusion Objection, not a matter for preventing an application from being made. We can't put a "chilling effect" on new applicants. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- This isn’t a suggestion to change the past round.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- We still have applications from 2012 pending out there and we need to know how they will be dealt with</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- From the Valideus comment: “Although it does not expressly say so, this recomemndation should also apply to any applications from the 2012 round which remain pending - it should not be possible in a later application phase to submit an identical or confusingly similar application which takes precedence over one submitted in an earlier application phase.“<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- COMMENT @ Paul et al - Knowing how to deal with those 2012 applications does not mean there should be a ban on new applications for that same string. You could say there would be no contention set but you can't say no one can apply for that string. It violates the Principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression. That's a long term policy issue for all Subsequent Rounds. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Valideus: If there still something from round one unresolved, aren’t we doing a disservice to new applicants who might apply for something that might never be available.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- COMMENT: Round 2 applicants can decide whether or not they want to take the risk of applying for the same string or not. COMMENT</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>COMMENT: If policies change, the first application could fail. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- It should be at their own (hopefully informed) risk; you pay yer money and you take your chances.</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- It is possible to have a list (or a place to go to) to check if an application is still pending (at least we can recommend that)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Application status is available here from the 2012 round applications: <a href="https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/viewstatus" target="_blank"><u><span style='color:blue'>https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/viewstatus</span></u></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- At the time the application window is opened, there should be a list readily available that identifies strings that are in some kind of 'pending' status.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- ACTION ITEM: Susan Payne to send the proposal to the list to see if there is support.</span></b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>ICANN Org: WG should clarify what is meant by “must have priority over applications submitted in any subsequent rounds/application windows.” For example must all applications in a current round complete contracting prior to any application in a subsequent round being able to sign a Registry Agreement? Note that priority number is also used in other program phases to prioritize applications (i.e., contracting and RST).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Didn’t get support for this concern.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>b. Application Change Requests (page 5) -- See: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhEcNGM/edit" target="_blank"><u><span style='color:blue'>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhEcNGM/edit#</span></u></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Policy Goals: The framework for considering and responding to change requests should be clear, consistent, fair and predictable.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>High-Level Agreement:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Part of this is referring to the criteria that ICANN used into 2012 (in the Initial Report).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- The change request process and criteria are here: <a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/global-support/change-requests" target="_blank"><u><span style='color:blue'>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/global-support/change-requests</span></u></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Explanation: Is a reasonable explanation provided?</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>2. Evidence that original submission was in error: Are there indicia to support an</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>assertion that the change merely corrects an error?</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>3. Other third parties affected: Does the change affect other third parties</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>materially?</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>4. Precedents: Is the change similar to others that have already been approved?</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Could the change lead others to request similar changes that could affect third</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>parties or result in undesirable effects on the program?</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>5. Fairness to applicants: Would allowing the change be construed as fair to the</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>general community? Would disallowing the change be construed as unfair?</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>6. Materiality: Would the change affect the evaluation score or require reevaluation of some or all of the application? Would the change affect string</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>contention or community priority?</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>7. Timing: Does the timing interfere with the evaluation process in some way?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- When drafting in relation to pending applications still outstanding from 2012, could you be sure to cover the issue of possible non-compliance of those applications with new policy adopted subsequent to 2012? (I previously suggested, as Christopher Wilkinson pointed out on <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>On this point: If it is allowed that an applicant may change the applied-for string because the original string is in a contention set, the new string should not create a new contention set or enter into another existing contention set. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Not sure why this should be in the high-level agreement.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- It is here because it is conditional.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Suggested change to allow: Change to the applied-for string to a closely related string to avoid contention. Re-evaluation would be required. There would be possible additional costs to applicant:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Opposed: Risk of gaming, difficult situation for public and applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- How would this not be fair? The issue if it is generic/dictionary terms.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Modify the proposal that if you are a brand owner and had a trademark and wanted to change your string with a descriptor.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Raises a lot of questions about processes. There are much more complex examples.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- ICANN Org concerns: Very careful about change requests to the applied for string in the 2012 round. If an application is allowed to change the applied for string then all the applications would need to be re-evaluated. Could create additional contention sets. Very subjective to decide what “closely related” means.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- changing to something similar will open door to the applications made with intentions of future changes … it is bad from the public being confused during the comments phase<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- COMMENT: The issue re modification in the .brand realm is that the .brand applicant may not have trademark rights in the modified string. This would have to be put out for public comment. There could be other trademark holders who might object to the modified string as confusingly similar. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- I agree with the general idea that Kathy has put forward. I disagree with the idea that it should be limited to brands that are “non-generic terms.”<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Trademarks are inherently non-generic in their context, so the requirement is a non-sequitor</span><span style='font-family:"MS Gothic";color:black'>
</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- These revised string should still be subject to all the usual objection processes (not sure anyone said otherwise...).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- If we narrow down the proposal the complications go away.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- Don't support the proposal and share the concerns raised by Jamie and Trang. I don't believe this is as simple as you make it out to be.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>-- There may be some relevant comments to this discussion that were submitted under the topic of auctions of last resort -- there's some overlap in the two subjects and comments on them.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Change to the applied-for string to a closely related string to avoid contention. Re-evaluation would be required. There would be possible additional costs to applicant:</span></b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>ACTION ITEM: Jeff to write up a proposal.</span></b><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>_______________________________________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"><u><span style='color:blue'>Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</span></u></a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg"><u><span style='color:blue'>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</span></u></a><br>_______________________________________________<br>By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy"><u><span style='color:blue'>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</span></u></a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"><u><span style='color:blue'>https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</span></u></a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div></body></html>