[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 July 2018

Julie Hedlund julie.hedlund at icann.org
Mon Jul 16 21:40:44 UTC 2018

Dear Working Group members,


Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 16 July 2018. 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, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2018-07-16+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP 


Please also see the attached referenced slides.


Kind regards,


Julie Hedlund, Policy Director




Action Items:


ACTION ITEM: Share schedule of upcoming calls

ACTION ITEM: Check on target date for Final Report from the CCT-RT




1.  Agenda Review/SOIs: None


2.  Brief recap from ICANN62 and status of Initial Report:


-- At ICANN62, three sessions for WTs 1-4 and two for WT5

-- First 2 sessions (for 1-4), went over status, next steps, how to achieve consensus, certain issues that did not seem to have received extensive enough discussion.

-- These newish issues will form the basis of discussions over the next couple of months, two of which are on today's agenda (auctions - mechanism of last resort and application change requests).

-- Other three topics are: Use of private auctions, role of application comment, registrar support for new gTLDs

-- Outcome from ICANN62 was that all 5 topics are good to continue to discuss. A supplemental report will likely be necessary. There may be additional topics that require deliberations.

-- 3rd session was on Initial Report, to listen to input. Initial Report published for public comment on schedule, open until 5 September. Letters sent to ICANN Board and GDD to invite their comment. Their input will be helpful to improve the final report.


3.  Proposed focus of work during Initial Report public comment period:


-- Plan moving forward.

-- Review the Final Report of the CCT-RT. Unavailable at this time, so continue on the 5 topics.

-- ICANN staff will prepare public comment and analysis  after period closes.

-- Proposed plan is to divide into three sub groups to consider the public comment received and continue deliberations.

-- Question: How will the WG appoint the members of the subgroups reviewing comments received?  Answer: Similar to the Work Tracks -- those who are interested in that subject area will join those lists (self selection).


4.  Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort


Slide 7: Auctions: Mechanism of Last Resort

-- Work Track 3 discussed whether auctions of last resort continue to be an appropriate method of resolving contention going forward. 

-- Community Comment 2 responses generally supported the idea that existing contention resolution mechanisms are sufficient. 

-- While some Work Track members questioned whether auctions of last resort are in the public interest, no alternatives were proposed. 

Questions (breakout groups at ICANN62):

--Do auctions continue to be an appropriate method for resolving contention? Why or why not?

-- If you do support the use of auctions, are changes needed to the way in which they were conducted by ICANN?  Why or Why Not?

-- If you do not support the use of auctions, what alternatives do you propose and why? 

-- Are there additional contention resolution methods that could be introduced while still maintaining auctions as a last resort?


Slides 8-9: Feedback Received at ICANN62:

-- One participant agreed that these should be maintained; the auctions were fair and provided an equal-opportunity way to solve a contention set.

-- Other members wanted to get rid of the auctions of last resort: not fair, focused on money rather than principles of community and diversity in the TLD ecosystem.  Proposed in lieu of: criteria should be established to award the TLD based on diversity. Examples: applicants first TLD; or applicant was more community focused rather than commercial focused; or applicant was minority supported.

-- Others were noncommittal on either yes or no: looking for more creative resolutions on a private basis rather than getting to a stage of last resort. Such as allowing two applicants to form a joint venture to operate the TLD together.

-- Discussion of perhaps fees being paid and evaluations started there could be a disclosure of contention sets to work on resolution, so people aren't out a huge sum of money.

-- Good feedback on ways that if we ultimately end up with an auction of last resort to mitigate the differences in the economic and social strata of applicants: RFP process with criteria with limits on pricing, rounds of bidding, etc.  In general there could be mechanisms to mitigate these vast differences.



-- Don't repeat the discussions that have happened in the auctions proceeds WG.   Note that this WG is not looking at auctions proceeds.

-- If applicant change requests were allowed, two applicants might be able to work it out without going to an auction.

-- Example: applications for .sas: if one had been allowed to change the applications it might have been resolved without going to auction.

-- Looking at other ways to increase diversity and avoid auctions, such as an RFP.

-- Relates to changes in applications, are there thoughts on whether members of a contention set should be allowed to negotiate to change their string istead of going to auction.

-- Value to allowing changes to contention sets, but there probably needs to be some evaluation and may need to look back at the 2012 round to find out why it wasn't allowed.

-- Question: Have we identified the origin of the use of auctions?  Is there a possibility to minimize the use of auctions?

-- Recognition that the community applicants go through a different route, so caution that if there is an opportunity for people to put a stake in the ground, how would that affect community applications.  Standard applications will move more quickly than communication applications.  If there are exceptions/changes to applications, there should be rules about how that happens.

-- Don't think we'll be able to avoid auctions entirely.  One other form of gaming that can be eliminated is to enter auctions to lose by applying for popular strings and getting paid to leave in a private auction.


>From the chat:

Jamie Baxter | dotgay: +1 to those views, suggestions, recommendations and focus of adding diversity into the gTLD eco-system in Group 1 discussions, instead of using an auction of last resort.
-- How do we take into consideration the situation?


Kurt Pritz: Before recommending that applicants can change the applied-for TLD to avoid contention, we should fully understand why that was not done in the round 6 years ago. Such a mechanism was carefully considered at that time. Dan Halloran or Karen Lentz could articulate it well. 

Jeff Neuman: Good point - Deviations must avoid similarity

Christopher Wilkinson: Greg is saying very much what I had in mind to say. Auctions distort the market in favour of the most well funded.

Karen Day: @Greg that was alos WT3, but I think if we apply the rules consistently the 2 processes could coincide - no plurals and allow app changes

Vanda Scartezini: good point Kurt, if we could listen to their explanation

Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT:  Making decisions based on criteria like diversity or community focus may not be within the scope of ICANN's mission and impinges on the Principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression.  Re: "within the ICANN mission", suggest this question be posed to ICANN Legal COMMENT

Vanda Scartezini: kavouss - a list of first one entering takes the name? no auction in this alternative... will work?

Martin Sutton: Perhaps an option is to avoid auctions altogether and use a lottery mechanism.

Christa Taylor: If two applicants are trademarked names, perhaps they should be able to change an application as it helps reduce the gaming concern

Christopher Wilkinson: In 1997 the EU formally opposed a lotterary as initially proposed by th IAHC! Back to the future. NO.

Gg Levine (NABP): The ability to change an application seems to make more sense than having someone have to decide which application is "better."

Martin Sutton: It could encourage applicants to resolve issues/change applications if the "lottery" is last resort.

Alexander Schubert: Lottery? So yo submit 10 applicatins for 1 string  and can be quite sure to get it?

Donna Austin, Neustar: What if you have 5 or  6 applications in contention?

Alexander Schubert: Lottery is a no-go.  

Kavouss Arasteh: By definition, An auction is a process where potential buyers place competitive bids on assets or services..The question is that does acution violate balance and equiotable opportunity?

Rubens Kuhl: One of the issues coming out of changing application to resolve contention is that if the string is changed, the whole string evaluation needs to be restarted almost from scratch.


5.  Application Change Requests


Slide 11: 

In the 2012 Round, ICANN used the following criteria when reviewing requests by applicants to make changes to a submitted application: 

-- Explanation – Is a reasonable explanation provided?

-- Evidence that original submission was in error – Are there indicia to support an assertion that the change merely corrects an error?

-- Other third parties affected – Does the change affect other third parties materially?

-- Precedents – Is the change similar to others that have already been approved? Could the change lead others to request similar changes that could affect third parties or result in undesirable effects on the program?

-- Fairness to applicants – Would allowing the change be construed as fair to the general community? Would disallowing the change be construed as unfair?

-- Materiality – Would the change affect the evaluation score or require re-evaluation of some or all of the application? Would the change affect string contention or community priority consideration?

-- Timing – Does the timing interfere with the evaluation process in some way? ICANN reserves the right to require a re-evaluation of the application in the event of a material change. This could involve additional fees or evaluation in a subsequent application round. (AGB §1.2.7.)


Slides 13-14: Feedback from ICANN62

-- A lot of input but some went outside of change requests, more to overall changes.

-- We can break the feedback into: timing, what we are changing, and why we are changing.

-- Re: when you can make changes was not described.

-- Suggestions to have a list of what changes you can make - related to what is a required change 

-- What role do public comments play?-- Revisit the issue of joint ventures.-- Need to talk about this more.



-- Are there certain types of changes that we think definitely not should be allowed?  Example: If someone filed as a community should they not be allowed to change to a regular application?  Are there changes we shouldn't allow?

-- Need to be able to understand if the change is to fix something.

-- Types of changes that were or were not allowed: correcting errors (.africa), changes in officers and boards of directors (but not ownership), changing the technical provider -- not sure if that was allowed.

-- On changing officers and directors -- not sure that should be asked in public comment.  What was really interesting is if someone made a change to a non-public portion of their application it was put out for comment but redacted.


>From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: So are there changes we should not allow

Christopher Wilkinson: Jeff: I gree. limit gaming.

Kavouss Arasteh: We need to have a list of allowable changes

Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: Maybe change to a Pre-approved Service (as per Work Track 4 recommendation) should be allowed?  What is the relationship between this process and the existing ICANN change processes followed by registries today?  COMMENT

Rubens Kuhl: And .madrid got a 2 year penalty due to that. 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Thx for joining Greg have a good meeting with the readout

Rubens Kuhl: I think one application changed technical provider. Actually, the original technical provider would the applicant itself, but they later realized they would fail technical evaluation. 

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it was well described by CORE at Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 11 October 2017 at 17:00 UTC

Alexander Schubert: How would changing RSPs or Directors of  Board solve string contention?

Steve Chan: All, you can find details about the change request process, including some statistics about those changes. in the New gTLD Program Implementation Review Report here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf. See page 35.

Donna Austin, Neustar: @Trang, up to what point in the process was this allowed without requiring re-evaluation?

Kavouss Arasteh: We really to agree on the list of items which do not results to acuction i.e allowed

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Michele, please add to Notes that me and Rubens refered to ALP process 

Trang Nguyen: @Donna, all the way up until contracting. All changes to RSPs required re-eval.

Rubens Kuhl: Exactly, Michele/Julie. 

Donna Austin, Neustar: thanks Trang

Kavouss Arasteh: by establishing the allowable changes the issue will be better managed

Kurt Pritz: (1) We should take into account the fact that we know which changes were allowed but we don’t have access to the change requests that were rejected and that might affect our thinking; (2) since we cannot anticipate all the types of change requests that might be submitted, does it make sense that we use criteria (as ICANN did) rather than try to enumerate the different types of changes. Maybe we could evaluate and possibly amend the criteria

Christopher Wilkinson: Christopher Wilkinson: Well, from a WT5 point of view, if a country changes its name during the application process (it has recently happened) then a change in the string should be allowd. CW

Jeff Neuman: At the end of the day, I think it will have to be criteria, but having a good idea of the types of things we want and dont want to allow will help with the criteria

Rubens Kuhl: Some rejected change requestes ended up in Request for Reconsideration and/or mentioned in IRPs, so we can find out about some, although not all, of them. 

Christa Taylor: Coming form the perspective of CQ questions may assist in what we might be allowable changes.  Additionally, one change could be for when applicants submit an application for a subsidiary without realizing the need for financial statements.  Allowing the applicant to change to the parent company might be worthy of consideration.

Jeff Neuman: At the end of the day, I think it will have to be criteria, but having a good idea of the types of things we want and dont want to allow will help with the criteria

Rubens Kuhl: Some rejected change requestes ended up in Request for Reconsideration and/or mentioned in IRPs, so we can find out about some, although not all, of them. 

Steve Chan: Here is the Program Implementation Review Report again: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180716/8a179a75/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SubPro Meeting_16July2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1049086 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180716/8a179a75/SubProMeeting_16July2018-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180716/8a179a75/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list