[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 31 July 2018

Julie Hedlund julie.hedlund at icann.org
Tue Jul 31 04:43:21 UTC 2018

Dear Working Group members,


Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 31 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/2018-07-31+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP. 


Please also see the attached referenced slides.


Kind regards,


Julie Hedlund, Policy Director






1. Agenda Review/SOIs: None.


2. Auctions: Private Auctions


-- Slide 2: Auctions -- Private Auctions

-- Slide 3: Auctions: Private Auctions, Cont.

-- Slide 4: Private Auctions Discussion -- ICANN62

-- Slide 5: Private Auctions Discussion -- ICANN62, Cont.

-- Slide 6: Private Auctions



-- Allowing other options for contention set resolutions -- such as joint ventures.

-- An application fee might not resolve it.

-- Surprised that there is so much money in this  We should not increase the applications fee.  

-- Public auctions should be preferred to private auctions.

-- Don't suggest going to the FTC.

-- Didn't know there was a ban on joint ventures in the previous round.  There was a ban because you were substituting the officers from the company.

-- If there are auctions they should be used in a useful manner.

-- If we come up with good reasons for a joint venture and redoing evaluations then it might be better than going to private auctions.

-- It is settled law that there is no way to prevent or limit private auctions; but at ICANN62 we discussed the threat that if a name had been settled via private auction then the name could be taken away.

-- There are ways to limit auctions, such has how auction houses do it.  We probably need to do more research.

-- If ultimately we as a WG decide that private auctions are not allowed then we would have to edit the AGB.  Should we allow applicants to work it amoung themselves?

-- Try to come up with a combination that will work.

-- All of the applications were open in the 12 - month comment period.

-- Need  to separate community-based applications


>From the chat:

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): yes, selling shares after that would help avoiding auctions

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I referred to joint ventures

Jeff Neuman: The discussion on joint ventures also relates to the topic from the last call on what changes to applications should be allowed, when should they be allowed, and how are they evaluated.  

Jim Prendergast: yes it does - lots of tie ins between these topics

Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Indeed @Jeff, we do need to further discuss and perhaps consider recommendations relating to "changes to applications to be allowed"  and for the record, I agree with the sentiment that  any fees price elevation(s) would never be sufficient to  damp down the profiteering from string auctions.

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): ICANN is a legal body established in US, that is why FTC might be applicable (and amounts of USD in the process)

Christopher Wilkinson: Thanks, Jeff. JVs: there will always be some changes in management structure of Registries and applicants.

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what to do with travelhotelcarfood TLD? claiming to be contentious with travel and hotel and car and food

Jim Prendergast: make it as part of the T&Cs and sever financial penalties or the take back as Jeff just said

Justine Chew: Agree with Jeff and Jim. Ultimately can ICANN not withhold delegation related to gTLD which are subject to such private auctions?

Jim Prendergast: There may be some prohibitions in the real estate market on private auctions

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): the current language of AGB is a auction and "Applicants are encouraged to resolve string contention cases among themselves prior to the string contention resolution stage.". - so formally  it does not sat that private auctions are forbidden

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it was page 1-13

Justine Chew: Yes, sure, but AGB can be altered.

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): yes, I meant that without the change of the text it will be the same

Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Indeed Justine very much our job to make any such recommendations to do so in fact :-)

Justine Chew: ... to allow resolution by means that the group considers are desirable, of course.

Steve Chan: i believe the context of encouraging applicants to work it out themselves was indeed, because the ICANN auctions were supposed to be last resort.


3. Role of Application Comment


-- Slide 8: Role of Application Comment 

-- Slide 9: Role of Application Comment, Cont.

-- Slide 10: Input from ICANN62: -- Could try to do something that might help the applicant to have more time to discard.

-- Slide 11: Input from ICANN62

-- Slide 12: Role of Application Comment



-- Do we want to open it up so that the applicant has more time to respond?

--- What are the rules around pubic?

-- Provide more guidance in the application period.

-- Don't believe there was a period for application comment to be submitted.

-- Balance of equal application -- community applications were subject to comments to coming in much later than other applications, such as letters of opposition coming in a year and a half later.


>From the chat:

Steve Chan: Spot on Martin, less than 1% of the 12,691 resulted in Clarifying Questions

Jeff Neuman: There was one other purpose (sort of)....which was that the Independent Objector was supposed to review the public comments and then he or she could only file an objection IF there were public comments against that application as well.  In other words, if there were no public comments filed on an application, the IO could not file an objection on that string

Jim Prendergast: i cant remember but did the Staff Issue report go into any detal about what was actually done with all these commnets?

Steve Chan: @Jim, this topic was not specifically identified in the Final Issue Report actually.

Jim Prendergast: and im guessing that this go around, we wont be seeing lawyers filing comments on 600+ applications since it's unclear what the impact of those were

Jim Prendergast: should add - the same comment on 600 applications

Jeff Neuman: So the question still remains....what do we believe should be the role of public comments?

Steve Chan: @Jim again, the Program Implementation Review Report talks about the breakdown of comments, as well as how the comments were considered by each panel

Michael Flemming: I think this question was raised in change request as well

Justine Chew: Can someone please remind me if a flow+timeline chart for Application Comment been drawn up and circulated to WG prior to this?

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): analogue of SOI for comments?

Jeff Neuman: @Maxim - Yes in a way.  WHen comments are made, in order to have an impact on the evaluation is is critical to know who is making the comment and whether they have an ulterior motive in making the comment

Jeff Neuman: Some applicants believed that to respond to a comment publicly gave those comments more credibility than they should have had.

Jeff Neuman: So in many cases, unless scoring would be affected, it was better to not respond

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff then some kind of "short certification" might be required (like are you affiliated with an applicant, e.t.c.)

Jim Prendergast: i think the requirment was an email and a name and thats it.

Martin Sutton: thanks Jim, good to know

Jim Prendergast: how many applications actually failed evaluation?

Jim Prendergast: we could be trying to solve for a non exitent problem.  over 10,000 comments submitted and no impact?

Jim Prendergast: Community apps excepted from that comment of course

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I wonder if asking firend to file a comment is a workaround to avoid conflict of interest in the self certification 

Christa Taylor 2: I can't recall the timeline between comments and CQ's.  Was there sufficient time for them to go through the system and be consolidated into the CQs?

Jim Prendergast: QCs took months to come ou

Jeff Neuman: No, I just said we needed to separate community based applications from others, because public comments play a different role

Steve Chan: @Christa, I am not certain, but I believe the application comment period closed at least two weeks prior to the initiation of initial evaluation. And as Jim mentioned, it took several months to beging releasing CQs.

Justine Chew: Hence my request for a flowchart+timeline of process....

Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Agreed @Martin we need absolute clarity on this ( is that exists ;-) 

Jeff Neuman: There were several types of public comment periods.  There was technically a public comment period of 30 days after any change was made to an app.  But here we are just talking about the initial period when applications first come int

Jeff Neuman: in

Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Yes @Jaustine, that seems worthy indeed.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO PDP Co-Chair): sorry typo extrodinaire @Justine

Steve Chan: @Martin, we want to try and leave about 15 minutes to cover the Work Plan and AOB. Let's try to wrap up this topic for today at 15 after the hour?

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): if we need to attach qualifications to comments - then this bit needs to be extended "To be considered by evaluators, comments must be received in the designated comment forum within the stated time period." (page 1-6)

Steve Chan: Perhaps I missed it, but did we skip 5?

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): system might be opened with no ability to add comments 

Steve Chan: @Jamie, I believe there was still a cutoff, but of course, that cutoff came far later for CPE than for Initial Evaluation.

Justine Chew: Answer to Q5 is "No". Support Jamie's point against an no-end comment period for Community applications by any means.

Justine Chew: In other words, there should be a consistent application across the board.


4. Proposed Work Plan up to ICANN63


- Next call is 13 August --- registrar support for new registries.

-- What happens if new registries can't find a registrar.

-- How to determine consensus.

-- Need to come out with a supplemental report on the 5 issues.

-- Be ready to address the public comments in September (17 September).

-- Work plan is out there.

-- Late September break up into three sub groups.

-- Get a supplemental report out before ICANN63.


>From the chat:

Jim Prendergast: How would the potential extension  of the comment period you discussed for the GAC impact the work plan?  

Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO PDP Co-Chair): We can be flexible, especially with planning and cooperation

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): GAC seems to be issuing bits of text only when they had some work done on those particular bits between ICANN meetings


- Don't think it will.  Try to coordinate with the ICANN staff assisting the GAC to try to understand what their points are.

-- Anything we can do to get a heads up from the GAC will be helpful.

-- Filed a request for a session at the ICANN63 meeting for a high-interest topic session.  There are fewer high-interest topic sessions at this meeting.  Not sure when we will know if we get it.

-- Separate request for a work track 5 session.

-- There will be face-to-face sessions.  They will likely have conflicts.


5. AOB: None

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180731/e59adcdf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Application Comment 30Jul2018.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 377904 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180731/e59adcdf/ApplicationComment30Jul2018-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Private Auctions 20180728v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 360635 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180731/e59adcdf/PrivateAuctions20180728v2-0001.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/20180731/e59adcdf/smime-0001.p7s>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list