[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 19 February 2019

Tue Feb 19 21:16:57 UTC 2019

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 19 February 2019. 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/2019-02-19+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.

Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBCWTvoan6g/edit#gid=2003620097.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Notes and Action Items:

Actions:

ACTION ITEM 1: 2.2.e.1: RySG Comment -- request for clarification on their statement: "If private resolutions and private auctions are to be prohibited from the next round, ICANN must first conduct and then publish an legal analysis supporting the prohibition of these methods of contention resolution."

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs):

Cheryl Langdon-Orr(@CLO3 PDP Co-Chair): My minor SOI update (shared with a SG or two already) is my recent confirmation as ATRT3 Co-Chair -Patrick Kane from Verisign is the other Co-Chair FYI

2. Discussion of Role of GNSO Council Liaisons:

-- Two (new) GNSO Council Liaisons: Elsa Saade and Flip Petillion.

-- Roll of the GNSO Council Liaison has changed -- improvement is the further definition of the role.

-- Much more important role than in the past.

-- See: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-liaison-wg-22feb18-en.pdf.

-- Make sure that any concerns the WG members may have are conveyed to the GNSO Council (if they can't be resolved at the WG level).

-- Also keeps the Council up to date on PDP WG status and any issues that may arisse.

3. Discussion of the Draft Work Plan:

See Draft Work Plan at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9pIXkiu_d5zPVqTM09Z5BiJ1Y3-mhnwaZLPfDDcnI4/edit?usp=sharing

-- Envisions WT5 joining up with the full WG.

-- Finish 2 of 3 Sub Groups before Kobe -- SG A and C.

-- Sub Group B will complete by end of March.

-- WG can begin review of topics even before SG B is finished.

-- Remove 25 Feb call from the Work Plan as it was canceled.

-- Staff have completed draft comment tool and analysis of WT5 Supplemental Initial Report comments.

-- Work Plan doesn't include another comment period -- not to say that we won't have one, but it hasn't definitely been decided.

-- Add dates and times for ICANN64 Meetings and topics.

4. Continue Review of Supplemental Initial Report Public Comments – see the document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBCWTvoan6g/edit#gid=2003620097

-- 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort:

2.1.e.3:

Line 63, ALAC -- New Idea (Supports modified Vickrey auction)

Line 64, RySG -- New Idea (Consider multiplier for qualified applicants/more data is needed.)

Line 65, IPC -- New Idea (Principles of 'fairness" should not conflict with IP rights)

Line 66, RySG -- New Idea (Supports Vickrey auction/but balance fairness and competition)

Line 67, Neustar -- New Idea (fairness not considered in isolation)

LIne 68, NCSG -- New Idea (suggests consulting with auction specialists)

Line 69, BRG -- Divergence (support current process as mechanism of last resort, doesnt agree that it is unfair)

2.1.e.4:

Line 71, BC -- Agreement (eliminate auction of last resort/supports RFP process and Vickrey auction)

Line 72, IPC -- Agreement (qualified support for Random Drawing) Divergence (opposes RFP)

LIne 73, RySG -- Agreement (qualified support for Random Drawing) Divergence (opposes RFP)

Line 74, Neustar -- Agreement (qualified support for Random Drawing) Divergence (opposes RFP)

Line 75, NCSG -- Concerns (with comparative evaluations) Divergence (auctions of last resort remain the best method)

Line 76, BRG -- Divergence (support current process as mechanism of last resort)

Line 77, ALAC -- Divergence (supports Vickrey auction over RFPs or Random Draw)

2.1.e.5:

Line 79, NCSG -- Agreement (supports limits)

Line 80, BRG -- Divergence (support current process as mechanism of last resort)

Line 81, ALAC -- Divergence (opposes limits/supports multiplier-enhanced Vickrey auction)

Line 82, IPC -- Divergence (opposes limits)

Line 83, RySG -- Divergence (opposes limits/support for Vickery auction)

Line 84, Neustar -- Divergence (opposes limits)

-- 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (including Private Auctions):

Summary: Very little support to elimination of all mechanisms of private resolutions; also not much support for raising fees.

General Comments:

Line 4, GAC -- Agreement (supports measure to disincentivise private auctions)

Line 5, RrSG -- Support (qualified -- consider high fees to reduce speculative applications) Concerns (any action ICANN might try to prevent private resolution) New Idea (one round then move to FCFS)

Line 6, ICANN Board -- Concerns (new procedures that may be open to abuse)

Line 7, ALAC -- Divergence (strongly against private resolution)

2.2.d.1:

Line 9, ALAC -- Agreement (supports option to disallow private resolution where there is a financial benefit)

From the chat:

Justine Chew: @jeff, correct, we oppose private auctions namely

Justine Chew: and any form of private resolutions which result in financial benefit to applicant withdrawing application in a contention set

Line 10, RySG -- Agreement (some support for disallowing private resolutions)  New Idea (some support for recreative contention resolution) Divergence (some oppose the option to disallow private resolution)

Line 11, BRG -- Divergence (opposes restrictions on private auctions)

Line 12, IPC -- Divergence (opposes restrictions on private resolution)

Line 13, Neustar -- Divergence (opposes disallowing private resolution)

2.2.d.2:

Line 15, RySG -- Agreement (some support disallowing private resolution) Divergence (some oppose disallowing private resolution)

Line 16, BRG -- Divergence (opposes disallowing private resolution)

Line 17, ALAC -- Divergence (opposes disallowing private resolution)

Line 18, IPC -- Divergence (opposes disallowing private resolution)

Line 19, Neustar -- Divergence (opposes disallowing private resolution)

2.1.d.2.2:

Line 21, BRG -- Divergence (opposes drawing as an alternative to private resolution)

2.2.d.3:

Line 23, ALAC -- Agreement (supports allowing some types of private resolutions but disallowing others)

Line 24, IPC -- Agreement (supports allowing some types of private resolutions but disallowing others)

Line 25, RySG -- Agreement (some support the option)

Divergence (some oppose disallowing some types of private resolutions but disallowing others)

LIne 26, Neustar -- Divergence (opposes allowing some types of private resolutions but disallowing others)

Line 27, BRG -- Divergence (opposes disallowing some types of private resolutions)

2.2.e.1:

LIne 29, BRG -- Agreement (supports allowing private resolutions, but no suggesting for how to distribute funds)

Line 30, ALAC -- Agreement (but support for Vickrey auction and oppose applicant financial benefit) New Idea (handle funds in the same manner as the 2012 round)

Line 31, Neustar -- Agreement (support allowing private resolution) New Idea (funds distribted among those in the contention set)

Line 32, RySG -- Agreement (some support for allowing private resolution and for ICANN to manage the funds) Divergence (some oppose allowing private resolution)

Lien 33, NCSG -- Divergence (opposes private resolution)

2.2.e.2:

Line 35, BRG -- [Doesn't directly answer the question, supports private resolution]

Line 36, Neustar -- [no opinion]

Line 37, ALAC -- Agreement (equally problematic across TLDs, but geo names may have different factors)

Line 38, NCSG -- Agreement (that private auctions are always problematic)

Line 39, RySG -- Agreement (some agree that private resolutions are problematic across all TLD types)

Divergence (some oppose restricting the use of private resolution)

Line 40, IPC -- Divergence (doesn't agree that private resolutions are problematic)

2.2.e.3:

Line 42, NIXI -- Agreement (supports prohibition in the AGB, T&Cs, RA) Divergence (opposes increasing application fees)

Line 43, ALAC -- Agreement (supports prohibition in the AGB, T&Cs, RA) Divergence (opposes increasing application fees)

Line 44, RySG -- Agreement (some support Vickrey auction and ramifications for private resolutions)

Divergence (some oppose restricting private resolutions)

Line 45, NCSG -- Agreement (supports prohibition in the AGB, T&Cs, RA) Divergence (opposes increasing application fees)

Line 46, BRG -- Divergence (opposes restricting private resolutions)

Line 47, IPC -- Divergence (opposes restricting private resolutions)

Line 48, Neustar -- Divergence (oppose restricting private resolutions)

2.2.e.4:

Line 50, NCSG -- Agreement (that some private resolutions are problematic and some requirements in T&Cs)

Line 51, ALAC -- Agreement (supports restrictions where losing applicant receives financial benefit)

Divergence (opposes ban on private resolution)

Line 52, RySG -- Agreement (some support prohibiting private resolutions)

Divergence (some do not think private resolution is problematic)

Line 53, BRG -- Divergence (does not think private resolution is problematic)

Line 54, IPC -- Divergence (does not think private resolution is problematic)

Line 55, Neustar -- Divergence (does not think private resolution is problematic)

2.2.e.5:
Line 57, NCSG -- Agreement (that there may be private resolutions that are appropriate with transparent T&Cs)
Line 58, ALAC -- New Idea (review on a case-by-case basis)
Line 59, RySG -- Agreement (some support some restrictions) Divergence (some oppose restrictions on private resolution)
Line 60, BRG -- Divergence (opposes restrictions on private resolution)
Line 61, IPC -- Divergence (disagrees that there is an issue)
Line 62, Neustar -- Divergence (disagrees that there is an issue)

2.2.e.6:

Line 64, RySG -- Agreement (some agree with qualifications) Divergence (some oppose use of an application fee as a control mechanism)

Line 65, IPC -- New Idea (if higher fee combine with partial refunds)

Divergence (opposes use of an application fee as a control mechanism; application fees should be cost-neutral)

Line 66, BRG -- Divergence (opposes use of an application fee as a control mechanism)

Line 67, ALAC -- Divergence (opposes use of an application fee as a control mechanism)

Line 68, Neustar -- Divergence (opposes use of an application fee as a control mechanism)

Line 69, NCSG -- Divergence (opposes use of an application fee as a control mechanism)

2.3: Role of Application Comment

General Comments:

Line 4, GAC -- Supports Early Warning and AGB-consensus advice; welcomes dialogue to increase transparency and fairness; opposes the PDP making recommendations on GAC activities; notes that change to the likely operator of a gTLD should invoke notification requirement and possible re-evaluation, including public comment

Line 5, ALAC -- Agreement (Supports the WG’s preliminary recommendations 2.3.c.1 -- optimize the mechanisms and system for Application Comment; 2.3.c.2 -- ICANN to be more explicit in the Applicant Guidebook on how public comments are to be utilized; 2.3.e.1 -- CPE to run parallel to the Initial Evaluation comment period; 2.3.e.3 -- applicants limited period to respond to late comments)

Line 6, BC -- Agreement (2.3.c.2 -- Requiring response when comment may impact scoring; 2.3.c.1 -- Verifying commenter;  2.3.e.1 -- longer comment period)

Line 7, RrSG -- Agreement (2.3.c.1 -- verifying commenter; 2.3.c.2 and 2.3.e.2 -- allow applicants to respond)

Start on line 8 for the next meeting.

5. Update on ICANN64:

-- Schedule released, SubPro is mostly on Saturday. WT5 in the morning and full WG in the afternoon, as well as one session on Wednesday.

-- Can change the Wednesday session if there is anything else we need to devote time to.

-- For the WG meeting, we may pick out some full WG topics on which we need to make progress.  For example, the notion of the close of an application round and the ramification of defining the close of a round.  Recap comments we have and how to move forward.

-- There will be remote participation as usual.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190219/f6ecd366/attachment-0001.html>