[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

Jamie Baxter jbaxter at spimarketing.com
Tue Aug 11 12:52:20 UTC 2020

Hey Jeff

As an applicant in the 2012 round, the AGB was clear that letters of support were required to be submitted with the application.

Nothing suggested that you could gather your letters of support months or years later. Just because some submitted additional letters of support during the comment period to show the ongoing awareness and growing support of their application, it was not assumed that those letters would be part of the evaluation. In fact it would silly for community applicants not to continue outreach into their communities just because their application was submitted, and if some decided to they still wanted to submit a letter of support on their letterhead so be it.

It is important to clarify this because your suggestion is that it was assumed by applicants that they could submit support letters well after submitting their original application. That is a false narrative and not what the AGB says. It clearly states your letters of support need to be submitted with the application.

As I have stated before and will continue to state, I am all for preventing any further support or opposition from being considered if it does not get submitted during the “public comment period” described in the AGB.

The AGB reference to CPE evaluators asking for more information when it comes to the actual evaluation has no connection to giving more time for support or opposition submission. It was a chance for CPE evaluators to better understand the application as it was submitted, through communication with the applicant only, and I don’t think it is fair or appropriate to suggest it means something more.

As Justine pointed out, I would like to see records of any disagreement on this topic, one which even you as co-chair indicated did not have disagreement and was reflected in the report when I raised this issue on a call a few weeks back when discussing RVCs.


From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 8:34 AM
To: Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

Justine, this issue is a little more complex then it may initially appear and can form the basis for discussions during the public comment period.  There are a number of sub-issues.

First, during the 2012 round, there was no discussion about when comments about support and/or opposition for community applications had to be received.  In fact, there is a specific reference in the AGB to allow CPE Evaluators to ask for additional information when it comes to for the actual evaluation.  Although Applicants were annoyed that Letters of Opposition came in after the public comment period, there were also letters of Support that came in outside the normal public comment periods.

So, do we continue to allow Letters of Support outside public comment periods, but not Letters of Opposition?  Or do we establish a cut off for both?  Should there be an extended Public Comment period for Letters of Support/Opposition, or should it be run in parallel with the regular public comment period?  These are issues in all fairness that we did not come to any conclusion on and I think at this point would be ripe for comments to be filed during the comment period and we can discuss as well during the comment period.

I don’t think we should be adding this to the draft at this point because it has not been fully sorted out.  Its not that I object to the substance, but rather to the process of adding this at this time.



[cid:image001.png at 01D66FBC.B8AB57E0]
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>

From: Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 11:23 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

Hi Jeff,

I do not distinctly recall, during the relevant WG calls, anyone objecting to what Jamie and I have been submitting in terms of prohibiting the acceptance by the evaluators of letters of opposition outside the accepted channels of public comment periods. If my recollection is faulty then I hope staff could enlighten us on who had objected. In the event no objection was recorded, then how were we supposed to have otherwise "achieved group agreement"?

I do not see why Community-based applications should be subjected to additional - discriminatory, in effect - opportunity for scrutiny outside the opening public comment period or a subsequent public comment period triggered only by an Application Change Request submitted by the applicant. Same as any other applicant. There is no basis for any difference in treatment of Community-based applications beyond the additional questions required to be answered by an applicant if it indicates that its application is a community-based one at the point of submission.

Much obliged,

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 04:34, Jamie Baxter <jbaxter at spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter at spimarketing.com>> wrote:
Thanks Jeff

As I have said in the past I am completely fine with not accepting support or opposition for an application after the public comment period published in the AGB. Consistency and predictability is key. I do not believe it was the practice of Community applicants to submit their application with the hope of gaining community support just prior to CPE commencing. It was however the practice that the necessary community support letters were submitted with the original applications.

What the AGB is clear on is that there are 2 periods for input outside of any “comment period” required for RVCs and application changes. As I’ve previously stated, there is the “public comment period” and the “formal Objections.” I believe you previously confirmed this when you stated that we are not trying to introduce any additional input periods – which would be some kind of new comment period prior to CPE starting.

I do not support keeping CPE separate from this discussion. I have never heard a valid reason to do so, other than to provide a third attempt to someone trying to derail a community applicant during CPE scoring. I think Community applicants should have the same predictability on opposition to their application that Standard applications currently have – i.e. it all needs to come in during the “public comment period” or “formal Objections.” To suggest Community applicants should be subject to further scrutiny is not based in any legitimate rational, and it was a bad judgement call made by ICANN in the 2012 round.


From: Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>>
Date: Monday, August 10, 2020 at 4:20 PM
To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter at spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter at spimarketing.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

  1.  In the report, in Section 28, I see the following language in the New Ideas Section, but it did not achieve group agreement at the time:

“The Working Group discussed whether the public comment period for Community Priority Evaluation applications should be longer than the public comment period for standard applications, as was the case in the 2012 round, or if the two periods should be equal in length. The Working Group did not reach any agreement to change the 2012 practice, and therefore has not made any recommendations in this regard.”

Jamie – I think for CPE, we need to think of that as separate and apart from all of the other discussions of formal and informal objections.  This would be good to submit in a public comment on because the Applicant Guidebook does not provide any time lines for “letters of opposition.”  It also does not set a deadline on letters of support either.  In fact, with respect to CPE, the AGB states:

“Before the community priority evaluation begins, the applicants who have elected to participate may be asked to provide additional information relevant to the community priority evaluation. “  Section 4.2.1 at p. 4-8.

I think both those in support as well as those opposing took advantage of the extra time period.  Bottom Line is that if we set a cutoff date for letters of opposition, should we set one up for letters of support?

  1.  We should also not confuse the normal public comment period with comment periods that are in response to application changes.  The reason RVCs will trigger a new comment period is because it represents a change to the original application.  And those changes should be subject to review.  If an applicant does not make any changes to their application, there would not be a need for a new public comment period on that application.

[cid:image002.png at 01D66FBC.B8AB57E0]
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jamie Baxter
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 3:30 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

Thanks Anne.

The 2012 AGB provided for 2 application input opportunities, not including the GAC – “public comment” & “formal Objections.” That is it.

Comment periods related to RVC and application changes are separate from these, but related in that they happen because of changes made to address concerns expressed during “public comment” and “formal Objections.” This means that we are telling everyone that if you have an issue with an application you must submit it during either the “public comment period” or the “formal Objections,” providing predictability to applicants on when they might need to react and respond with RVC or an application change.

By not restricting “letters of opposition” to the “public comment period” we are essentially introducing a new application input period not described in the AGB – one that has no timeline and no rules around how it should work. I believe I heard Jeff say on that prior call that we are not trying to create this third new period for input, which I fully support not creating.

ICANN staff arbitrarily created the “third input period,” simply because a “letter of opposition” was submitted months after formal Objections were completed in the 2012 round. It seems they didn’t know what to do with that input and instead of saying “sorry, it’s too late to submit public comment that could impact CPE scoring,” they decided to allow it to be submitted, against the timelines and rules provided in the AGB. I believe we need to correct that in subsequent rounds and Jeff suggested that the language in this report supports that. I don’t believe the language does, and worse, I think it is in conflict with his statement that “letters of opposition” should be considered “public comment” and follow the rules of the “public comment period.”

I am all for supporting required comment periods around RVCs, but I am just suggesting that those periods where RVCs or application changes may occur should be predictable and centered around the “public comment period” and “formal Objections.” There should not be unlimited times during the application process for outsiders to insert pressure on an applicant that is not described in the AGB.


From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Date: Monday, August 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM
To: Jamie Baxter <jbaxter at spimarketing.com<mailto:jbaxter at spimarketing.com>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

Thank you Jamie.  I appreciate your concern.  I don’t know personally what the deadline is for filing letters of opposition to a community application.  I assume it is the public comment period?

I guess I would just repeat that as long as it is clear that any either public or private resolution of issues that results in the adoption of an RVC not contained in the original application absolutely requires public comment, then I am okay with the appropriate language/implementation.  My example is:  I write to you after your application is published and say, “unless you adopt X RVC, I will file an Objection or letter of Opposition to your application.”

I think Kathie strongly objects to private resolution of issues via RVCs but I am not certain where she stands on this at this point.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jamie Baxter
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 10:54 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

Thanks Steve

I would like to draw attention to Topic 28: Role of Application Comment (page 123, c.)

On a call about RVC/PICs within the past few weeks I raised the concern about the term “informal opposition” and I asked quite clearly if it was considered “public comment” since it was certainly not “formal Objection.” The answer to that question was a resounding YES, specifically sighting that the group was not attempting to create a third type of input process/period beyond “public comment” and “formal Objections,” both of which have very specific rules and timelines linked to them.

When I raised further concern about the need to limit “public comment” (including informal opposition) to the AGB designated “public comment period”, Jeff assured me that language had been adjusted elsewhere in the report to address it (presumably this section). None of the language in Topic 28 does however. Justine Chew also raised concern in the chat (possibly even Paul too), and I even requested to be pointed to that language since I had not seen it yet, but I never received a follow-up.

The reason for this distinction is that in the 2012 round, ICANN permitted “informal opposition” to be submitted days before CPE started for Community applicants. This was years after the AGB advertised “public comment period” had ended, and months after “formal Objections” were completed. That “informal opposition” took direct aim at scoring in CPE (criteria #4).

If “informal opposition” is officially considered “public comment,” and we are not creating a third layer of public input in addition to “public comment” and “formal Objections,” then why does the report suggest there is not group agreement on changing the 2012 practice to prevent last minute “informal opposition” against Community applicants that target CPE scoring? These two agreements/non-agreements are in direct conflict with each other.

Either we require all “informal opposition” to be submitted during the official “public comment period” published in the AGB (as Jeff affirmed on the call), or we are giving ICANN the ability to toss out all applicant predictability and arbitrarily introduce new informal input periods not described in the AGB.

In the bigger picture, and bringing it back to RVC/PICs, if ICANN allows last minute “informal opposition” it could create yet another delay for a Community applicant required to submit RVC/PICs or change their application to protect CPE points, when it could have been handled during the official “public comment period” already described in the AGB. Without addressing this issue, I feel confident that last minute “informal opposition” will once again be used as a gaming tactic in subsequent rounds to target and delay Community applicants during the homestretch.

Happy to answer any questions for those who are not as familiar with how this all unfolded in the 2012 round.


From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, August 7, 2020 at 11:36 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Consolidated list of materials for WG Member review

Dear WG Members,

As discussed and agreed on the 6 August WG call, we have compiled a consolidated list of materials for you all to review in advance of seeking to finalize the draft Final Report for public comment, as early as 13 August 2020.

  *   For review and feedback no later than Thursday, 13 August (and for discussion on the WG call that same day)

     *   Draft Final Report Change Analysis (which will be leveraged for the public comment proceeding):https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1KgsjZc/edit
     *   Draft Final Report (minus Predictability Framework and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction)) attached and available here, on an ongoing basis as the document is updated: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report

  *   Per Emily’s email, comments on the Predictability Framework and the one new additional paragraph in the Closed Generics are due 11 August at 23:59 UTC. Review here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4aOGxln9b93E_j3eF-dm0E6M8-VYToD8U9AkPlPCS8/edit?usp=sharing. Feedback form is attached.

  *   NEW! - The new draft report section on Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction), comments due 12 August at 23:59 UTC – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxgDQOo/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxgDQOo/edit>. Again, feedback form is attached.

Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.


Steven Chan

Policy Director, GNSO Support

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

Email: steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410

Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=>
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=>
Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=-L6chFfv0OperrXHHpTF722WnH3FZIutn4cS16IvpOg&e=>


This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200811/48dd4cf3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67521 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200811/48dd4cf3/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67522 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200811/48dd4cf3/image002-0001.png>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list