[Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC

Fri Jan 8 20:13:16 UTC 2021

Dear all,

First, I want to echo the thanks to ICANN Staff and the working group leadership team for their work throughout this PDP – seen and unseen.

Second, unless otherwise stated, I support all recommendations in the spirit of compromise and consensus building, regardless of my own personal views.

I do not support 35.4 on the timing of submitting a sealed bid for Auctions of Last Resort. I have a number of concerns about asking applicants to submit their valuation of a string so early in the process, without being able to take into consideration

  *   the outcome of objection processes (particularly GAC Advice and Legal Rights Objections);
  *   who the other applicants for the string are; and
  *   the alternative business models for the string (for example, proposed rights protection mechanisms, eligibility restrictions).

These concerns are exacerbated for dotBrand applicants as brand owners will be required to

  *   Essentially provide a valuation of the brand to ICANN;
  *   This valuation being irrelevant if objections or negotiations are successful (ie they have provided sensitive business information for no reason);
  *   Not being able to provide a bid based on who else has applied for the string and the level of risk to their brand associated with the other applicants and/or their business model;
  *   Having to secure internal approval for significant additional funding for their application right from the start of the process.

Sophie Hey
Policy Advisor
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +44 7535530404
E: sophie.hey at comlaude.com<mailto:sophie.hey at comlaude.com>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.
Sent: 08 January 2021 19:54
To: Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>; Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC

Hi Emily,

Thank you to you and your other fabulous staff members for all of your hard work keeping us on task!

Like Kurt and Martin, I too cannot support the proposed Recommendation 35.4 requiring sealed bids.  Policy making within PDPs is supposed to be fact based.  This recommendation appears to be simply a preference by a small group of ICANN insiders.  No problem was ever identified and this proposed solution to the non-problem has never been studied to see if it would fix the problem which no one, in over four years, has located.  This is simply not fact based policy development and the recommendation should have never made it into this final report in the first place.

Unfortunately, the proposed solution without a problem has created significant problems including what appears to be a significant, and unnecessary, barrier to entry for new .brand applicants.  In fact, the proposed recommendation seems tailor-made to exclude .brands from the New gTLD Program as it requires .brand applicants to participate in blind bidding, which cannot be increased, with no information about (1) who the other applicants are, (2) how those other applicants intend to use the TLD, and (3) whether or not the other applicants have put forward any Voluntary Registry Commitments to ensure that the TLD will not be used in conjunction with any goods or services that the .Brand applicant trades in.  Additionally, it requires blind bids to be put in prior to the completion of prior rights objections, rendering that flawed objections process even more impotent. As a result, I ask that all of Recommendation 35.4 be marked as “No Consensus” which will allow the default 2012 ascending bids mechanism to remain in place.

On a happier note, I am very pleased with the Work Track 5/Geo Term outcomes as well as the outcomes on PICs/RVCs and wanted to put in a special affirmation of those.  Thanks!

Regards,
Paul

Taft /

Paul D. McGrady / Partner
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713
Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354
Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020
www.taftlaw.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com__;!!Hj9Y_P0nvg!FNKvIEyshxhz3HHt072eH_iNwf79nKyqakxZB8jZqCzWoJXy0UjuwXRsWIr4nb8vSQvjbbMwoQ$> / PMcGrady at taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Martin Sutton
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 1:17 PM
To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC

[EXTERNAL MESSAGE]
Dear Emily,

Thank you and the rest of the team supporting this working group for your efforts to bring us to the consensus call; it’s been quite a journey.

Appreciating all of the discussions and community input that have led us to this point, which include many compromises, there is one specific recommendation I am unable to support. This is Recommendation 35.4, which recommends the use of sealed bids; something which remains a major concern, especially for dotBrand applicants, and will discourage applications. Please refer to the comments submitted during the Public Comments for the draft Final Report for specific details.

Please accept this response in my personal capacity and on behalf of the Brand Registry Group.

Kind regards,

Martin

Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

On 22 Dec 2020, at 16:29, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>> wrote:

Dear WG members,

On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the opening of the online Consensus Call on the WGOutputs (i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language, which has received a handful of non-substantive updates (for a redline version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting>). WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording of the 17 December meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP> where the Consensus Call process was described.

This Consensus Call opens today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 and closes on Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC.  Per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!rNJ7mR-y3NiOaoAVdoJAaixwM1dqZ9IzY_6ZGh-d2rURZLU7eQqaDXkxDxY267kIUfu4bau_tQ$>, WG members are requested to indicate via reply to this list whether they support, or do not support, the Outputs. If a WG member does not respond this will be taken as support.

The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. This includes not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report.  Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate. Even if given that context, you still believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the Outputs that you do cannot support and why.

For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly:

  *   Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments;
  *   Topic 23: Closed Generics;
  *   Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE;
  *   Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and
  *   All other Outputs in the report.

As noted on the 17 December 2020 WG call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals participate).  Therefore, WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they explicitly state in their response that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus Designations for the Outputs.  The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list on January 11, 2021.

On 12 January 2021 at 20:00 UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments to the Consensus Designations.  Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members.  Although the meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report.

Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of 18 January 2021.

Kind regards,
Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team

<SubPro - Final Report - upd 22 Dec 2020 - Consensus Call.pdf>_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________
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.

________________________________
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland;Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20210108/e11c4ea9/attachment-0001.html>