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

Fri Jan 8 21:17:26 UTC 2021

You guys have done great work to get to this milestone. Thank you all for a
long and grueling effort.

I rarely comment but must include my voice in opposition to sealed bids
articulated in 35.4.

I concur with the comments/positions from Martin, Sophie, Paul and Mike
related to dotBrands.

It's simply not workable for a dotBrand application in particular. TLD
auction bid value decisions must consider the market conditions/dynamics
which requires foreknowledge of and number of competing TLD applicants.

Peter

On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 15:18, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com> wrote:

> I also oppose 35.4, and support Paul McGrady's and Sophie's comments about
> it.  No problem was ever identified to support such a drastic and foolish
> change to the program.
>
> [image: Logo]
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> address:
>
> 548 Market Street, Box 55819
>
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> email:
>
> mike at rodenbaugh.com
>
> phone:
>
> +1 (415) 738-8087
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 12:13 PM Sophie Hey <sophie.hey at comlaude.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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> *On Behalf
>> Of *Martin Sutton
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 8, 2021 1:17 PM
>> *To:* 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
>>
>>
>>
>> [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> 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
>> 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>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> 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.

-- 

Peter LaMantia, CEO

authenticweb.com

*Dozens of leading brands showcased using their Brand TLDs.  Go to
>> brandtld.news <http://brandtld.news/> *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20210108/f8ac54d7/attachment-0001.html>