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

Jim Prendergast jim at GALWAYSG.COM
Fri Jan 8 21:17:47 UTC 2021


Jeff, Cheryl, and members of the working group

Congratulations for reaching this historic milestone.  This report is the culmination of many years of hard work by members of the WG, leadership of the WG and of course – the ICANN policy support staff without whom none of this would be possible.  The process was not easy and as nearly everyone agrees, it took longer than we had hoped.  After all is said and done, I believe that for the most part, we are in a very good place.

With the following exceptions, I am proud to offer my support for the final document.

Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments.
Recommendation 9.10

Most of the work on this topic was initiated AFTER the final public comments were received.  The ICANN Board raised very serious concerns about the potential conflict between Registry Voluntary Commitments and the ICANN bylaws.  The group was hurried in its work on this critical area because of an arbitrary deadline.  The impacts to contracted parties are not fully known since this recommendation was never put out for public comment as drafted.  Critical to this recommendation, is the Working Group’s failure to respond directly to the specific concerns with this section raised by the Board.  We have kicked the can down the road by saying we will respond with a letter when we should have taken additional time to respond to the Board as part of this recommendation.

Topic 23: Closed Generics.
Recommendation 23.1

I agree with the conclusion of the report that states “the Working Group was not able to agree on ‘policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs’” but I do think that there needs to be further policy work on this topic.  The Board resolution directed the GNSO Council to “develop policy advice” on closed Generics.  We as Sub Pro have not done so. It may have been a case of one too many critical topics for a WG of this scope to handle.  Complicating this is outstanding GAC advice which is not going away.  To address the ambiguity around this topic that was properly described in the report, the GNSO Council should launch a narrowly focused PDP to respond to the Board with recommendations.

Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets.
Recommendation 35.2
Recommendation 35.3
Recommendation 35.5

The recommendations as written are a good faith effort by leadership to try and craft a compromise solution that addresses the concerns of a wide variety of interests.  Despite several comments from the community opposing private auctions, a small but vocal group within the WG protested the ban on private auctions that was in a previous leadership proposal and it is now included in the proposal.  To mitigate the concerns expressed about private auctions, a series of Bona Fide requirements were developed, and a sealed bid auction was proposed for ICANN Auctions of Last Resort.  Some additional disclosure requirements were also included.

The phrase “It’s a good deal when everyone is a little unhappy” comes to mind but in this case, it is not about being happy or unhappy, it is about developing sound policy recommendations and this proposal fails that test.

The inclusion of private auctions poses institutional risks to ICANN.  Knowing that the process will repeat itself and tens of millions will change hands outside of ICANN oversight, despite ICANN being responsible for the execution of this program, will only open ICANN up to external criticism that it is not exercising appropriate oversight.  As we saw with the proposed .ORG transaction, when money and ICANN are in play, the spotlight will shine brightly on ICANN.  That will continue going forward.
The proposal attempts to address the concerns about gaming raised by the ICANN Board using Bona Fide commitments.  Despite great effort and even greater complexity, it does not effectively stop the practice.  Comments from the community make this abundantly clear but those were summarily dismissed as “having already been discussed.”

If this proposal does move forward, I would urge the IRT and the ICANN Board to consider the following changes:

  *   Private auctions should be prohibited, and contention sets should be settled by an ICANN Auction of Last Resort as conducted in the 2012 round.  There should be a period for contention resolution without auctions and if successful, appropriate disclosures should be made to ICANN. This eliminates the complexity inherent in this proposal and places ICANN in the proper oversight position.
  *   If ICANN or the IRT deems that private auctions will be allowed, they should be overseen by ICANN, not by a private provider and a web of NDAs.  Lack of information really hampered this working group.  Coincidentally, the only auction provider who agreed to speak with the group suggested the ICANN Auction of Last resort implemented using the Vickrey method as the best method for settling contention sets.
If either of these processes had been in place for the 2012 round, this working group and the larger community would have had the data it needed to do a proper assessment of what worked and what did not. In addition, having ICANN oversee both processes will ensure integrity and transparency, and allows ICANN to appropriately exercise its authority over the delegation of new gTLDs.

Again, thanks for the effort of all.  I look forward to the next steps including our call next week.

Jim Prendergast
The Galway Strategy Group
+1 202-285-3699

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:30 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC

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 WG Outputs (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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20210108/24b5ce43/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list