The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group will take place on Tuesday, 14 July 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

For other places see:


  1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest
  2. Review Private Resolutions/Auctions: Hybrid Proposal 2+ and Proposal 4:
  3. Complete Review of the updated Predictability Framework, see: Also attached, please find the updated concerns/mitigation document and process flow.
  4. AOB
    1. Closed Generics


Proposed Predictability Framework (SPIRT) Process For SubPro PDP Discussion_30June.pdf




Apologies:   Katrin Ohlmer, Susan Payne, Maxim Alzoba,  Annebeth Lange, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Cheryl Langdon-Orr

Notes/ Action Items


Review Private Resolutions/Auctions: Hybrid Proposal 2+ and Proposal 4:

ACTION ITEM: Leadership and staff should combine the elements Hybrid Option 2+ and Proposal 4 and add the transparency elements discussed during the meeting on 14 July.

Closed Generics:

ACTION ITEM: WG members who are interested in joining with George Sadowsky to develop a proposal on Closed Generics should contact George.  Those who noted interested in the chat were Paul McGrady and Edmon Chung.


  1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. Review Private Resolutions/Auctions: Hybrid Proposal 2+ and Proposal 4:

Proposal from Paul McGrady:

-- No consensus to abolish private auctions.

-- Start with the status quo and AGB and just put some guardrails.

-- When the applicant applies, they need to indicate in through the terms and conditions that they have a bona fide intention to run the registry if awarded it; the examiners can issue additional questions, if it appears that business plan is to rudimentary or if there's evidence that that didn't really have that bona fide intention. Applicants can support the record to assure the examiners and then I added on also several weeks ago, I believe that applicants should also affirm that they're not submitting the application solely for the purpose of being able to participate in a private auction.

-- Consider also building in disclosure of purchase prices.

-- If the applicant only sells applications and private auctions and does not actually proceed with any contracting that will be noted for purposes of any future rounds and could create a rebuttal presumption that the applicant is only participating in the New gTLD program to speculate on registries.

Proposal from Jim Prendergast:

-- A reasonable amount of time for people will settle or contentions in line with what you and others have asked for, whether it be through JV or other creative corporate structure things. You'd raised a concern with 90 days.  Okay, fine. Take 120 the actual length of the period is less significant than the fact that you're forcing people to come to the table, instead of having this process drag out for years and years and years like it did in the 2012 round by accelerating a lot of this. You take out a lot of the waste in the program -- there were dozens, if not hundreds of applicants from the last round who paid $100,000 for evaluations of their applications that ultimately were never needed because they never stood a chance of operating a TLD -- by being able to withdraw their application for applicants who don't stand a chance of operating to have the ability to recoup more of their money in a more rapid fashion. There is still the element of the ICANN auction last resort. We need to retain that that portion. I know some folks in the like actually like the concept of the ICANN auction of last resort.

Letter from the ICANN Board:

“These concerns mostly center on the issues of auctions of last resort and on private auctions. We take special note of the possible practice of participating in private auctions for the sole purpose of being paid to drop out. We also take note of the abuse that becomes possible in alterations to the change request mechanisms. The Board has concerns about whether, and in what ways, the availability of private auctions incentivizes applications for purposes other than actually using the string; and we are interested in how these incentives for abuse might be minimized.”

-- There may not be evidence of a program, but there is a perception of a problem, particularly due to the lack of transparency in the last round.

-- Regardless of the path we go down we have to ensure that everything is disclosed.  What kind of transparency and data do we want to see?


-- Issues: transparency and the collection of data.

-- Paul McGrady has lots of questions with Jim’s proposal – more work to be done on policy and implementation.

-- Go back to some high level principles.

-- Maybe they could be auction house style with everyone viewing the auction in real time.

-- One aspect of disclosure could be could be the required disclosure of all teaming arrangements and others in bids, but how do we enforce that.

-- If you look at broadband auctions in the US there are very strict disclosure requirements.

-- Just because someone loses doesn’t mean that they had the intent to lose; they may have entered into the auction in good faith.

-- We aren’t just talking about transparency for private auctions, but for any mechanism of private resolution, such as disclosures of joint ventures.

-- Question: What is the definition of “full disclosure”?  Answer: It's the material terms of any arrangement or agreement between the parties.

-- We want to make sure there are enough disclosure requirements to mitigate against potential abuses.

-- We don’t have a disclosure framework: How and when it would work; what kinds of things would be disclosed; what kinds of things would be confidential.  We have a concept but no details.

-- ICANN needs to know who is behind the applications that survive.

-- Knowing the entities in a partnership is not the same as full disclosure.

-- Seems we are conflating application updates with a full disclosure framework.

-- Think about whether full disclosure needs to happen before the auction.

-- We could say from a policy aspect that there should be disclosure of all material terms of any arrangement, financial or otherwise; we don’t need to fill in all of the details.

-- Transparency and guardrails are important regardless of what mechanism is selected.

-- We can discuss the timing elements but the difference here is 1) private auctions happening in the 2012 mode, with some disclosure. 2) auctions overseen by ICANN with disclosure. There needs to be a role for ICANN in overseeing settlements that involve auctions. Whether the funds go to losers or ICANN.

-- Statement: Require the disclosure of all material information behind any financial or other arrangements made for the purpose of obtaining that TLD and we can include examples.  Any arrangements that are made, financial or otherwise, for the purpose of obtaining the TLD should be disclosed.  Could get public comment on this.

ACTION ITEM: Leadership and staff should combine the elements Hybrid Option 2+ and Proposal 4 and add the transparency elements.

3. AOB: Closed Generics

Proposal from George Sadowsky:

-- A plan, whatever is an acceptable plan is, it must assume responsibility for accommodating generic strings for public benefits.

-- What kind of conditions would you want to put on the process and the results to feel comfortable that you had really eliminated the issues of gaming and kind of competition and confidentiality and the like, so that the string can actually respond to public benefit objectives in a way that you would feel comfortable with.

Proposal: A new kind of gTLD which is somewhat like the community TLDs of the previous round, but differs from them in very significant ways, in particular in terms of incentives.  For example, you would not want financial incentives to be really large and dominant in the way in the decision for people to apply for these strings. You don't want to have it transformed into a string for something else, whatever that something else is. 

Working with like-minded colleagues who are already members of the working group for a short period of time [a week] might allow us to put forward a proposal not a formal proposal with all the I’s dotted and the T's crossed, but something that is that is articulate enough concise enough and a good description enough of the idea that it might be taken as a possible way out of the conundrum. 

ACTION ITEM: WG members who are interested in joining with George Sadowsky to develop a proposal on Closed Generics should contact George.  Those who noted interested in the chat were Paul McGrady and Edmon Chung.

  • No labels