PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest
2. Closed Generics – Update from George Sadowsky/Small Group
3. Review Private Resolutions – Model 5 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZzjHw/edit#heading=h.vggepvpizwpy [docs.google.com] and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort at:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
4. Complete Review of the updated Predictability Framework, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]. Also attached, please find the updated concerns/mitigation document and process flow.
5. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

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

Predictability Framework_Concerns and Mitigation_29June_EB

Audio Recording

Zoom Recording

Chat Transcript 

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Attendance

Apologies: none

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

Private Resolutions:

ACTION ITEM: Consider the Proposed alternative: General notice that ICANN may refer any application and/or the outcome of contention resolution to a competition authority at its sole discretion.

ACTION ITEM: WG members should review Model 5 and provide comments.

Notes:

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

2. Closed Generics – Update from George Sadowsky/Small Group (George with Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg, and Kathy Kleiman)

-- Group is about 95% done with the document.  Expect it will be distributed tomorrow.

-- We started this effort because of a divergence between two poles – those that oppose Closed Generics and those that think they should be allowed in some form.

-- The group is attempting to find a middle ground between the poles.

-- Will be presenting a general concept along with a lot of detail.

-- Trying to come out with something that could be put together relatively quickly and coherent for discussion.

3. Private Resolutions and Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort:

Model 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZzjHw/edit#heading=h.vggepvpizwpy

[Additional language proposed by Jim Prendergast: In the event ICANN reasonably determines during any resolution of a contention set, might raise significant competition issues, ICANN shall refer the issue to the appropriate governmental competition authority or authorities with jurisdiction over the matter within five business days of making its determination, with notice to the potential Registry Operator. Any such referral communication shall be posted on ICANN's website on the date of transmittal. If such a referral occurs, the potential Registry Operator’s application will placed on hold until (XX) calendar days following the referral, unless earlier cleared by the referred governmental competition authority.]

Discussion:

-- Board Concerns – second concern doesn’t seem to be addressed: private resolutions to finance other applications.

-- Don’t think the bona fide as states goes far enough.

-- Also not addressing the gaming concerning rolling the money to another application.

-- Question: What’s the difference between gaming and a strategy? Answer:

-- Any objections to including the language proposed by Jim?

-- Question: How many is XX calendar days?  Answer: 30 days as a placeholder.

-- Question: When does ICANN have to submit it?  Answer: If it’s an auction result you’ll know that right away.  If it’s a JV it needs to go out for public comment.  Depends on if someone submits a change there is a new entity applying, so needs to be a background check, etc.  Differentiate between auction results and other forms of resolution.

-- Proposed language is within 5 days of ICANN making its determination.

-- Question: What would a significant competition issue be? Answer: Suggested language is from ICANN’s RSEP rules for Registry Operators.

-- Ask ICANN if they have applied this – submitted this to a competition authority?  This seems unworkable and impractical.  Competition issues are varied. Could be many different things.

-- Who does the deferral – ICANN Org or the Board?

-- Seems that ICANN can already refer something to a competition authority if they want to.

-- Need to agree on what we think is a significant competition issue.

-- Just trying to make applicants aware that if something arises concerning resolving the contention set that involves competition issues then ICANN has the right to refer the application to a competition authority.

-- It might be important to capture a timeframe for a quiet period after string contention resolution to see if there are competition authorities raise concerns.

-- This has been done before – ICANN has done it and has the right to do it.

-- The Board did not raise issues of JVs, etc.  WG doesn’t have to address them.

-- Maybe there is another way to restate this: perhaps as an overarching principle that applies to the program and applicants in the whole--ICANN may refer an issue/applicant to the appropriate governmental competition authority.

-- Just do a general notice that any outcome that raises competition issues ICANN has the right to refer the issue to a competition authority.

-- Proposal: 30 days from the publication of the result of the private resolution for ICANN to refer to a competition authority; and 30 days for a response from the competition authority.

-- Competition authority will take as long as it will take – it’s out of our control.

-- Could say at the beginning that any application could be referred by ICANN to a competition authority, not necessarily in the context of private resolution.

-- This should be an overarching statement/principle that is applicable to any applicant or application and not just contention set resolution.

ACTION ITEM: Consider the Proposed alternative: General notice that ICANN may refer any application and/or the outcome of contention resolution to a competition authority at its sole discretion.

Second Proposal:  “All private auctions would be conducted using sealed bids and all bids, regardless of whether they be used for ICANN Auction of last resort or for ICANN administered “private auctions” would be due on the same day.  Any bids not used would be destroyed and not revealed.”

Discussion:

-- “The board believes that applications should not be submitted as a means to engage in private auctions…” if we take away private auctions we remove that problem.

-- We could make it simple and say that everything goes to an auction of last resort.  The is so complicated because we are dealing with the notion of private resolutions, that was introduced in the last round.

-- If we want private resolutions to remain it will be complicated.

-- Need to make this achievable for applicants.  Having all bids at one time with multiple applications would put them at a disadvantage.

ACTION ITEM: WG members should review Model 5 and provide comments.