October 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

Request for Input - new gTLDs - Work Track 1
by Sara Bockey Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

Dear All, Based on the feedback received on our call on Monday, we have made significant updates to our Google document located at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… The updates include: Accreditation Programs, comments from Donna, pros/cons mentioned to date along with points from the GDD Summit brainstorming notes on RSPs. Regarding Applicant Support, we have noted key comments/takeaways from the AMGlobal survey results. Please take a moment to review the Google document. For your convenience, we’ve attached the GDD Summit brainstorming notes and AMGlobal survey results. Action items: - Review the Google document to ensure all considerations for accreditation have been included and accurately reflected - Are there other alternatives to an accreditation program? - Additional pros and cons for applicant support - Potential paths forward based on the problems we are trying to solve Thank-you for your participation! As always, discussion on the lists is welcomed and encouraged! The next call is schedule on Tuesday, October 18th at 15:00 UTC. This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

4 5

Google Open Sources Domain Name Registry
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

...pressure builds on RSPs.....and Donuts is abroad... BTW, this was but one of the more disruptive outcomes the At-Large caucus thought was possible from the Google brand investment. http://domainnamewire.com/2016/10/18/google-open-sources-domain-registry-do… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 1

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team ? Track 1 ? Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

On today's call Arvi bought into the debate the work of the Joint Applicant Support WG. For those who want to investigate further the following links will lead to more and better information: SO-AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS-WG): https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=8455565 JAS Material: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/ jas-wg-materials Applicant Support Program: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ applicants/candidate-supp Best, -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799 <876-818-1799>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 SubTeam Meeting 18 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 October. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. See the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/x/tQ2bAw. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Accreditation Discussion (continued) 4. Application Support 5. Applicant Guidebook 6. AOB Action Items: 1. Accreditation Discussion: Comments that have been provided (from Donna Austin and Rubens Kuhl thus far) will be incorporated in the Google Doc. WG members are encouraged to provide comments. 2. Applicant Support Discussion: Seek JAS alumni to discuss -- Carlton Samuels and Rakif Dammik were co-chairs on the JAS. 1. Accreditation Discussion (continued) [Reading from 3. Problems to solve in the Google Doc. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve…] · Donna expanded on the notion on RSP ability to interact directly with ICANN re: technical issues. · Re: 3.d. -- This is an immediate issue -- portability of TLDs: The process for Registry Operator switching backend providers is unpredictable. Improve ability to switch RSPs. Can this be taken up more quickly? Perhaps by GDD? · Staff: The GDD is looking at that topic -- RSP certification. One thing in particular is the community input model at ICANN57. How best to ensure that community input is taken into account. Not sure what that model will be. Probably provide a proposed model and get input. 2. Applicant Support · Look at the normative view of should the developing economies have the ability to get new gTLDs and is the program for the developed economies prohibitive for them? Demand is not a good guidance parameter. · Copied from the chat room: Avri Doria: a bit more on the Applicant Support program, the GAC had several recommendation on applicant support at the time, with specific recommendations that we need to include in the next pass at this discussion. · A survey of new gTLD prospects being prepared for the CCT RT that might be useful as input to this aspect of the discussion 3. Applicant Guidebook · Anything in Module 1 that really sticks out as an issue? Or in the AGB itself? What were the problems in each subject matter? · All of these topics are being discussed by the various Sub Teams. · JAS Report: Application Process: The timeline for changes in application content was an issue. Several applicants say that the process of making admissible changes, especially the time line, needed clarity. · Copied from the chat room: o Jeff Neuman: A couple of questions: Is this the right format for applications for new TLDs? Should there be additional topics to be included in the AG? Was there too much information in the AG (background)? Was there not enough information on certain topics? o Carlton Samuels: @Registry Service Reviews: This is where the idea of a set of accredited RSPs would be useful; that process would be a black box to the application process with just an on-ramp to the Application process. Declare you will use an accredited RSP and that’s it. · Should there be different AGBs for different perspectives? · Could be one AGB with extensions. Whatever vehicle is used will need to be accessible and available to all. · What was discussed was potentially have an AG for RSPs, one for Escrow Providers, a separate document that discusses the RPMs, etc. · Modules allow the AGB to be scalable. Continue with the format. · Based on feedback: Seem to have the right format. Anything in module 1 or 2 that will need a deeper dive or more details? · Coordinate with other work tracks on the content. This topic could revisited after work is done on the various topics. Could rearrange the timeline of work to address this at the end. · Add: A discussion of merging in of all the other documents that came out later into the AGB.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 18 October 2016 Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Jeff Neuman:Hello all....i am in a noisy place so will mostly participate via chat:) Terri Agnew:thanks for this information Jeff Carlton Samuels:Hi everybody Christa Taylor:go ahead one min Steve Chan:@Christa, if you can dial-in, it's more reliable than the AC room Vanda 2:i am listen only - noise room Donna Austin, RySG:I'm sorry I didn't get the input to the list earlier than I did. Emily Barabas:wip Emily Barabas:sorry for the delay Emily Barabas:everyone can now scroll themselves as needed Donna Austin, RySG:I think so Sara Vanda 2:from this region a list of acrredited service providers was the general answer I got in all intervews i have done in LAC region Jeff Neuman:thanks to Donna for providing her power point slides....i think it is a good basis for a proposal going forward. Donna Austin, RySG:What's the community input model? Steve Chan:@Donna, that's what the GDD is seeking input on - how to define it Donna Austin, RySG:thanks Steve Carlton Samuels:Quick question. For problem resolution, is this WS looking at making a recommendation for a Certification Scheme or an Accreditation Scheme? Jeff Neuman:Carlton - to level set, what is your defnition of each Jeff Neuman:definition Carlton Samuels:Certification = testing against a set of outcomes from a defined criteria Carlton Samuels:Accreditation = Ceding authority to an outside group to validate competence against a defined set of requirements Carlton Samuels:@Avri: +1 Justine Chew:s not a good guidance parameter on issue of demand because in this case demand isI agree with Avri Vanda 2:we have jsut finished an study from LAC region and the feedback can be useful. I have interviewd many potential new gTLds in several countries in LAC region and will add some coments on the lsit Carlton Samuels:Unfortunately can't talk. In a room with pothers Vanda 2:i can't talk either Vanda 2:could be a good idea Carlton Samuels:@Avri: Again, +1 for reading the AS WG report. Carlton Samuels:A survey of new gTLD prospects being prepared for the CCT RT that might be useful as input to this aspect of the discussion avri doria:Carlton weren't you the co-chair with Rafik of the JAS- Carlton Samuels:@Avri: Yes ma'am! avri doria:so sometime when you can speak, would be helpful for you to add a bunch. Carlton Samuels:@Christa: Will be happy to do that. Justine Chew 2:Sorry, my earlier comment got garbled. I meant to say I agree with Avri on the issue of demand because in this case demand is not a good guidance parameter. avri doria:a bit more on the Applicant Support program, the GAC had several recomendation on applicant support at the time, with specific recommendations that we need to include in the next pass at this discussion. Carlton Samuels:@Application Process: The timeline for changes in application content was an issue. Several applicants say that the process of making admissible changes, especially the time line, needed clarity Carlton Samuels:@AVri: +1. Those were also acknowledged in the JAS Report Vanda 2:@ avri - on organization that had tried to apply first round called ICANN several times for support during the application period and never got feedback.. Jeff Neuman:A couple of questions: Is this the right format for applications for new TLDs? Should there be additional topics to be included in the AG? Was there too much information in the AG (background)? Was there not enough information on certain topics? Carlton Samuels:@Registry Service Reviews: This is where the idea of a set of accredited RSPs would be useful; that process would be a black box to the applciation process with just a on-ramp to the Application process. Declare you will use an accredited RSP and thats it. Vanda 2:@ Carlton agree this shall be simplified Steve Chan:@Carlton, unless the WG were to mandate the usage of a cerfified RSP, you would still need to have those technical reviews available in the event the applicant wants to supply their own registry services Carlton Samuels:@Donna: +1 One authoritative document is desirable! Sub-processes should be described elsewhere in companion productions Mary Wong:Whatever vehicle is used ultimately, it will need to be accessible and available to all interested potentail applicants. Jeff Neuman:What was discussed was potentially have an AG for RSPs, one for Escrow Providers, a separate document that discusses the RPMs, etc. Jeff Neuman:This is an area we need to coordinate with the other work tracks Jeff Neuman:I think this topic was more for overall format......the rest will have to wait until the very end Jim Prendergast:its not specific to these particular sections but the translations into other languages need to be available much sooner. Vanda 2:TIME was the main issue related to first round in this region, information came too late on the timeline Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):true Vanda Michael Flemming (GMO):exciting Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):happy to end now at 0250 local time for me ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx all bye for now then Jeff Neuman:thanks! Carlton Samuels:Jeez CLO, what a trooper! Justine Chew 2:Nope, thanks. Carlton Samuels:Thanks all

1 0

FW: dear colleagues
by Vanda Scartezini Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

This is a friendly reminder on the At-Large Review Survey. This is your opportunity to help improve the organization effectiveness of the At-Large Community. Please take the survey no later than 21 October 2016, make your voice heard! all communities have a say. Please participate!!!! Survey is available in 3 languages - English, French and Spanish English: http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/ Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. [cid:image001.png@01D2294A.18BC5480]

1 0

Agenda for Work Track 1 for Oct 18 at 15:00 UTC
by Christa Taylor Oct. 18, 2016

Oct. 18, 2016

Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC. 08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 16:00 London, 17:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/jcnfqsg Adobe Connect room: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldsubteams/> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldsubteams/ The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Accreditation Discussion (continued) 4. Application Support 5. Applicant Guidebook 6. AOB Cheers, Christa Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa(a)dottba.com <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 SubTeam Meeting 03 October
by Steve Chan Oct. 6, 2016

Oct. 6, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 03 October. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. See the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/x/tQ2bAw. Apologies for the late delivery – I knew I missed at least a few points and had to find time to review the recording. Best, Steve New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue Tuesday, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC Apologies: Laura Watkins, Katrin Ohlmer, Vanda Scartezini, Ashley Roberts On audio only: Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Accreditation Discussion (continued) 4. Application Support 5. AOB Notes: 1. Accreditation Discussion (cont.) Why is it needed? Christa - Most efficient way to mange through the process to TLD delegation. Avoids repeating the same process over and over again in evaluation, PDT, etc. Jeff - Here were 7 reasons I gave on a previous email: 1. Will lead to lower application fees for registry operators. 2. Greater initial choice in back end operators 3. Quicker processing of applications if accreditation done in advance 4. consistency In evaluation results for registry operator 5. Quicker time to delegation as all pdt tests done in advance 6. Increases portability of back end registry operators and simplifies Icann processes to change back end operators 7. Could lessen costs and time for switching back end providers Donna - Applicant challenges to answering questions. Issues for RSPs going through PDP for every registry. RSP transition. Neustar is a large RSP, will likely have useful contributions to discussion. Can things be slowed down? Christa - Middle ground - make some progress and can continue to bring up next meeting (and beyond), since there are multiple passes for each topic. Jeff – Not making any final decisions on this meeting. Discussion began some time ago and will not end today. Not just about PDT. Also related to clarifying questions, inconsistencies in evaluation results, inability to streamline processes (e.g., applying same answer over many applications), more choices for RSPs, quicker delegation, increases portability. Should review the notes from GDD summit as well. Christa - Oct 2009 document discussed accreditation (e.g. phase 4 documentation). Might provide clues to what should be included in testing for “certification”, how time and money can be saved. Also provides proposal for pricing/cost. Donna - Only one solution has been considered. What other options are available? Could there be other methods to streamline, like only testing technical or PDT once for the same RSP? What are the technical requirements for ensuring DNS stability? Christa – look at other options during next meeting. Jeff - Should look at multiple solutions, though only one has been raised. Listed a number of advantages beyond just streamlining PDT. Suggested in GDD New gTLD Program Reviews. Christa - Have the processes been identified that would be considered as a part of “accreditation”? Avri - What about downsides? What benefits can be considered requirements versus nice to have? Cecilia - logistics, circulate materials via email ahead of the meeting. Would promote discussions on the call and email. Should also in general conduct email conversations. Jeff - GDD Summit - extensive discussions between front-end registries, registrars, and RSPs. Could help provide points for consideration, but need to include concerns from applicants and others. ACTION - collect benefits, disadvantages from these meetings and GDD Summit. May already be a part of deliberations Google Doc, but if not, can be added there. 2. Applicant Support Christa - AM Global Report – Confusion, dense, not accessible, not enough information, limited categories for applying, concerns about total cost for running a registry, infrastructure, lack of outreach, lack of traditional media outreach. Consult slides for fuller information. Only 3 applied and only 1 applicant passed the criteria (.Kids). There was also support beyond financial – consultants that would provide expertise. Michael – Good to look at criteria, process, what ASP really is. More background information would be good. Identify distinct issues. Avri - Previously called Joint Applicant Support, went to the ICANN Board, became Applicant Support. Highly complicated, scored evaluation akin to CPE. Issues - late in the process, challenging questions/criteria, still required outlay of money ($47k), minimal outreach done. Non material assistance also provided, separately (pro bono). Penalty if not passed (cancellation). ALAC research - registry industry (registrars and ccTLDs) ground was not properly laid well in advance (e.g., years in advance). Christa – Community-based project, underserved languages, NGOs, not-for profit, local entrepreneur, etc. Each category has points. Social benefit, financial need, financial capability (ability to continue registry as going concern). Anything that should be included or added for future rounds? What benefits were extended beyond just application (e.g., first year) Sara - Pros and cons for this program? Primarily resellers in the underserved regions, maybe lack registry industry infrastructure. Michael - Behind support for economically disadvantaged applicants. Need better outreach, more than just economic support, review the criteria – it’s not just based on region, process too complicated (process itself is not supportive itself). Benefit to brands? Christa – Applying a string to your company, not just a .brand. Recommend reviewing AM Global Report Jeff - CCT-RT surveys - should check their work (the AM Global Report is actually the report mentioned by Jeff). Get thoughts from those who developed ASP. Good topic for ICANN57 since input from GAC/ALAC/etc. would be useful? Should applicants who do not pass AS criteria be automatically failed? Avri - Part of JAS group, initially. Arguments around auto cancellation -> if you need the money, why would you move forward at full price? Could apply for additional funding in the meantime. Developing economy companies - population of possible registrants could be smaller. Christa - AM Global report focused on universal acceptance, developing economies – how do you target them in the most effective way? Sara - Does it make sense to integrate into capacity building efforts? Help drive the development of the criteria. Donna - IDN launch - registrars didn't support Arabic. Not much interest at the time in second-level Arabic domains. Need to help evaluate long-term viability/sustainability of TLD. ACTION - seek JAS alumni to discuss Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

New gTLDs, Work Track 1 - 4th Meeting - Proposed Agenda
by Sara Bockey Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear All, The 4th meeting for Work Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach - will take place on Tuesday, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC 20:00 PDT (Monday), 23:00 EDT (Monday), 04:00 London, 05:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/gw35mwt Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldsubteams/ The proposed agenda is as follows 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Accreditation Discussion (continued) 4. Application Support 5. AOB Best regards, Sara Bockey sara bockey policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

7 7

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 04 October 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on on Tuesday, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC Terri Agnew: wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/-Qm4Aw Michael Flemming: Phil, you weere able to join us! Michael Flemming: Avri said she will be a few minutes late. Terri Agnew: thank you for the update Michael! Phil Buckingham: Lving and working Californian time this week ! Sara Bockey: hmmm Terri Agnew: @Sara, we are unable to hear you, please check your mute Terri Agnew: We can hear you now, thank you Sara. Jeff Neuman: Here were 7 reasons I gave on a previous email: 1. Will lead to lower application fees for registry operators.2. Greater initial choice in back end operators3. Quicker processing of applications if accreditation done in advance4. consistency In evaluation results for registry operator5. Quicker time to delegation as all pdt tests done in advance6. Increases portability of back end registry operators and simplifies Icann processes to change back end operators7. Could lessen costs and time for switching back end providers Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): That ll makes sense to me Jeff avri: there are going to be multiple passes through each topic Michael Flemming: Jeff has his hand up Justine Chew: Steve has also circulated some notes on the RSP certfication brainstorming notes from Amsterdam Sara Bockey: yes, we are slated to dicuss this topic throughout this subteam - we need to discuss addtional topics but that doesnt mean we are done with this topic Rubens Kuhl: I think the answer to the "GDD Summit" part was "no", and that became an ask from contracted parties for future editions. Jeff Neuman: @Rubens: I am not sure there was an answer at the Summit, but there were flip charts that we did with many pros and cons Berry Cobb: Link to notes from GDD summit: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.8+Accreditation+Programs Rubens Kuhl: "no" as in not having more structured capture of what was said there, not in being pro or con. Jeff Neuman: Thanks Berry....there are some pretty extensive notes Jeff Neuman: Donna - Have you proposed other options? Michael Flemming: More or less, we need to look at the Pros and Cons of the issue. Michael Flemming: I think just going over what was discussed at the GDD Summit would provide for input on that side. Steve Chan 2: Proposals might be good to discuss in between meeting on email? Cecilia Smith: I agree with Michael. We can't rely on what was discussed/captured on who was present at the GDD Summit. Rubens Kuhl: One possible downside that is frequently mentioned is "race to bottom". Berry Cobb: This is also a link to the GDD summit recording for those that may want to listen to that part of the session on this topic. https://www.icann.org/gddsummit Unfortunately, I do not recall which day and time Accredidation was discussed. Sara Bockey: @Steve - agree. i made a note to have those notes recirculated to the group Michael Flemming: @Cecilia, in addition to that, I think the GDD Summit captured a majority of the discussion from Registries, but less applicants opinion. Michael Flemming: applicants as being non-BERO parties Rubens Kuhl: GDD Summit activity on this had a few groups working in parallel so recording might not be that much representative. It was also somewhat more geared towards change of backend for 2012 TLDs, although having a future procedure in context. Michael Flemming: It is a "base" Cecilia Smith: Back@ Michael (in agreement), there are many applicants that did not partiicipant at the GDD for reasons including $$, location and late timing of agenda topics. Michael Flemming: There was only one applicant that actually met the criteria for Applicant Support, correct? Michael Flemming: .Kids Michael Flemming: Cecilia has her hand up as well. Rubens Kuhl: .kids, but it's still in accountability mechanisms disputes and likely going to an auction. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I thought it was just me finding it hard to hear Christa Steve Chan 2: I believe three applied, one passed - .kids as Michael pointed out. Michael Flemming: .kids, .idn and .ummah Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Gld to see your hnd up Avri mine was about to go up Steve Chan 2: The other two that did not meet the criteria were .IDN and .UMMAH Steve Chan 2: Details regarding the program available here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Berry Cobb: Listed on microsite: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Justine Chew: Agree with Michael, + an indication of why the other 2 did not pass, to get an idea of how to help future applicants Steve Chan 2: @Berry, jinx. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): WAY too complicated Christa Taylor: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Rubens Kuhl: In trying to prevent gaming, JAS gamed itself to death. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and poorly advertised or pushed out to the ares one would think could benefit most Berry Cobb: $40K as I recall Christa Taylor: $37k Steve Chan 2: $47k Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): WAY too late Really the whole thing was Too Little effort made Too Late in the program Justine Chew: So, factors were cost, timing of program, complexity of application process or program Rubens Kuhl: .IDN was also blocked due to being a reserved name. Christa Taylor: $47k you have it right Steve Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes we do need to go look it all over again Rubens Kuhl: IDN is the 3-letter code for Indonesia Cecilia Smith: So, just so I understand. It cost an applicant $47K to apply for applicant support. Only 3 applied and none were qualified? Sara Bockey: If anyone wants to view the google doc for this WG, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… Michael Flemming: So in order to apply for help to applying for a TLD, you have to apply through JAS? This includes not only financial support but also help on the questions for the TLD Application Process? If thats the case, being required to apply for help through a separate process kind of defeats the purpose of asking for help on the TLD Application questions. Michael Flemming: Oxymoronish Michael Flemming: My understanding might not be up to speed so I will take time to go over the background material before offering points of discussion. avri: no, JAS awas the WG that recommended aspects of the program, The Board and Staff designed the Applicant Support Program. avri: one had to go through the SARP, which was a judging panel Steve Chan 2: I do not believe the support extended beyond application either (e.g., running the registry, paying registry fees) avri: there may have been some first year considerations but i do not remember off hand Rubens Kuhl: Board left the door open for considering initial or recurring support, but not commiting to any. avri: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Rubens Kuhl: A streamlined distribution network, possibly not requiring registrars, might also work for TLDs targeted at economically-restricted communities. avri: the ASP? not at all for brands. Michael Flemming: Yeah, my apologies. I need to do more background reading before jumping to conclusions. avri: that is a good idea - to get some of JAS support folks into a conversation. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Huge Issue Jeff I agree I din't think it should either avri: i mentioned that undr the rubric of severe penalties for failure. i twas totally based on the fea of gaming. Rubens Kuhl: I believe there were thresholds - One could fail applicant support but not fail evaluation if their points were not so bad. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Well said Avri... It was all rather frustrating re these aspects IMO Justine Chew: Capacity building would require resources. Is there any possibility to reduce complexity? Meet halfway? avri: and certainly before UA, was not all that possible anyway avri: sustanability also has different defintions in the global south avri: i.e lowe salries, lower overjhead cost &c. avri: pardon the typos, please Rubens Kuhl: http://www.dnsec.eg/ is trying to develop such capacities in the middle east, including arabic speaking countries. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Very true Avri Justine Chew: Yes, the support is needed if there is demand, so need to promote program also. Terri Agnew: The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): No OB Jeff Neuman: Thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thnks everyone Bye for now Justine Chew: Cheers. Michael Flemming: Thank you! Cecilia Smith: thanks!! avri: good buch of substance discussed today. thanks avri: ... bunch ... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Bye

1 0