December 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 13 December
by Steve Chan Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 December. 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. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Best, Steve Notes and Action Items 13 December 4. Applicant Support - Financial support by itself is inadequate (e.g., coaching, mentoring, partnering) - Need perspectives of those in relevant areas - Rubens - one idea is to lift a bit vertical integration restrictions for under-developed markets 5. Application Process & Cost - Clarity of Application Process - Clarifying Questions, Streamline Answer Submission, Contacts by Categories, Knowledge Database - Streamline Answer Submissions - Re: RSP "tick a box" to note using RSP (already identified via RSP discussion, should be tied back here) - What is the purpose of seeing the actual CQ and responses versus the themes, categories, etc. as identified in the PIRR? - Trang - As Donna mentioned, CQs could be indicative of the nature of the question, which is not a process issue. They could also be an indication of the non-structured way that answers were collected, which is a process issue that can be fixed. 6. Application Submission Period & Queuing - Is there a floor price that should be established to avoid TLDs becoming a commodity? Or ceiling? - Invoices - allow for generation, but make it optional (since there may be tax implications) - Should $185k have any bearing on future costing estimates/models? - Cost recovery was basis for 2012 round - should that carry forward? It's very difficult to do without a true understanding of demand (e.g., 2012 round had far more than the estimated 500 applications) - Is there support for cost recovery in future processes? What are the alternatives? - Rubens - "market value" pricing - Donna - Went with fixed fee because demand was unknown - Cheryl - Support the concept of cost-recovery, thinks that first-movers assume some risks, higher costs. As such, uneven playing field is ok. - Alan - Supports points of Cheryl. How/who puts forward a number? - Rubens - Perhaps the policy and the implementation drifted apart, but the policy guidance was cost-recovery and this still seems to resonante with people. - Kurt - we won't know costs until the policy and implementation work is done, i.e., when we have a new question set. E.g., if categories are included, that would drive costs up; and the form of objection processes drive costs also. - Support from multiple commenters to stick with previous approach from 2012 round. 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://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 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, 13 December 2016 at 03:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** 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 13 December 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 03:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Yoshi Murakami:Hi Steve Chan:@Sara, the slides are unsynced - did you want to have control over them for the group? Christa Taylor:yes please we need to be on Schedule of Topics Kurt Pritz:can you paste the link into the chat? Christa Taylor:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sch… Kurt Pritz:thanks Christa Terri Agnew:@Sara, we are unable to hear you Sara Bockey:ok let me log back in Kurt Pritz:this is a link to the Hyderabad meeting on accreditation, correct? Trang Nguyen:@Donna, my understanding is that the efforts that Francisco is leading is targeted at improving the process for RSP changes for current ROs under the existing RA. Rubens Kuhl:I can't talk loud at this our in my timezone, but one idea is to lift a bit vertical integration restrictions for under-developed markets. Rubens Kuhl:(at this time) Justine Chew:+1 Kurt Justine Chew:Wasn't there some thought about simplifying the application process too? Rubens Kuhl:I just did what Alan mentioned, see above in the chat... ;-) Kurt Pritz:Good idea Alan Justine Chew:Sorry I could be jumping the gun on the next agenda item :) Rubens Kuhl:The mirror idea of lifting vertical integration restrictions is to establish must-carry rules for registrars. Which are bound to be unpopular. Donna Austin, Neustar:@ Rubens, if you can shift it to a collaborative partnering similar to what Kurt suggested, then it might be more palatable if considered voluntary and for the greater good of the industry. Kurt Pritz:Should we agree to get some opinions like alan said? Rubens Kuhl:That's why I prefer the non-mirror, original idea: not forcing anyone to do something they don't want to. Steve Chan:Here is the link to the AMGlobal report - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Steve Chan:This study was conducted on behalf of the CCT-RT Rubens Kuhl:CQs answers were not available. Confirmed by Christine Willet. Trang Nguyen:The PIRR report provides the number of CQs issued for each of the application questions. Trang Nguyen:CQs and responses were not posted. Steve Chan:And here is a link to that report again: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Steve Chan:Program Implementation Review Report = PIRR Rubens Kuhl:The questions and answers for CQs for publicly-posted questions had no reason to not be published. Trang Nguyen:As Donna mentioned, CQs could be indicative of the nature of the question, which is not a process issue. They could also be an indication of the non-structured way that answers were collected, which is a process issue that can be fixed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I agree Rubin's.. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry I am father quite today now about to start driving and so will not be readily available in chat either just audio Rubens Kuhl:Just to add an opt-out mechanism on invoices... some countries, including mine, have a bit bizarre tax system. Kurt Pritz:I agree we don't have the future cost but it could be markedly lower than previous rounds cost. The application could be simplified, risks could be mitigated, fixed costs might be reduced the second time around. Kurt Pritz:Omigosh, it would be a mess trying to allocate costs for each of these types and watch the applicants trying to qualify for lower application fees Rubens Kuhl:I think the WT is ready for doing a Consensus Call on the model being cost-recovery, but it hasn't happened yet AFAIK. Rubens Kuhl:Noting that cost-recovery doesn't mean granular cost-recovery. Agree with Kurt on losing efficiencies by trying to set a per-type cost. Alan Greenberg:I have a problem voting for one option not knowing what the other(s) might be. Christopher Niemi:Alan +1 Rubens Kuhl:Different from cost-recovery could be "market value" pricing. Rubens Kuhl:(Which I do not support, but identify as an option) Rubens Kuhl:Even the 185,000 was already cost-recovery... Donna Austin, Neustar 2:@Rubens, yes it was based on the cost-recovery but it was not accurate for various reasons Donna Austin, Neustar 2:+89m at this point Rubens Kuhl:Donna, perhaps the policy and the implementation drifted apart, but the policy guidance was cost-recovery and this still seems to resonante with people. Kurt Pritz:we won't know costs until the policy and implementation work is done, i.e., when we have a new question set. E.g., if categories are included, that would drive costs up; and the form of objection processes drive costs also. avri doria:the policy last time was cost recovery, but the cost being 'recovered' was not exactly agreed upon by all. Justine Chew:Sorry, I have to drop off now. Catch up next time. Donna Austin, Neustar 2:Thanks Sara Rubens Kuhl:We should only use FCFS if no rounds/windows. If using slotted system, we should not use FCFS, like what was done in the 2012-round. Donna Austin, Neustar 2:i think my answer would be B. Trang Nguyen:There are potential impacts to FCFS, CQs for example. Kurt Pritz:I agree with Rubens - the queueing should be as the previous round. Trang Nguyen:Thank you, all. Bye. Donna Austin, Neustar 2:thanks Sara and Christa

1 0

Work Track 1 - proposed agenda for 12 Dec 2016
by Sara Bockey Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 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, 13 December 2016 at 03:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. RSP Accreditation 4. Applicant Support 5. Application Process & Cost 6. Application Submission Period & Queuing 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.

1 0