December 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

WT1: Progress document & request to review December's topics
by Christa Taylor Dec. 20, 2017

Dec. 20, 2017

Dear Work Track 1 Members, In facilitating the discussion of Work Track 1 topics, we have created a document that provides a summary of each of the topics including the issues posed, past discussions, consensus items along with additional areas that we may wish to address. We encourage everyone to add their feedback directly to the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark84 tmg/edit?usp=sharing. We're hoping members could spare ten minutes, before the January 9th meeting, to reflect on December's topics for any additional input on: * Systems * Communications * Application Queuing Thank-you for all of your time and contributions in 2017. Safe & Happy Holidays! Christa Taylor and Sara Bockey Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA Skype: christat13 <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa(a)dottba.com <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddyT <mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com> sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey

1 0

AC Recording, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 19 December 2017
by Terri Agnew Dec. 19, 2017

Dec. 19, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording is listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p2xa0krddfj/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=17e199abfa1fcf54 4e1069db42438778cb8fe907e0429b4cdb72a46f61efd41d> https://participate.icann.org/p2xa0krddfj/ 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 ** 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/WQtyB> https://community.icann.org/x/WQtyB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WT1 -19 December 2017
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 19, 2017

Dec. 19, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Action Items: 1. SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of potential recommendations for Systems & Communications: Slide 4: Systems: -- Issue posed to the WG: How can the systems used to support the New gTLD Program, such as TAS, Centralized Zone Data Service, Portal, etc. be made more robst, user friendly, and better integrated? Slide 5: Systems recommendations Slide 6: System recommendations -- Consensus items to date -- ICANN's Program Implementation Review Report has some relevant information on page 168: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf -- Can we show that some of the concerns from the first round are being addressed? Can add some language on the improvements that have already been addressed. -- On the beta testing -- good recommendation -- there was a feeling that if we had done some beta testing ICANN might think that those who did the testing would have an unfair advantage. If we do recommend beta testing we should address that issue. -- Add another note saying that the system shouldn't add new legal requirements, such as click-through agreements. -- If there is a new system there will need to be new terms of use that may impose new legal requirements. We can express concern and reflect on what happened previously but it's unrealistic that a new system would not have any legal privileges and obligations. -- Any legal conditions should be known up front in the AGB. Should be finalized before the process. -- Shouldn't be the unilateral imposition of new legal terms and conditions -- should be a negotiated process. >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): last time systems were not very secure - it is possible to add sowrding about separation of info recieved from different logins? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): wording Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it was large scale issue Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): As I understand current Portal is going to accept info of Applicants, and not just Registies like now, and it is full of issues, and testing was a failure .. almost nothing was fixed after it Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so I am really pessemistic about the improvements done Donna Austin, Neustar: Jeff, I understand that but there has been improvements/changes that might be positive. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and we participated in the pilot Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): the engagement without learning Jeff Neuman: I do not believe the new portal can handle the receipt of application data Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): was last time (autmn) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): even the import of data from the old GDD portal was not done properly Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): that is why I recommended to add the wording about separation of data Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): another important item: the system should not add new legal requirements on itself Jeff Neuman: I agree 100% with Maxim. We are still dealing with this on the new portal where 50% of us have not used it because of the Terms of Use Rubens Kuhl: "Homogenous terms and conditions between AGB and application system", perhaps ? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): legal requrements, which were not written in AGB or policies Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I meant these requirements needs to be driven from the multistakeholder process and needs to be set in advance Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): or required changes to these terms - matter of IRT of something like it Slide 8: Communications -- Issue posed to the WG: Examine access to and content within knowledge base as well as communication methods between ICANN and the community. -- The data in these slides comes from the Program Implementation Review Report as well: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf You can see the relevant sections starting on page 199 Slide 9: Customer Service Center (CSC) -- Around 2200 were on TLD application status. Slide 10: CSC Annual Volume of Cases Slide 11: CSC Number of Days to Last Response Slide 12: CSC Number of Days to Case Closure Slide 13: CSC Percentage of Cases Resolved by Tier 1 Slide 14: Communication Recommendations Slide 15: Communications Recommendations -- Consensus Items to Date Discussion: -- Slide 15 -- "Program information should be contained within one website" -- Last time everything was spread around and not easy to find. -- Prioritize the issues that have the biggest impact for most people. -- Need for an escalation procedure. -- This is another area where it may help to provide policy guidance on the ability of ICANN to answer questions without treating one applicant more favorably. >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): prioritization of cases is required - like non-working application system - first grade e.t.c. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): in the future system Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): there were no SLAs - they were created as a result of common interest working group of GDD and Registries/Applicants group Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *result of work Jeff Neuman: I had that issue Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): there should be an escalation process in place Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): with clear rules and timelines Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): notifications to applicants Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): also when applicants know already open info - it saves time of support team 3. Review of potential recommendations for Application Queuing Slide 17: Application Queuing -- Issue posed to this WG: Review whether first come first served guidance remains relevant and if not, whether another mechanism is more appropriate. Slide 18: Applicant Queuing Recommendations -- If queuing need support draw/raffle, not Digital Archery. -- Allow applicants which of their applications to prioritize. -- No consensus on prioritization. Slide 19: Applicant Queuing Recommendations -- Consensus Items to Date -- Not sure asking what the goals were is very helpful. Not sure if the goal was to have IDNs go first. -- Need to consider what we gain from prioritization of applications. Prioritizaton of IDNs made sense at the time but caused problems and delays. >From the chat: Steve Chan: Ok, maybe we can formulate that into a fully formed request and then WT1 can help determine if it's something it needs to explore. Rubens Kuhl: Perhaps WT1 could establish no opposition but no request to prioritze IDNs. That ICANN would have liberty to decide whether the political scenario at that time favors doing IDN prioritization or not. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): if some special priorities identified, we should use soemthing like "Weighted Fair Queueing" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_fair_queueing Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so the prioritized group of application does not block others completely Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *applications Donna Austin, Neustar: rather than IDNs should we give some preference to applications from the global south? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Donna, I meant something like this - but using the transparent process Alexander Schubert: Global South will be gamed as tons of applicants use shell companies in tax havens anyways! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): maybe , last time lots of offshore companies were from "Europe" Donna Austin, Neustar: quite possibly Alexander Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): in terms of regions (for applications) Rubens Kuhl: Not creating high barriers like high application fees and high recurring yearly fees is what would help Global South without being gamed. Christa Taylor: Were IDN applicants who were given priority given a choice? Christa Taylor: yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @ Rubens, it will be possible to rent out such registries after the process Alexander Schubert: Low monetary entry barriers will create fun-applications by wannabe registries. Christa Taylor: So are we against the priortization of applications? Steve Chan: @Christa, I believe the order was 1) IDNs that opted in 2) standard TLDs that opted in 3) IDNs that did NOT opt in and 4) standard TLDs that did NOT opt in Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Christa, we are not against it, it should be done in transparent manner, using different priorities for approved groups of applications (if any) Jeff Neuman: No one has presented a compelling case for prioritizing any types of applications. We could ask for feedback on this in the Preliminary report.

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Christa Taylor Dec. 16, 2017

Dec. 16, 2017

Dear Work Track 1 Members, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of potential recommendations for Systems & Communications 4. Review of potential recommendations for Application Queuing 5. AOB Cheers, Christa Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA Skype: christat13 <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa(a)dottba.com <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com

1 0

AC Recording, attendance & AC chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 05 December 2017
by Terri Agnew Dec. 5, 2017

Dec. 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance, Adobe Connect chat and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording is listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 05 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p47pp47b7j9/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=c8cf5ea0eb669bf2…> https://participate.icann.org/p47pp47b7j9/ 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 ** 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB> https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WT1 - 5 December 2017
by Emily Barabas Dec. 5, 2017

Dec. 5, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes/Action Items: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs - No updates 3. Review of Timeline - Dec 2017: Work on completing deliberations and begin review of WT recommendations - Jan-Feb 2018: Complete review of recommendations - March 2018: Take WT recommendations to the Full WG 4. Review of potential recommendations for Application Guide Book - Overview and review of questions and concerns, rationale for policy development - Proposed recommendations to date have focused on implementation guidance -- Remove background and rationale, move to Appendices. -- Suggestions: AGB should be less historical, less of a policy approach, create a practical guide with improved table of contents and index, step-by-step guide possibly by type of application - Feedback on subdividing the AGV by audience-driven sections - No harm in audience-driven sections - There should be an online and searchable version. There should be a complete document available. If directing people to specific audience driven sections, could get ICANN into hot water. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: So, if you are a back end operator, here are the sections you need to pay attention to Jeff Neuman: kind of an enhanced index Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): This approach would require re-writing multiple parts of the document in case of similar changes Jeff Neuman: Thats a recommendation as well - have a non-pdf online searchable AGB Justine Chew: Or consider inserting tags for different category of audience by type of applicant? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and online version can be changed - There will be a lot of sections that are generic that apply to all types of applicants and other sections that will apply to certain specific audiences. We seem to be stuck in a print mentality. Ultimately, the omnibus should be the entirety for search purposes. All sections should be accessible to all people, but specific sections should be tagged so that people can find the parts that are most useful to them. - You don't want to have totally different versions of the AGB for different audiences. Anywhere you replicate content you risk making errors in replicating. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: PDFs can be changed as well Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff, the offline copy will be the same (and the checksum of the file) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and as I understand the AGB should be stable between releases Alexander Schubert BackUp: As long as we have ONE version that simply bears some "labels": great! But we should avoid a balcanization of the AGB that results in hard forks.... Donna Austin, Neustar: One AGB with a readers guide perhaps. I agree with Greg this is fairly administrative. Greg Shatan: There's no need to replicate the "generic" parts of the AGB. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): could we suggest tags : like <ALL>, <GEO>, <Community> e.t.c. for pages? Justine Chew: We should not specifically discourage applicants' attention to the entire AGB -- applicants ought to read the entire AGB to determine for themselves what is relevant to them and what is not -- but tagging different sections to relevant categories of applicants would be useful to make the AGB more user-friendly. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so it would be both understandable in printed version and would allow to filter by tag Donna Austin, Neustar: Fully agree Justine Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): "choose your own adventure book" is a great analogy ðŸ˜€ - Agree to have one complete version, but to encourage greater participation, we should encourage and support tools to improve accessibility of the AGB, especially for those who are not insiders. Part of this could be a guide for specific audiences. From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): to make an initial choice of the application type, one needs to see the whole book Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, that's a great recommendation that we can work with. The details can be figured out during implementation. Greg Shatan: I don't mind talking about it., and I think that navigability and UX (user experience) cannot be overestimated. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): last AGB would be better with "Read it at least 5 times" on the first page :) Donna Austin, Neustar: To Jeff's point perhaps the recommendation is along the lines of "the AGB should be accessible to the non-insiders" with some examples of how that ocould be done 5. Review of potential recommendations for Application Support - review of history of the topic (slides 9-13) From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Since we dont know what the fees will be for the next round, $47,000 represents just about 25% of the application fee of $185,000. I cant remember if that is how we got the $47k Jeff Neuman: If it was, and we agree that applicants should be able to support 1/4 of the application fee themselves, should it be reworded to reflect that? Jeff Neuman: So, for illustrative purposes only, would it mean that if the application fee were $100k, we would expect applicants to be able to fund $25k themselves? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): +1 for "1/4 of the usual app fee" - Policy recommendations: -- Provide a process to transition to the "regular" application track (slide 14) From the chat: Justine Chew: p14 -- what criteria would be applied to deem an applicant as "gaming the system"? -- Implementation recommendation - improve promotional efforts (slide 15) - Find suitable partners with relevant global reach to deliver the message to the appropriate audiences, implement appropriate training programs for developing locally situalted registries/registrars (slide 16) - Compare volume of users of domain names registered in regional TLDs, identify the number of domain names registered in region new gTLDs (slide 16) -- Implementation recommendation - utilize partnerships to maximize outreach (slide 17) -- Recommendation - provide support beyond reduced application fees (slide 18) -- Recommendation - Understand obstacles and provide assistance accordingly (slide 19) From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): page 19. a. Which kind of tech support do we reffer to? Jeff Neuman: @Maxim - outsourced registry operations, consulting services to understand technical requirements, etc. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I think it could be written as "technical expertise inhouse or outsourced is highly recommended" - Question: Who should Applicant Support be available to? - Some concern limiting to least developed economies without looking at the individual circumstances of the applicant. Fellowship program was once only available to applicants from specific countries. Now it is available to individuals in any country as long as personal circumstances match the objectives of the program. This disadvantages those are less advantaged individuals in more affluent countries, such as those from indigenous communities. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: I agree with Greg, eligibility should not be largely based on where you come from. Jeff Neuman: So Greg - To restate - qualification on who qualifies for Applicant Support should be focused on the needs of the applicant as opposed to being focused on where they reside? - Do not want to limit to least developed countries. Means needs to be considered. Location may be relevant, but shouldn't be the main factor. - Is reducing the application fee going to be sufficient? Is it just the applicant that is disadvantaged or potentially also those using the TLD? - Where did the 2 million dollars come from? If we reduce the fees, does someone else pay more than their share? From the chat: Jim Prendergast: Who at ICANN makes the determination on the means test? Jim Prendergast: ICANN tries to avoid making decisions like that Jeff Neuman: @Jim - There was a panel that was formed to make those decisions and the panel was made up of members of community and "experts" I believe Greg Shatan: Jeff -- In a word, yes. Although, I don't think it is "binary" (i.e., "as opposed to" is not the way I'd like to look at it -- it could be more nuanced than that). Jim Prendergast: Thats my recollection as well - but it probably came out of the "historical development costs" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what happens when supported applicant goes through the aquisition process (bought by some other company)? Jon Nevett: Historical costs are being charged back to applicant fees Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): historical costs for the last round are still not stable (more and more added) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): for example IANA transition was added (according to the letter about Excess fees) Justine Chew: @Maxim, M&A are normal business transactions which we can neither foresee nor interfere with. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I mean that the support should not be used for gaming (so the M&A is not the way to save 3/4 of the application fee) Donna Austin, Neustar: I would also note that the 'string' would be an important consideration and it would need to have some relevance to the region or whatever. - If there is a limited fund available for support, how do we decide between candidates that meet the criteria if we don't use geography as a factor? We still need a mechanism to choose between applicants. - Important consideration is whether you are going to have a viable market in some of these areas. Could you approach it differently? Identify five projects to participate free and clear of fees, but they have to make a business case for why it would work, and they would work with partnerships initially, with the goal of building expertise and becoming self sufficient within a year. - Among things to consider - the CCT-RT report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> - One of the things mentioned in this report is the global south and defining this term. This could be one of the factors used in selection criteria. - Location needs to be looked at in a more nuanced way. Remote area of Alaska or South Bronx are within the US, but are less resourced communities. - Consider incubator or accelerator model. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: TLDs will have varying ideas of success Justine Chew: @Greg, sure, understood, for that matter should we look at public national Internet accessibility / infrastructure (ala ITU) as a criteria? Donna Austin, Neustar: I think some of this is outside ICANN's remit. Donna Austin, Neustar: Unless tICANN becomes some kind of philanthropist organisation because of Auction Funds. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Justine, it should not be just national, but since requirements for Registry require good connectivity ... then international connectivity is a must (purely Antarctic TLD is not possible) - Does the group want to introduce success criteria? From the chat: Greg Shatan: @Jeff, I think a "scorecard" is needed, but geography (coarse and fine) should only be one aspect. - This is an area where we can punt in the preliminary report. Once we have a better sense of what the program will look like, we will be better able to design metrics around the success of the program. Trang Nguyen: I might have missed this, but have the objectives of the Applicant Support Program been defined? - In preliminary report, ask the community for suggestions for measuring the success of meeting those goals. - Some suggestions for metrics: those who have considered applying, those who have applied, and number of successful applicants Greg Shatan: Business plan, financial sustainabiity, sources of funds, all need to be part of a scorecard. AOB: None

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for Tuesday, 05 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Dec. 5, 2017

Dec. 5, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 05 December 2017 at 15:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of Timeline 4. Review of potential recommendations for Application Guide Book 5. Review of potential recommendations for Application Support 6. AOB Best regards, Sara sara bockey sr. 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.

2 1