February 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

WT1 agenda
by Sara Bockey Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 2017

Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Communications & Systems * From the New gTLD Program Implementation Review provided several recommendations that the group may want to consider in developing implementation guidance on Systems and Communications. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf * Systems (see page 174) * Communications (see page 198) 1. Application Guidebook,https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.5+Applicant+Guidebo… 2. CC2 Questions, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…> 3. AOB Attached for your convenience is a link to the final report on the Applicant Guidebook. Please review this material prior to the call to assist in topical, focused discussions. Thanks, 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.

3 2

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 14 February 2017
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 14 February. 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. Please note also that the slides referenced below are attached and for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call Tuesday, 14 February 2017 at 3:00 UTC Apologies: Laura Watkins, Susan Payne On audio only: Agenda: 1. Welcome & SOIs 2. Update: Accreditation Program 3. Application Fees/Variable Fees – Consensus Vote 4. Application Guidebook, https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.5+Applicant+Guidebook?preview… 5. CC2 Questions, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… Notes: 1. Update: Accreditation Program -- Update from Jeff Neuman on parallel GDD RSP Program: Need to determine policy work. Timing in relation to GDD RSP. -- Discussed that there would be a number of similarities from one registry to another. ICANN process. Recognized that there would be a lot of similarities in the processes. Discussed in Hyderabad. In early January ICANN issued a call for volunteers for this group. -- Note current CC2 questions (slide 4) 2. Applications & Variable Fees (slide 5) -- Asked for responses using the green checkmarks: Statement: Lack of Invoices were a challenge: Responses: 8 green checkmarks. -- Different costs for different categories -- considering that? Trying to get some insight into that. May not be worth having different fees, but having a different cost structure. -- Set out the policy principle -- that this is a valuable piece of real estate. May lower the cost recovery. -- We need to keep the bar raised. Explore that cost recovery is supposed to be for? -- ICANN may have overestimated evaluation costs. Policy construct should be based on this last round. There should be a floor in place. -- Cost recovery is likely to stay in place without making things too cheap. -- Get community feedback. Come up with a policy position. Don't say the cost, but how to determine it. Focus more on the policy issues. Extract principles from this call. Recognition that ICANN recover all of its costs and this is a valuable part of ICANN real estate. >From the chat: Alan Greenberg: If some people need invoices, what would be the reason for not doing it? Rubens Kuhl: Alan, tax regulations in some countries are more bizarre that the old English colonies habitants can think of... ;-) Michael Flemming: Alan, the issue is that the invoices are not sent timely, have a lot of mistakes, and some invoices don't even make it to us. 3. Cost Recovery Fees (slide 5) -- Reword the question: Even if costs are much lower there should be a floor that is lower. -- Agree with Jeff. Cost recovery is important. Why not change it do a deposit? -- Take a closer look at the numbers. >From the chat: Alan Greenberg: Apparently we need to not only ask for an invoicing system but a TIMELY one... Jon Nevett: do we need to justify the difference? Trang Nguyen: @Jeff: I'm happy to give my personal opinion if asked, but don't think it's appropriate for me to vote on consensus calls. I view my role here as providing information to help inform deliberations. Rubens Kuhl: We could offset the fixed fees of all registries that come out of a procedure. If 1 million was raised, 900 thousand spent, 100 thousand divided by 1000 applicants, 100 dollars discount for everyone. Donna Austin, Neustar: I think my point was that the application fee needs to take into account that the applicant is acquiring a unique piece of internet real estate. In this context i don't think it's unreasonable to have the floor set at $185,000. Michael Flemming: But the problem comes back at two points.. 1. The cost recovery is too high; and 2. What do you do with the extra? That is from a Brand perspective, of course. Jon Nevett: unlike in the 2012 Round, we need to indicate what happens to excess application fees -- the 2012 AGB said what happens to auction proceeds, but not excess application fees Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jon Michael Flemming: I agree with Jon there. I wasn't even aware of the cost recovery until they talked about offsetting the fees. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that makes sense to me Jeff Jeff Neuman: I agree with Jon and Donna on that. I thikn we do ask that in CC2 Jon Nevett: depends on how long we take -- ICANN charges back for historical costs -- $185 might not be enough :-) Rubens Kuhl: $185k is not small cash for some world regions. So even for organisations that don't qualify for applicant support, and shouldn't, would be disinfranchised by such a large fee. Jeff Neuman: So, how can we word this as a policy concept without indicating an exact figure? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Rubens, I accept that is the case but running a TLD is also not small cash. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Rubens Jeff Neuman: So let ICANN figure out what the figure should be, but indicate we really mean cost recovery this time, but having a floor to reflect this is a piece of Internet real estate, but that we do not necessarily need such a large contingency fund.....and perhaps the "pre-approval" of RSPs ccould cover their own costs Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, iwhat multiple of yearly recurring costs would you find applicable for the application fee ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): as we explored in the old Applicant Support work though Donna, getting funding for ongoing costs is often easier in some communities and economies, than raising funds for a 'blue sky' project.... Donna Austin, Neustar: @Rubens, I don't understand your question. Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, let's say that running a registry costs USD 100k a year. So 2 times for application fee would be enough ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Rubens Jeff Neuman: So let ICANN figure out what the figure should be, but indicate we really mean cost recovery this time, but having a floor to reflect this is a piece of Internet real estate, but that we do not necessarily need such a large contingency fund.....and perhaps the "pre-approval" of RSPs ccould cover their own costs Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, iwhat multiple of yearly recurring costs would you find applicable for the application fee ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): as we explored in the old Applicant Support work though Donna, getting funding for ongoing costs is often easier in some communities and economies, than raising funds for a 'blue sky' project.... Donna Austin, Neustar: @Rubens, I don't understand your question. Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, let's say that running a registry costs USD 100k a year. So 2 times for application fee would be enough ? Justine Chew: I agree with Jeff's approach. Also can some portion of the excess application fees from 2012 be designated as financial support for the next round of applicants which fall under Ruben's group of "some world reigion" - based on some set criteria of course? Jon Nevett: so maybe the fee shouldn't be cost recovery -- it should be a fixed amount -- but any excess amounts collected should go to Y. i definitely don't agree that excess fees of one round should go to the next -- might be ok for auction proceeds, but not excess app fees Donna Austin, Neustar: @CLO, perhaps the Applicant Support aspect should be expanded to cover Ruben's point. Jon Nevett: @Donna -- and that would be a good use of auction proceeds Rubens Kuhl: Justine, I'm not advocating for lesser fees for all organisations from underserved regions... even in underserved there are some "large pockets". But a large pocket in those regions mean one thing, in others, another. Trang Nguyen: There's some program cost in the FY17 CANN budget here (page 32) https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy17-25ju…. Page 33 of that budget has a break-down of eval cost per eval panel. Justine Chew: @Rubens, sure, I don't mean in blanket. Any such an applicant ought to be deserving, based on some set criteria. @Jon, what is Y? Rubens Kuhl: The deserving applicants are of concern for applicant support... but by establishing a fee that is not based on cost recovery, but from economic power of usual orgs in large markets, this automatically cuts in a different level for underserved regions. Michael Flemming: But does everyone want to contribute to applicant support? Do our fees make up for applicant support? Rubens Kuhl: And there is the warning that's usually repeated that defining fees per region leads to gaming by setting up shell corporations in those regions.. Michael Flemming: I think that goes back to a point that was made at the Hyderabad APAC space in regards to this subject that if the applicant fees are too low for underserved regions, then it undermines the actual costs of the variable fees that they need to undertake to run the TLD. Trang Nguyen: And this is the new gTLD Program budget memo from 2010: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-new-gtld-pro…, Michael Flemming: The special pieceJon Nevett: review=withdrew Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, it's difficult to break down the eval cost of internet real estate is not just the application fee, but the cost that goes into running it, too. Jeff Neuman: Trang, its hard to read that slide 32 without knowing how many evaluations we conducted. Jon Nevett: Some review pre-eval, but not too many Jeff Neuman: CC2 asks some questions on this as well (namely, how should surpluses be spent), et. Justine Chew: +1 Jeff. Jon Nevett: review=withdrew Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, it's difficult to break down the eval cost per app because some apps were withdrawn after initial eval, some required re-evaluation due to change requests. What the FY17 budget tells us is the total eval cost. Christa Taylor: Will combine and come up with a high level questions to consider for the next call 4. Application Queuing: IDN prioritization (slides 6, 7, and 8) -- See slides 5, 6, and 7. -- Had to choose whether they were in the prioritization draw. -- There were IDN applications could purchase a ticket to be one of the 100 applications to purchase a ticket.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p9bolyisgiy/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=35164ca55b0b4325 1de3126b2595278b4418e8a455ee85906e150b73fd5ffb72> https://participate.icann.org/p9bolyisgiy/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn so-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsubsequent-2D16may16-2Den.mp3&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll 3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_ fjAZ8X8f1kW0l0GMcnTYAJub8JIzI-nbGkDB_FNy0s&s=Xc2HCgoInyY4sazVMVxejDycY3Vw2SB D9TFBrxEGM60&e=> 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 Wiki agenda page: <https://community.icann.org/x/lLPDAw> https://community.icann.org/x/lLPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 February 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call onTuesday, 14 February 2017 at 3:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_l LPDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ lLPDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zB U&s=2iBCrg1wsIR7ZTBc16Al2zmIacRbI9ADFPpJjvSqhYM&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=2i BCrg1wsIR7ZTBc16Al2zmIacRbI9ADFPpJjvSqhYM&e= Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):3rd time was the charm Jeff Neuman:Hello all Terri Agnew:Welcome to AC portion Cheryl, glad it worked on third time Vanda Scartezini:hi all, good meeting this evening. Trang Nguyen:626 676 9458 is Trang Rubens Kuhl:Allan, it seems that typing sounds is coming from your line... Alan Greenberg:Sorry, forgot to mute. Now ok. Steve Chan:CC2 questions here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen t_d_1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR-5Fb6-2DjH2Wl5eVH-2DWWM_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume nt_d_1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR-5Fb6-2DjH2Wl5eVH-2DWWM_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=s2 EnsOWyGee1FHml7Fwx-JZzp60IIlUgqEDxvIQn6Gg&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=s2 EnsOWyGee1FHml7Fwx-JZzp60IIlUgqEDxvIQn6Gg&e= Jeff Neuman:Donna, Rubens, Jon, if I missstated anything, let me know Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, nothing sounded weird to me. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, I think there is still some confusion around this topic. Hopefully, we will have more clarity once the RySG group makes some progress. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Donna. Rubens Kuhl:I note though that it should be optional. Michael Flemming:I pray for this every 3 months. Alan Greenberg:If some people need invoices, what would be the reason for not doing it? Rubens Kuhl:Alan, tax regulations in some countries are more bizarre that the old English colonies habitants can think of... ;-) Michael Flemming:Alan, the issue is that the invoices are not sent timely, have a lot of mistakes, and some invoices don't even make it to us. Jeff Neuman:I think ICANN staff on this call cant really vote (Trang being one of them) Jeff Neuman:Not that we believe they cant vote Jeff Neuman:But they may not be comfortable voting Alan Greenberg:Apparently we need to not only ask for an invoicing system but a TIMELY one... Jon Nevett:do we need to justify the difference? Trang Nguyen:@Jeff: I'm happy to give my personal opinion if asked, but don't think it's appropriate for me to vote on consensus calls. I view my role here as providing information to help inform deliberations. Rubens Kuhl:We could offset the fixed fees of all registries that come out of a procedure. If 1 million was raised, 900 thousand spent, 100 thousand divided by 1000 aplicants, 100 dollars discount for everyone. Donna Austin, Neustar:I think my point was that the application fee needs to take into account that the applicant is acquiring a unique piece of internet real estate. In this context i don't think it's unreasonable to have the floor set at $185,000. Michael Flemming:But the problem comes back at two points. Michael Flemming:1. The cost recovery is too high Michael Flemming:and 2. What do you do with the extra? Michael Flemming:That is from a Brand perspective, of course. Jon Nevett:unlike in the 2012 Round, we need to indicate what happens to excess application fees -- the 2012 AGB said what happens to auction proceeds, but not excess application fees Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jon Michael Flemming:I agree with Jon there. I wasn't even aware of the cost recovery until they talked about offsetting the fees. Michael Flemming:So make it clear for cost recovery and if nothing happens, it turns into a deposit, or like Rubens said, it comes back as a discount. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that makes sense to me Jeff Jeff Neuman:I agree with Jon and Donna on that. I thikn we do ask that in CC2 Jon Nevett:depends on how long we take -- ICANN charges back for historical costs -- $185 might not be enough :-) Rubens Kuhl:$185k is not small cash for some world regions. So even for organisations that don't qualify for applicant support, and shouldn't, would be disinfranchised by such a large fee. Jeff Neuman:So, how can we word this as a policy concept without indicating an exact figure? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Rubens, I accept that is the case but running a TLD is also not small cash. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Rubens Jeff Neuman:So let ICANN figure out what the figure should be, but indicate we really mean cost recovery this time, but having a floor to reflect this is a piece of Internet real estate, but that we do not necessarily need such a large contingency fund.....and perhaps the "pre-approval" of RSPs ccould cover their own costs Rubens Kuhl:@Donna, iwhat multiple of yearly recurring costs would you find applicable for the application fee ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):as we explored in the old Applicant Support work though Donna, getting funding for ongoing costs is often easier in some communities and economies, than raising funds for a 'blue sky' project.... Donna Austin, Neustar:@Rubens, I don't understand your question. Rubens Kuhl:@Donna, let's say that running a registry costs USD 100k a year. So 2 times for application fee would be enough ? Justine Chew:I agree with Jeff's approach. Also can some portion of the excess appllication fees from 2012 be designated as financial support for the next round of applicants which fall under Ruben's group of "some world reigion" - based on some set criteria of course? Jon Nevett:so maybe the fee shouldn't be cost recovery -- it should be a fixed amount -- but any excess amounts collected should go to Y Jon Nevett:i definitely don't agree that excess fees of one round should go to the next -- might be ok for auction proceeds, but not excess app fees Donna Austin, Neustar:@CLO, perhaps the Applicant Support aspect should be expanded to cover Ruben's point. Jon Nevett:@Donna -- and that would be a good use of auction proceeds Rubens Kuhl:Justine, I'm not advocating for lesser fees for all organisations from underserved regions... even in underserved there are some "large pockets". But a large pocket in those regions mean one thing, in others, another. Trang Nguyen:There's some program cost in the FY17 CANN budget here (page 32) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system _files_files_adopted-2Dopplan-2Dbudget-2Dfy17-2D25jun16-2Den.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste m_files_files_adopted-2Dopplan-2Dbudget-2Dfy17-2D25jun16-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c =FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa 0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=MjVkfirAOBDeU kIP04mSI3qs52KO6ltuKVuuoxIdX0M&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=Mj VkfirAOBDeUkIP04mSI3qs52KO6ltuKVuuoxIdX0M&e= Trang Nguyen:Page 33 of that budget has a break-down of eval cost per eval panel. Justine Chew:@Rubens, sure, I don't mean in blanket. Any such an applicant ought to be deserving, based on some set criteria. Justine Chew:@Jon, what is Y? Rubens Kuhl:The deserving applicants are of concern for applicant support... but by establishing a fee that is not based on cost recovery, but from economic power of usual orgs in large markets, this automatically cuts in a different level for underserved regions. Michael Flemming:But does everyone want to contribute to applicant support? Michael Flemming:Do our fees make up for applicant support? Rubens Kuhl:And there is the warning that's usually repeated that defining fees per region leads to gaming by setting up shell corporations in those regions. Michael Flemming:I think that goes back to a point that was made at the Hyderabad APAC space in regards to this subject that if the applicant fees are too low for underserved regions, then it undermines the actual costs of the variable fees that they need to undertake to run the TLD. Trang Nguyen:And this is the new gTLD Program budget memo from 2010: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_to pics_new-2Dgtlds_explanatory-2Dmemo-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dprogram-2Dbudget-2D22oct1 0-2Den.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_t opics_new-2Dgtlds_explanatory-2Dmemo-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dprogram-2Dbudget-2D22oct 10-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXA vSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_ FT-zBU&s=4NPRkP3a_iGpp7p8orEnSiRv8jpg23SzVUBqTQi4n4o&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=4N PRkP3a_iGpp7p8orEnSiRv8jpg23SzVUBqTQi4n4o&e= Michael Flemming:The special piece of internet real estate is not just the application fee, but the cost that goes into running it, too. Jeff Neuman:Trang, its hard to read that slide 32 without knowing how many evaluations we conducted Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, 1930 ? Jon Nevett:Some review pre-eval, but not too many Jeff Neuman:CC2 asks some questions on this as well (namely, how should surpluses be spent), et. Justine Chew:+1 Jeff Jon Nevett:review=withdrew Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, it's difficult to break down the eval cost per app because some apps were withdrawn after initial eval, some required re-evaluation due to change requests. What the FY17 budget tells us is the total eval cost. Christa Taylor:Will combine and come up with a high level questions to consider for the next call Michael Flemming:I think an important question to ask here is how many signed a Registry Agreement after evaluation ended? Michael Flemming:oh Michael Flemming:that is the data on here Michael Flemming:oops Rubens Kuhl:Automatically assigned Michael Flemming:Thank you Rubens Kuhl:(For IDNs) Jon Nevett:we had to pay $100 per app Jon Nevett:to be in the draw Jeff Neuman:That went to charity :) Rubens Kuhl:But the non-paying IDNs were given better priority numbers than the paying ASCII, I believe. Jeff Neuman:All I remember is that .xmas brought in a Santa Claus to entertain us during the draw Sara Bockey:yes Steve Chan:Non-paying IDNs were after paying ASCII, but before non-paying ASCII I believe? Jeff Neuman:correct Steve Rubens Kuhl:Smaller fees for IDN TLDs... ;-) Justine Chew:So if nothing at all, could it be implied that a large number of IDN applicants believed that it was a good idea to participate in the prioritization, no? Jeff Neuman:I think the benefits of having IDNs go before ASCII is inconclusive Christa Taylor:They may not have participated in the draw Sara Bockey:Michael, we lost you Terri Agnew:@Micheal, we are no longer able to hear you Jeff Neuman:But there were a number of external factors as well....namely the technoogy to support IDNs was not there to support launches Jeff Neuman:Also Registrars were not there to support the early IDN launches Kurt Pritz:To promote IDNs and diversity Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that is my recollection of rational as well Kurt Jon Nevett:political decision -- we all went along with it to get the process to move forward Rubens Kuhl:I think IDN priority was more tied to a moral imperative of the community than to actual planning. Kinda like a feeling of guilt. Kurt Pritz:it made the reffle (which seemed mercenary) more attractive to those promoting diversity Kurt Pritz:raffle Jeff Neuman:CLO - I think the Business Constituency and IPC may have agreed with that as well, but it was not a policy decision Jeff Neuman:from the GNSO Steve Chan:Could a CC2 question be added to ask if ASCII applicants were substanitally impacted by having IDNs evaluated first? Michael Flemming:Ande what kind of priority of course Jeff Neuman:@Steve - Was thinking the same thing Rubens Kuhl:We could ask applicants for ( ) prefer to move faster ( ) prefer to move slower ; active proponents would prefer faster, defensive, slower. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):understood Jeff and yes later in the process / iterations of AGB some constituencies of GNSO also made the case for IDNS Jeff Neuman:But also asking whether priority should still be given to IDN applications? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Steve - IDNs were a small percentage of the applications, so I think that needs to be factored into the equation. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes to asking Jon Nevett:some folks were concerned that IDN brands went before ASCI brands and that IDN-equivalents of .com went before those TLDs that were trying to compete with .com Jeff Neuman:I remember having to fend off US Congressional inquiries based on lobbying from the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and this being a point to show them that we did want to promote diversity Jon Nevett:@jeff yep -- hence a political decision Jeff Neuman:That was 5 years ago now.....where is the ANA today? Rubens Kuhl:@Jeff - waiting for the next procedure, when they will show up at the last moment saying the sky will fall. Christa Taylor:Another 'set' ;-) Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jeff, I don't think a total revamping is required. Rubens Kuhl:Two cuts, which end up four pieces: rules x rationales, application x after contract signing Terri Agnew:The next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Justine Chew:I was looking at the CC2 earlier - Jeff was still editing it ! Jeff Neuman:@Rubens - Yes, I think we can cut some of the background and rationales out and put them in Appendices for those that want to read :) Jon Nevett:Thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone.... bye for now... Jeff Neuman:But we should create a practical guide to applying for everyone else Christopher Niemi:Thanks Trang Nguyen:Thank you! Bye!

1 0

Systems and Communications recommendations from the New gTLD Program Implementation Review
by Emily Barabas Feb. 13, 2017

Feb. 13, 2017

Dear WT 1 members, As discussed on yesterday’s call, the New gTLD Program Implementation Review provides several recommendations that the group may want to consider in developing implementation guidance on Systems and Communications. The following text is excerpted directly from the report (available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf) Systems (see page 174) …there are additional considerations from this round that can be used to inform the next round. In particular, the system development process many have benefited from leveraging industry standard best practices for product development. In this round, there was limited time available between the finalization of system requirements and the launch of the TLD Application System. In future application rounds, the Program timeline should provide additional time for system development, including the definition of robust system requirements and appropriate testing. In summary: 8.1.a In developing timelines for future application rounds, provide an appropriate amount of time to allow for the use of best practices in system development. 8.1.b Explore beta testing programs for systems to allow for lessons learned, to increase effectiveness of such systems, and to provide further transparency, clarity, and opportunity for preparation to applicants. Communications (see page 198) Although the success of Program Communications during this application round is difficult to assess because “success” was not defined within the Communications Plan, there are lessons learned that should be taken into consideration for future rounds. In the 2012 application round, the New gTLD microsite was developed to house all New gTLD Program information. To increase accessibility and usability for future rounds, Program information should be consolidated into a single site with other ICANN information. Another consideration for future rounds is that ICANN’s Global Stakeholder Engagement team is much larger than it was before the 2012 application round, and this team should be leveraged to help promote awareness of the New gTLD Program within their respective regions/constituencies. In summary: 8.4.a Consolidate all next round program information into a single site and make information as accessible as possible. 8.4.b Leverage ICANN’s Global Stakeholder Engagement team to promote awareness of the New gTLD Program within their regions/constituencies. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

3 2

WT1 Agenda
by Sara Bockey Feb. 13, 2017

Feb. 13, 2017

Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 at 3:00 UTC. Please pre-read the CC2 questions ahead of the call to maximize the use of everyone’s time so we can focus on the content rather than reading them out loud. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & SOIs 2. Update: Accreditation Program 3. Application Fees/Variable Fees – Consensus Vote 1. Application Guidebook,https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.5+Applicant+Guidebo… 2. CC2 Questions, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…> Attached for your convenience is a link to the final report on the Applicant Guidebook. Please review this material prior to the call to assist in topical, focused discussions. Thanks, 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