June 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Sub Pro PDP WG Johannesburg session
by ashley.roberts＠valideus.com June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Sub Pro PDP WG Johannesburg session
by Sara Bockey June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

Hi Ashley, Apologies for the delay in responding. I believe we will be discussing Applicant Support and the potential RSP program. Best, Sara From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts(a)valideus.com> Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Sub Pro PDP WG Johannesburg session Dear Christa and Sara, I understand that the format for the Sub Pro PDP WG session in Johannesburg will involve focussing on a few key topics from each of the individual Work Tracks. Has it been decided which WT1 topics we will be discussing? Thanks, Ashley Ashley Roberts Senior Manager | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: ashley.roberts(a)valideus.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@valideus.com> T: +44 20 7421 8299 D: +44 20 7421 8264 F: +44 87 0011 8187 www.valideus.com<http://www.valideus.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Valideus. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 987 7551 49. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.

1 0

Sub Pro PDP WG Johannesburg session
by Ashley Roberts June 22, 2017

June 22, 2017

Dear Christa and Sara, I understand that the format for the Sub Pro PDP WG session in Johannesburg will involve focussing on a few key topics from each of the individual Work Tracks. Has it been decided which WT1 topics we will be discussing? Thanks, Ashley Ashley Roberts Senior Manager | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: ashley.roberts(a)valideus.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@valideus.com> T: +44 20 7421 8299 D: +44 20 7421 8264 F: +44 87 0011 8187 www.valideus.com<http://www.valideus.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Valideus. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 987 7551 49. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 13 June 2017
by Julie Hedlund June 13, 2017

June 13, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 June. 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 that for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: 1. Topic review and progress on systems, communications, and applications fees: See the Google Document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS… Question: How can the systems used to support the New gTLD Program, such as TAS, Centralized Zone Data Service, Portal, etc., be made more robust, user friendly, and better integrated? -- Lobbying for multiple issues or logins; integrated to one. -- Different levels of access. Communication: Examine access to and content within knowledge base as well as communication methods between ICANN and the community. -- It might be a future state that what they use in the past is not necessarily what they will use in the future. That is likely an implementation element, as opposed to policy. -- Note sure what communications we are talking about here. Suggest that we are talking about communication more broadly -- communication about the program. -- Subscription opt-in communications: The intent was the communication between ICANN and the applicant. -- Adequate and timely outreach to developing countries -- what is the connection? Answer: On is applicant support and the other is to opt in. -- Any new gTLD should be cost neutral in ICANN's budget. That might be a better way of thinking about it than cost recovery. We have no idea how many applications we'll get in the next round. We don't know what the capacity issue is. -- Like the term "cost neutral" and further refine between the time of the launch and the time in which applicants sign an agreement. Application Fees: Evaluate accuracy of cost estimates and/or review the methodology to develop the cost model, while still adhering to the principle of cost recovery. Examine how payment processing can be improved. -- Suggestion: For clarity it would be helpful if we took those two first sentences apart and put the sub-point under them. There was leeway in determining historical costs. -- It is quite clear that the comments we have received are all over the map. Not sure how to include them since they are all over the map. It is not clear that the fees will cover the cost to ICANN and I think we need to address that. There also is the cost of ramping up. I think you need to look at what put this program in place. -- Not sure it is within our scope what registries pay ICANN. Don't see us deciding what smaller or larger registries should pay. Seems beyond the scope. -- How to create a policy around the access funds? Application Fees: Feedback from the community -- Question re: each applicant posting a deposit of $1,000,000 in order to qualify to bid to operate a new gTLD? Answer: These are some of the highlights on the different angles we hadn't heard yet. This comment is quite original and we haven't discussion it yet. -- Jumping to slide 14 -- Application fees 14.4 - Use of Excess Funds -- CCWG on Auction Proceeds is going to look at the proceeds from contention sets. -- We need to look at the cost of the overall program. Also will have to address the problem of what if things are underfunded? Look at what we do if the program is underfunded -- where would we get the money from? >From the chat: Michael Flemming: What are all the portals or systems that could centralized? Michael Flemming: Sorry that goes back to the previous topic. Steve Chan: @Michael, the WG can develop recommendations around systems or communications. it can also develop implementation guidace as well. or, as you said, some specifics can be determined during implementation. Michael Flemming: Thank you, Steve. Michael Flemming: So we will leave these at recommendations and allow it to be decided in implementation. Well understood, thank you! Jeff Neuman: Adequate outreach can also mean language support as well? Jeff Neuman: Those who want to file objections or public comments may need to be communicated with as well Jeff Neuman: could that be a distinction Donna Austin, Neustar: I think we need more clarity around what this is supposed to address Jeff Neuman: In other words the "knowledge base" was not only for applicants, but for the whole community of participants Jeff Neuman: We should update this with the tie from the discussions earlier in the full group on the model Jeff Neuman: (FCFS vs. Rounds) Jeff Neuman: @Donna - Agree. It is amount of fees vs process to make payments Donna Austin, Neustar: right Jeff Neuman: Point a relates to the latter Christa Taylor: Its annotated Christa Taylor: #annotated Michael Flemming: Legal contingency as in projected legal costs for litigation? Jeff Neuman: The $185,000 was based on 3 elements and assuming only 500 applications. (i) cost of evaluation/processing of applications, (ii) Historical costs and (iii) legal contingency fees. Do we have agreement these are the same types of fees we should be paying for going forward Jeff Neuman: In other words, is that the formula we should apply moving forward? Should we still reimburse "historical costs"? What does that mean? Jeff Neuman: Deposit of $1 Million was only in the case of an auction. Michael Flemming: As long as that is clear. Jeff Neuman: I am not sure where this comment came from though Michael Flemming: Thank you. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Christa, so this is just a sample of the comments submitted? Christa Taylor: yes it does not cover all of them but items that we may have not considered or discussed to date. The link has all of the responses Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Surely the Historical costs were cost recovered with the over subscription compared to the assumed 500 of applicant last round Jeff Neuman: It sounds like some want to add a 4th element (and that is a floor) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I believe it needs to include eval and legal contingency but the rest... hmmm Jeff Neuman: eg., if the elements of (i) though (iii) is too low, then make the price the floor. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree with cost neutral yes Michael Flemming: yes Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree on that it should be time bound. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Fair point Jeff I can support that Michael Flemming: My question is whether or not historical costs included unexpected delays in the program. I am for time bound costs as Jeff suggests, but I don't think there is a garuntee that a cost neutral would allow for unexpected delays. Michael Flemming: Registry level fees should pay for compliance. Sarah L: It seems like there is an established mechanism within ICANN for dealing with excess funds but I am not sure there are mechanisms in place for dealing with scenarios or projects that are under-funded. Like Alan I would rather see a transparent active and robust compliance department and ensure there is funding in place for that. Donna Austin, Neustar: My compartmentalisation is consistent with Jeff's Alan Greenberg: I am still not sure how we reconcile the two opposite positions of 1) ultimately a TLD should not be more expensive than a 2nd level name; and 2) you are buying a core part of the Internet, a finite resource, and this should not be be cheap. Jeff Neuman: Sarah brings up a good comment that we have not addressed....which is what if the program is underfunded? Jeff Neuman: lets make sure we do not lose that question Donna Austin, Neustar: I don't believe the first dot point is within the purview of this group either. Michael Flemming: Jeff, Sarah does bring up an important question, but we did consider that didn't we? That was our entire base for considering cost-recovery in the first place, no? Steve Chan: @Jeff, there is a question in CC2 about excess or deficient funding Steve Chan: 1.4.5 - Should the WG seek to establish more clarity in how the excess or deficiency of funds are utilized/recovered? If so, do you have any suggestions for establishing that clarity? Jeff Neuman: @Steve - thanks...but I just want to make sure we as a group discuss it too Jeff Neuman: I haven’t read all the comments yet, but I am curious to see if anyone addressed the concept of underfunding. My guess is most people assumed overfunding Jeff Neuman: But I could be wrong Michael Flemming: I think as Jeff suggested, that there is a tendency that 1) That either the program was overfunded so fees should be lower or 2) In the event that expenses did not occur that, then those should be refunded. The problem here is that the consideration of refunding of fees in the current round have come to late in the game. I think what would satisfy many people is that if the floor was set at a similar price/model to what we have now with a promise for return of fees not occured once a contract is signed. Michael Flemming: Tendency in how people are responding. Michael Flemming: How do most registries feel about excess funds being used for community outreach rather than being returned in some way to the registry? Sarah L: ICANN could channel funds into increasing trust of the industry Donna Austin, Neustar: @Sarah L: that's a nice idea but how do you do that and what would the metrics be? Michael Flemming: If registries are happy to allow excess funds to be used in some way other than being returned to them, I feel that it would be important to perhaps have a separate PDP for determining excess funds? Or is this a necessity to have something in writing before we finish our PDP? Sarah L: @Donna I must admit I hadnt thought of it in that level of detail - iI agree there are alot of divergent opinons on this Michael Flemming: Thats a good question Donna, but I think that those fees are different to those paid in auction. Michael Flemming: I mean auction fees vs excess applicant fees. Michael Flemming: The principle behind them, I mean. Edmon: one thing useful to bring up is that the outreach and funds supporting applicants and as donna said for universal acceptance, etc. should not be confused or punted completely to the auction proceeds fund Jeff Neuman: ICANN Bake Sale ;)

1 0

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew June 13, 2017

June 13, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p9scdni1ceb/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=fe4916c8d08a1d57 b6033c272f8baf21b82328e1f63d18ee81e3277664cd772f> https://participate.icann.org/p9scdni1ceb/ 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/ERLfAw> https://community.icann.org/x/ERLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 June 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_E RLfAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ ERLfAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=0K10mBy4jHOg4U63DDMB9i2OJDzQPAjdwQ_XR_iXpo 0&s=TboFt15bK3-_i0YzzjTYnNIqYT3s-07POfSIxz1tnsk&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=0K10mBy4jHOg4U63DDMB9i2OJDzQPAjdwQ_XR_iXpo0&s=Tb oFt15bK3-_i0YzzjTYnNIqYT3s-07POfSIxz1tnsk&e= Sarah L:No different Sarah :-) Terri Agnew:everyone can turn the slides themselves Michael Flemming:We can all scroll. Michael Flemming:Multiple logins! Michael Flemming:or multiple users. Michael Flemming:exactly Michael Flemming:What are all the portals or systems that could centralized? Michael Flemming:Sorry that goes back to the previous topic. Steve Chan:please go donna Michael Flemming:So we will leave these at recommendations and allow it to be decided in implementation. Well understood, thank you! Steve Chan:@Michael, the WG can develop recommendations around systems or communications. it can also develop implementation guidace as well. or, as you said, some specifics can be determined during implementation. Steve Chan:Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to cut off discussion in any way. Michael Flemming:Thank you, Steve. Jeff Neuman:Adequate outreach can also mean language support as well? Jeff Neuman:Those who want to file objections or public comments may need to be communicated with as well Jeff Neuman:could that be a distinction Donna Austin, Neustar:I think we need more clarity around what this is supposed to address Jeff Neuman:In other words the "knowledge base" was not only for applicants, but for the whole community of participants Jeff Neuman:We should update this with the tie from the discussions earlier in the full group on the model Jeff Neuman:(FCFS vs. Rounds) Jeff Neuman:@Donna - Agree. It is amount of fees vs process to make payments Donna Austin, Neustar:right Jeff Neuman:Point a relates to the latter Christa Taylor:Its annotated Christa Taylor:#annotated Michael Flemming:Legal contingency as in projected legal costs for litigation? Jeff Neuman:The $185,000 was based on 3 elements and assuming only 500 applications. (i) cost of evaluation/processing of applications, (ii) Historical costs and (iii) legal contingency fees. Do we have agreement these are the same types of fees we should be paying for going forward Jeff Neuman:In otherwords, is that the formula we should apply moving forward? Should we still reimburse "historical costs"? What does that mean? Jeff Neuman:Deposit of $1 Million was only in the case of an auction. Michael Flemming:As long as that is clear. Jeff Neuman:I am not sure where this comment came from though Michael Flemming:Thank you. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Christa, so this is just a sample of the comments submitted? Christa Taylor:yes it does not cover all of them but items that we may have not considered or discussed to date. The link has all of the responses Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Surely the Historical costs were cost recovered with the over subscription compared to the assummed 500 of applicant last round Jeff Neuman:It sounds like some want to add a 4th element (and that is a floor) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I believe it needs to include eval and legal contingency but the rest... hmmm Jeff Neuman:eg., if the elements of (i) though (iii) is too low, then make the price the floor. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree with cost neutral yes Michael Flemming:yes Donna Austin, Neustar:a Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree on that it should be time bound. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Fair point Jeff I can support that Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes it did Jeff Michael Flemming:My question is whether or not historical costs included unexpected delays in the program. I am for time bound costs as Jeff suggests, but I don't think there is a garuntee that a cost neutral would allow for unexpected delays. Michael Flemming:Registry level fees should pay for compliance. Michael Flemming:yes Terri Agnew:finding the line Christa Taylor:we can hear it Sarah L:It seems like there is an established mechanism within ICANN for dealing with excess funds but I am not sure there are mechanisms in place for dealing with scenarios or projects that are under-funded. Like Alan I would rather see a transparent active and robust compliance department and ensure there is funding in place for that. Donna Austin, Neustar:My compartmentalisation is consistent with Jeff's Alan Greenberg:I am still not sure how we reconcile the two opposite positions of 1) ultimately a TLD should not be more expensive than a 2nd level name; and 2) you are buying a core part of the Internet, a finite resource, and this should not be be cheap. Jeff Neuman:Sarah brings up a good comment that we have not addressed....which is what if the program is underfunded? Jeff Neuman:lets make sure we do not lose that question Donna Austin, Neustar:I don't believe the first dot point is within the purview of this group either. Michael Flemming:Jeff, Sarah does bring up an important question, but we did consider that didn't we? That was our entire base for considering cost-recovery in the first place, no? Steve Chan:@Jeff, there is a question in CC2 about excess or deficient funding Steve Chan:1.4.5 - Should the WG seek to establish more clarity in how the excess or deficiency of funds are utilized/recovered? If so, do you have any suggestions for establishing that clarity? Jeff Neuman:@Steve - thanks.....but I just want to make sure we as a group discuss it too Jeff Neuman:I havent read all the comments yet, but I am curious to see if anyone addressed the concept of underfunding. My guess is most people assumed overfunding Jeff Neuman:But I could be wrong Michael Flemming:I think as Jeff suggested, that there is a tendency that 1) That either the program was overfunded so fees should be lower or 2) In the event that expenses did not occur that, then those should be refunded. The problem here is that the consideration of refunding of fees in the current round have come to late in the game. I think what would satisfy many people is that if the floor was set at a similar price/model to what we have now with a promise for return of fees not occured once a contract is signed. Michael Flemming:Tendency in how people are responding. Michael Flemming:How do most registries feel about excess funds being used for community outreach rather than being returned in some way to the registry? Sarah L:ICANN could channel funds into increasing trust of the industry Donna Austin, Neustar:@Sarah L: that's a nice idea but how do you do that and what would the metrics be? Michael Flemming:If registries are happy to allow excess funds to be used in some way other than being returned to them, I feel that it would be important to perhaps have a separate PDP for determining excess funds? Or is this a necessity to have something in writing before we finish our PDP? Sarah L:@Donna I must admit I hadnt thought of it in that level of detail - iI agree there are alot of divergent opinons on this Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):That would be helpful Christa Michael Flemming:Thats a good question Donna, but I think that those fees are different to those paid in auction. Michael Flemming:I mean auction fees vs excess applicant fees. Michael Flemming:The principle behind them, I mean. Edmon:one thing useful to bring up is that the outreach and funds supporting applicants and as donna said for universal acceptance, etc. should not be confused or punted completely to the auction proceeds fund Jeff Neuman:ICANN Bake Sale ;) Alan Greenberg:Would be some mighty expensive brownies! Michael Flemming:Further to the point, if we are going to have excess fees for Universal Acceptance outreach, then there needs to be a clear cut plan for outreach. An actual piece of marketing that works. Jeff Neuman:The reality is that we can never de-risk any program completely. Some level of risk has to be taken on by ICANN Sara Bockey:thank you all Alan Greenberg:Indeed Jeff! Jeff Neuman:Thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thanks everyone... Lots to discuss still... but for now ... bye... Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Christa and Sara

1 0

Agenda - Work Track 1 for Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 03:00 UTC
by Christa Taylor June 12, 2017

June 12, 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, June 13 2017 at 03:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Topic Review and Progress (Systems, Communications, Application Fees) 4. CC2 Application Fees 5. AOB As we will be covering the responses from the CC2 Application fees please review the google document at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErSJ d9uhkZw/edit#gid=1442059046. While we will not be covering RSP in the call, please continue to add any comments to the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nWljRzRgDQgmSlSxyf7G6f2Dv7XDoD01D30KfWho HNw/edit 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