August 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 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, 22 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p11ko6ctu1a/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a734cab52dd0f74b 6487850c643c955ffb306ed2d345023772faa3091aafe84d> https://participate.icann.org/p11ko6ctu1a/ 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/JQEhB> https://community.icann.org/x/JQEhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 22 August 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 22 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_J QEhB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ JQEhB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=JenAbyn7jXXXPh8zjzmu65audIg2VirwxtaWCT2iP5A &s=gdswa-ZIEwjYV9C4iprTmB3CM0rMTxm8Qw3tJOm6iNM&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=JenAbyn7jXXXPh8zjzmu65audIg2VirwxtaWCT2iP5A&s=gd swa-ZIEwjYV9C4iprTmB3CM0rMTxm8Qw3tJOm6iNM&e= Terri Agnew:The CC2 responses we will be covering may be review in the google document: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads heets_d_1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz-5FH-5FlPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw_edit-23gid-3D144205 9046 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread sheets_d_1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz-5FH-5FlPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw_edit-23gid-3D14420 59046&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=JenAbyn7jXXXPh8zjzmu65audIg2VirwxtaWCT2iP5A &s=NlGKnSfOzDc41RVFR_28g7Yc6uCL4HUirxnvKOCZndU&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=JenAbyn7jXXXPh8zjzmu65audIg2VirwxtaWCT2iP5A&s=Nl GKnSfOzDc41RVFR_28g7Yc6uCL4HUirxnvKOCZndU&e= Christa Taylor:Can you hear me? Christa Taylor:rebooting Jeff Neuman:hello all Alan Greenberg:Conundrum - great wiord! Steve Chan:@Christa, Alan has his hand up Alexander Schubert:Maybe not reducing fees - but offering financial "support" then? Alan Greenberg:Agree with Donna both on need for discussion and potential reasons. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Alexander, that's the term I was looking for: financial support. thank you. Alexander Schubert::D Alexander Schubert:Good idea! Alexander Schubert:Problem: Volume based fee increase will be circumvented by the Donuts system: new entity for each app! Donna Austin, Neustar:For the record, I don't believe there would be any variation in the application fee. It should be the same across the types of applications and to Alexander's point earlier, we can look at reasons for providing financial support. Alan Greenberg:@Alexander. Perhaps, but they would have to work a lot harder at masking their shared ownership and presumably penalties for trying. Greg Shatan:Alexander, that probably could be controlled for - after all, everyone knows that all of those came from are all Donuts from the same Donuts shop. Donna Austin, Neustar:Donuts were not the only portfolio applicants. Alexander Schubert:Donna: But Donuts had unique legal entities for every app! That's what I am refering to. Greg Shatan:I think at least one other applicant used the multiple entity approach. Donna Austin, Neustar:Understood Alexander, my point was more the point that Donuts is always referred to but there were other entities that had multiple applications as well. Donna Austin, Neustar:Some of those are corporations. Steve Chan:CPE was an additional fee that was paid back in the event the applicant met the criteria. Steve Chan:Paid BACK Alexander Schubert:Well: not many met the criteria :D Donna Austin, Neustar:I think as a general principle, we should aim to have the application process as simple as possible for the applicants and for ICANN to administer. It seems that we may be over-engineering for any positive outcome. Jeff Neuman:It would only save time if no competing applications Alexander Schubert:Christa: Then you need to have a "test" on wheher they are a "real brand"! Anybody can register a TM and claim they are a "brand" - and all important generic terms are branded in many places! Katrin Ohlmer:We also support the concept of simplicity - for applicants and ICANN Alexander Schubert:"branded" = "trademarked" rather ..... Greg Shatan:The "community" status was arguably "gamed" quite a bit.... Greg Shatan:If a word is a trademark it is not being used in its generic sense. So it is not correct to say that "generic terms are trademarked," But I digress. Phil Buckingham:Ffrom the financial model / evaluation perspective we cant have a "one size fits " all this time. A brand model would so easier to evaluate than a community model . Jeff Neuman:Greg - what are the indirect costs? Jeff Neuman:that you think should be covered Jeff Neuman:Remember we have defined the costs as being of the application process itself Jeff Neuman:ongoing fees are covered through ICANN yearly fees Alan Greenberg:Jeff, we also clearly included costs of developing the program. Alexander Schubert:Christa: Define "brand" application! So I can register a TM "orange" apply for ".orange" and then "lease" domains (much like CentralNic's .de.com third level registrations) avoiding all the hassle with registrant rights! People buy third level domain from CentralNic at even HIGHER prices than .com - the model works well. But "registrants" (leasees) have ZERO "rights". Jeff Neuman:Alan - Yes we did previously. Doesnt mean we should going forward...... Jeff Neuman:that is still an ongoing discussion Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Ashley, it would be good if we could aim to wrap up discussions in a timely fashion rather than drawing them out. Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 05 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Greg Shatan:At a minimum, I would think the costs of developing the program would be included in any cost analysis. Jeff Neuman:We also need to balance that with a complete rehashing of the same issues if new people join :) Greg Shatan:Query whether all the costs of ICANN in the New gTLD world should be as well. Ashley Roberts:thanks Alexander Schubert:Bye! Katrin Ohlmer:Thanks! Greg Shatan:Bye!

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 1 Meeting 22 August
by Emily Barabas Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

Dear Work Track Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording at https://community.icann.org/x/JQEhB. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 2. SOIs - No updates 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions - Systems - overview of status of discussions to date in the WT. Recommendations: -- Integrated login -- Different levels of access - Review of CC2 responses -- 1.8.1 - suggestions for areas of improvement in systems -- 1.8.2 - regarding invoicing -- general support for invoicing among respondents. - Variable Fees -- 1.5.1 - Should there be variable fees or "one fee fits all"? -- John Poole, CIRA, Nominet, BC, Afilias, RySG generally support a single fee model. -- Clarification on ALAC comment – there are potential circumstances for lower fees, for example communities or underserved regions. -- BRG, Nominet, and Valideus pointed out that there may be circumstances in which variable fees are appropriate to consider. -- GAC and Demys supported a model with variable fees. -- The only number referenced in the comments is that a 10% variance could justify variable fees for different types. -- Comment on community applications -- some comments suggest that there should be a reduced fee because of lower resources. Other comments suggest that some applications should have lower fees if processing the application might be less work and therefore less costly. If we have a discussion about fee reduction, we need to understand why we are doing that. There are two different potential reasons. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Maybe not reducing fees - but offering financial "support" then? Alan Greenberg: Agree with Donna both on need for discussion and potential reasons. -- 1.5.2 - What are the implications of having different costs for different types of applications. -- Nominet, Afilias, RySG, and ALAC did not generally support different costs for different application types. -- Demys identified possible benefits and CIRA identified possible negative impacts. -- BRG suggested that additional research should be conducted, particularly with respect to costing for dotBrands. 1.5.3 -- Should fees be variable based on number of applications per applicant? -- CIRA, Nominet, BC, BRG, John Poole, Afilias, RySG, and ALAC opposed this proposal -- Jannik Skou supported a volume discount. -- Nobody discussed increasing fees for those with multiple applications to increase competition. This is an interesting proposition from a public policy standpoint. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Good idea! - Concept is interesting, but don't necessarily agree. We have had the conversation for a while about possible discounts, but not about going in the other direction. - We have spent a lot of time talking about the mechanics of the application process, but have not talked about principles and public policy, goals we are trying to achieve with this program that could impact decisions on fee structure. This is a conversation we need to have. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Problem: Volume based fee increase will be circumvented by the Donuts system: new entity for each app! Donna Austin, Neustar: For the record, I don't believe there would be any variation in the application fee. It should be the same across the types of applications and to Alexander's point earlier, we can look at reasons for providing financial support. Alan Greenberg: @Alexander. Perhaps, but they would have to work a lot harder at masking their shared ownership and presumably penalties for trying. Greg Shatan: Alexander, that probably could be controlled for - after all, everyone knows that all of those came from are all Donuts from the same Donuts shop. Donna Austin, Neustar: Donuts were not the only portfolio applicants. Alexander Schubert: Donna: But Donuts had unique legal entities for every app! That's what I am refering to. Greg Shatan: I think at least one other applicant used the multiple entity approach. Donna Austin, Neustar: Some of those are corporations. - Is the WT open to variable fees and if so, what is the trigger? - It is easy to identify where there is shared ownership of different TLDs. Relevant information is already collected about this. - The WG needs to look at public policy and look at fees based on what we are trying to achieve with the program. - Each application should have the same set base fee, but additional items, reviews, or additional steps may incur additional costs. That's essentially how it worked in the AGB in 2012. What we could do is have a single base fee with add-ons. - How did this work with communities in 2012 round? From the chat: Steve Chan: CPE was an additional fee that was paid back in the event the applicant met the criteria. - Even though there was a distinct category for geo names, every application still went through a screening to see if it was a geo name. Only those determined to be geo names went through an additional process. - Any review that every application has to go through should be included in the base fee. But if there are additional rights/privileges associated with a type of application, related applications would pay an extra fee for the associated evaluations. - Then we get into a discussion in which some of those types that require additional evaluation may also be those that are most likely to be eligible for financial assistance. Need to understand the consequences of going down this path. - It is possible that the additional fee and the financial assistance could go hand-in-hand. - Also important to consider closed registries/dotBrands and business models that might not need the same evaluations as other applications. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: I think as a general principle, we should aim to have the application process as simple as possible for the applicants and for ICANN to administer. It seems that we may be over-engineering for any positive outcome. - What if dotBrands pay more to save time and skip certain evaluations that might not be needed. - We should aim for an application process that is easy for applicants and easy for ICANN to administer. - We generally think the application fee should go down in the next round. Are we making it so complicated that the administration of the process will lead to delays and additional overhead? Is a $10,000 discount for some applicants really going to lead to a better outcome? From the chat: Jeff Neuman: It would only save time if no competing applications Alexander Schubert: Christa: Then you need to have a "test" on wheher they are a "real brand"! Anybody can register a TM and claim they are a "brand" - and all important generic terms are branded in many places! Katrin Ohlmer: We also support the concept of simplicity - for applicants and ICANN Alexander Schubert: "branded" = "trademarked" rather ..... Greg Shatan: The "community" status was arguably "gamed" quite a bit.... Greg Shatan: If a word is a trademark it is not being used in its generic sense. So it is not correct to say that "generic terms are trademarked," But I digress. - If the application fee drops substantially, this won't be such an issue, but we don't know yet if it will drop. Simple is better, but not if simple applications are subsidizing complex applications. - ICANN will have to go through the costing evaluation process to determine that future base fee based on cost recovery. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Ffrom the financial model / evaluation perspective we cant have a "one size fits " all this time. A brand model would so easier to evaluate than a community model . - Comment: not sure that we should settle on a cost recovery model. The direct costs are not necessarily the only costs that should be included. This is also a policy question about sources of income for ICANN. Cost recovery is one model but not the only model. There is also a cost plus option. There are things ICANN could be doing if it were better funded. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Greg - what are the indirect costs? Jeff Neuman: that you think should be covered Jeff Neuman: Remember we have defined the costs as being of the application process itself Alan Greenberg: Jeff, we also clearly included costs of developing the program. Alexander Schubert: Christa: Define "brand" application! So I can register a TM "orange" apply for ".orange" and then "lease" domains (much like CentralNic's .de.com third level registrations) avoiding all the hassle with registrant rights! People buy third level domain from CentralNic at even HIGHER prices than .com - the model works well. But "registrants" (leasees) have ZERO "rights". Jeff Neuman: Alan - Yes we did previously. Doesnt mean we should going forward...... Jeff Neuman: that is still an ongoing discussion 4. AOB -- Once we have momentum on a topic, can we roll it over into the next call? Might help us reach a point of closure on some of the topics. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Ashley, it would be good if we could aim to wrap up discussions in a timely fashion rather than drawing them out. Greg Shatan: At a minimum, I would think the costs of developing the program would be included in any cost analysis. Jeff Neuman: We also need to balance that with a complete rehashing of the same issues if new people join :)

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for 22 August 2017 @ 15:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Aug. 21, 2017

Aug. 21, 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, 22 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions * Systems * Variable Fees 4. AOB The CC2 responses we will be covering may be review in the google document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS…. Chat soon! 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Discussion of application fees
by Sara Bockey Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

Attached is a copy of Application Fees section from the final report. At a high level, 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. 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. On 8/9/17, 4:46 PM, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear Christa and Sara Given the considerable recent and previous debates that we have had on the topic of application fees, would it be possible to restate the problem we are trying to address please? Thanks Donna _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

1 0

Discussion of application fees
by Austin, Donna Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

Dear Christa and Sara Given the considerable recent and previous debates that we have had on the topic of application fees, would it be possible to restate the problem we are trying to address please? Thanks Donna

2 1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] Work Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 9, 2017

Aug. 9, 2017

I think that we may also all agree that where we set the price-point will have a direct impact on the number of applications. Alan At 09/08/2017 04:32 PM, Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 wrote: >The best we can do at this point is agree that there is still demand >for new gTLDs, but absent a crystal ball, none of us are in a >position at this point to predict how many applications will be >submitted at the closure of the next application window. > >Donna

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] Work Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 9, 2017

Aug. 9, 2017

Yes, I know they were done in batches which is why I raised the question. If Trang made a comment regarding the cost-effectiveness of doing that, I must have missed that call. Alan At 07/08/2017 07:16 PM, Austin, Donna wrote: >Alan > >I believe the applications from 2012 were done >in batches and I think Trang made some comments >in this regard on a recent call. > >Donna >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 4:07 PM >To: Sara Bockey <sbockey(a)godaddy.com>; Vanda >Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org>; Austin, Donna ><Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br> >Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] >Work Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC > >As I read through these responses, a question >came to mind. Is or was there an economy of >scale in processing applications. That is, it is >more expensive to process say 10 applications >one by one than as a batch. If there is an >economy of scale, the price that is set should >work for the later staeady-state situation where >the applications may be coming in slowly and >will need to be processed one at a time. > >Alan > >At 07/08/2017 04:37 PM, Sara Bockey wrote: > > >Thank you, Donna, Vanda and Rubens for your >feedback on this. YouÃ¢ve all made some >excellent points ts and suggestions. We look >forward to discussing this further and >additional input during our next call in a few hours. > >Best, > >Sara > >sara bockey >policy manager | GoDaddy ><mailto:sbockey@godaddy.comm>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. > >From: Vanda Scartezini <<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>vanda(a)scartezini.org> >Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:06 PM >To: "Austin, Donna" ><<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar>, >Rubens Kuhl <<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>rubensk(a)nic.br> >Cc: Sara Bockey ><<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>sbockey(a)godaddy.com>, >"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org" ><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] >Work Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC > >Thanks for your feedback Donna. I understand >having string conflict will be difficult to >postpone but I was thinking only for cities ( >government) which can face some pontual >difficulty depends on the election calendar of >each region. In general I would follow the idea >to stick with same price for this next round. >May be will be some surplus with such value but >we can use as reserve to face any litigation, as >suggested by Rubens or well as to define some alternative for reimbursement. > >Vanda Scartezini >Polo Consultores Associados >Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 >01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil >Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 >Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 >Sorry for any typos. > > > > > >From: "Austin, Donna" ><<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> >Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 15:10 >To: Rubens Kuhl ><<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>rubensk(a)nic.br>, Vanda >Scartezini <<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>vanda(a)scartezini.org> >Cc: Sara Bockey ><<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>sbockey(a)godaddy.com>, >"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org> >gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org" ><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org> >Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] >Work Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC > >Hi Rubens and Vanda, comments inline below. > >From: Rubens Kuhl [<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>mailto:rubensk@nic.br] >Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 3:23 PM >To: Austin, Donna ><<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> >Cc: Sara Bockey ><<mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com>sbockey(a)godaddy.com>; ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] >Work Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC > >Donna, > >I believe the data points you mentioned do >exist, in the form of the actual expenses >incurred by ICANN in the 2012-round. And >considering the gains of scale foreseen by >aggregating technical evaluation per back-end, >with or without RSP program, the actual cost for >further rounds is clearly expected to be lower. >DA: I agree that there is data available from >2012 that could be helpful to our discussion and >to that end, we should ask Trang if she can >provide an overview of the costs associated with >the 2012 round, but we would need to define the >cost parameters. I agree that an RSP program >could reduce the costs associated with the >technical evaluation, but current discussions >suggest that the technical evaluation could >still occur during the application process. > >But we could adopt something in between >specifying a new application fee and the reimbursement idea, like this: >- Application fee will be no less than 50% of >the 2012-round fee, and designed to be of a >cost-recovery target; in the event it generates >more surplus than expected, the reimbursement >will be available either as credit towards >registry fees for successful applicants or >reimbursement for non-approved or drop-out applicants. >DA: I have no objection to the concept, but 50% >seems to be a large reduction in terms of >fairness and competition for 2012 applicants, >but I accept your note below that 2012 >applicants will have a time-to-market advantage >over future entrants. Any number we come up will >largely be arbitrary at this point so the >challenge is to come up with a reasoned >rationale. We should also look for options to >address VandaÃ¢s¢s point about not making the >upfront fee too prohibitive, or finding a >mechanism that would allow applicants from >underserved regions to pay post-evaluation. This >would become complicated where there is >contention for the string, but if there was no >competition for the string then perhaps this would be a little easier. > >ItÃ¢s also important to decide whether the >applicationion fee would change over time. I >must admit that when I was thinking about this, >it was only from the perspective of the next >application window and not beyond that. It would >be fair to assume that a lot of the setup costs >for the next application window will not be >repeated for processes beyond that, particularly >as it relates to infrastructure or software >development. The outcome of the rounds v >first-come-first-serve discussion will be important to this one. > >One issue to calculate the reimbursement is how >much does the legal reserves need to be; the >2012-round proved that litigation either thru >internal accountability or legal courts will >happen, but how much ? If someone from the work >track, or someone from ICANN Board risk >committee, could provide an actuary's point of view would be interesting. >DA: Agree that a % of the application fee should >be set aside for legal reserves, on the >condition that the reserves are set aside for a designated period of time. > >We should note that 2012-round applicants got a >4 to 6 years time-to-market advantage, and that >could be worth much more than the application fee difference. > > > > >Rubens > > >On Aug 4, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Austin, Donna via >Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 ><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org> wrote: > >Hi Sara, all > >IÃ¢ve had a look at the responses to the CC2 >responsenses as they relate to Application Fees >and believe that the responses are largely >consistent with the discussions we have already >had within the working group on this topic. > >My rudimentary analysis of the comments suggest the following: > >Based on the CC2 responses it would appear that >most of the respondents support the principle of >an application fee that is cost neutral or break >even, which is consistent with the cost-recovery >model that was developed for the 2012 round. >However, many of the responses acknowledge that >the assumptions of the 2012 round was off the >mark because the number of applications exceeded >expectations and resulted in a considerable >surplus of funds (approximately $100M). > >It would appear from the responses that there is >little support for maintaining the $185,000 >application fee into the future, with many >responses suggesting a reduction, with the >exception of John Poole who recommended that >each applicant require a $1m deposit. However, >there was support for the principle that the >application fee should maintain a bar sufficient >to ensure that applications are worth dedicating >resources to evaluation and processing; and fees >should not be too low as to be detrimental to >security and stability and competition between rounds. > >It would also appear that there is support for >the WG providing direction on the use of excess >funds, in the event that future rounds result in a surplus of funds. > >Some suggested considerations for moving this conversation forward: >ÃÂ· While it appears that there is >consensus around the concept of an application >that achieves the principle of cost-recovery, it >is impossible for this group to come up with an >actual number for any future round because we >have no way to predict how many applications there will be. >ÃÂ· The number of applications for a >future application window will depend on a range >of factors, including the amount of the application fee. >ÃÂ· We could ask ICANN to provide >estimates for costs associated with preparing >for the next application window, but I donÃ¢t >believe we are far along in deciding so some of >the core issues to provide them with enough >guidance on which to base any estimates or predictions. >ÃÂ· What we do have from the 2012 >application round is an application fee of >$185,000 that resulted in 1930 applicationssome >11400 more than was preddicted. > >The policy for the WG could potentially be something along the lines of: >ÃÂ· The application fee should be based >on the principle of cost recovery. >ÃÂ· Based on the principles of fairness >and competition to 2012 new gTLD applications, >$185,000 will be the application fee for any future application window. >ÃÂ· In the event of surplus application >fees, ICANN will provide all applicants >(successful/unsuccessful?) with a reimbursement >of an equal share of the surplus application fees; or >ÃÂ· In the event of surplus applications >fees, ICANN will provide all applicants a >reimbursement up to an amount of >$50,000/$80,000/$100,000 (successful applicants >may choose this reimbursement as a contribution >to ICANNÃ¢s annual fe fee); and >ÃÂ· The remainder of the surplus >application fees will be used to support >ICANNÃ¢s efforts in Universal Awareareness and >Universal Acceptance (or some other designated activity) > >Some exemptions/exceptions: >ÃÂ· Applications from underserved >regions would/could (depending on the policy) >have the application fee waived so that it is >not considered a barrier to entry. >ÃÂ· There may be other exclusions or >exemptions from the application fee that could >be developed to remove other possible barriers >to entry perceived by some as being too high. > >Rationale: >ÃÂ· We have a principle of cost >recovery, but rather than requiring complex >economic modelling (or somebodyÃ¢s besbest >guess) to arrive at the amount of the >application fee, we achieve the principle in an >order of reverse by providing a reimbursement of >a portion of the application fee equal to the distribution of excess funds. > >I donÃ¢t believe we can solve this problem >absebsent a considerable amount of data that at >this point in time simply doesnÃ¢t exist, so I >offer this as a possossible way to enable us to >move forward and certainly to encourage discussion. > >Donna > >From: ><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org >[ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey >Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 9:31 AM >To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org >Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Work >Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC > >Dear All, > >The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent >Procedures Sub Team Track 1 - Overall >Process/Suppport/Outreacch Issue will take place >on Tuesday, 8 August 2017 at 3:00 UTC. > >The proposed agenda is as follows: > >Welcome & Agenda Overview >SOIs >Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions >1. Application Fees >2. Systems >Â· AOB >The CC2 responses we will be covering may be >review in the google >document: ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS… >. > >Chat soon! > >Sara > >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. >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:TSSrAIPoG+Dsfo4pjr5FI/gtSPSDzoQoN7Yydy0lx++MPVqKu8QqT/E0LAYoKKbtMwTWf7NmXPjyYQE9Tht88+bzyAcdWuvDfOpTk5rZhUBa1QOyr+MSeSAW+8MX+cGZ >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > >ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); > >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 mailing list ><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

7 10

Work Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Aug. 9, 2017

Aug. 9, 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, 8 August 2017 at 3:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions * Application Fees * Systems 4. AOB The CC2 responses we will be covering may be review in the google document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS…. Chat soon! Sara 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.

11 17

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 08 August 2017
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 08 August. 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 and excerpts from the CC2 responses are attached. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions: Application Fees 1.4.1 -- Should another mechanism be considered for application feeds? Such as cost plus reasonable returns, fixed, plus variable, etc. -- Nominet, GAC UK, BRG, RySG, Valideus, and BC supported a model based on the principle of cost recovery. -- Afilias, CIRA, and Demys provided more detailed feedback on the future cost model. -- John Poole suggested an alternate model. -- Don't know if we can have a policy for different model for different TLD type. Maybe put that aside. Agree that it should be put aside until after categories. For example, brand will be a specific type of domain. May not have to do the same type of financial analysis. Note to come back to this after we have fleshed out the categories. 1.4.2 -- Do you believe $185,000 was a reasonable fee? Is it still a reasonable fee? -- Some concerns about not ramping up compliance. (See BC comment). -- As we go forward need to make sure compliance can handle what we are giving them. -- Not sure it within our purview to say how funds are spent. -- Ongoing fees are to fund ongoing operations, if we go down the cost recovery model. Slide 13: -- Question 1.4.3 Slide 14 -- Against a cost ceiling Slide 15 -- Excessively high fees barrier to entry -- While we are talking about a lower application fee to encourage participation, one of the consequences for reducing the fee is multiple applications from applicants who can afford it. To the extent that other entities are submitting multiple applications reducing the fee may have unintended consequences. 1.4.4 -- Price floor: How should excess funds be justified? -- Jannik Skou, CIRA, Nominet, and RySG provided input on recovery of shortages. -- Afilias, CIRA, and RyST provided input on the management of excess funds. -- Helpful to agree on the principle of the application fee to fund the application versus funding ICANN operations. If we agree on that it makes the argument simpler. Is that a principle we can carry forward? -- Agree with that and it is consistent with the principle of cost recovery. -- Support the wider thing that it is not just the cost of the applications. Need to understand the implications of a lower fee. Need to also understand the implications of a higher fee. -- There must be a document of the accounting of the historical costs from the last round. Having something like that might help us to know what are the break-even costs with the next round. 1.4.5 -- Should the WG seek to establish more clarity in how the excess or deficiency of funds are utlilized/recovered/Any suggestions? -- Nominet, Afilias, and RySG suggested means for establishing. clarity in the comments. -- Can some excess fees be used for refund/support/subsidy? Seems that there is support for cost recovery. Biggest problem is knowing how many applications will be received. Excess fees should be redistributed to the applicants. Base the fee on cost recovery. -- It also addresses the issue of if there are benefits to batching of processing; if we go to cost recovery the cost may well change. -- Agree with setting conservatively and then allowing for a refund. We do have enough data to know that the cost of the evaluation etc. we have room to play. Room to set a conservative application fee. But no definition of when the program stops and refunds start. The 2012 round is still open. Costs should be lower than in 2012. -- One thing that occurs is that the 2012 process is still ongoing so ICANN could argue that costs are still a concern. Should recommend that ICANN be transparent. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: While Brand TLDs might have a different financial analysis, it also has a Spec13 validity or not for that TLD, which is an added cost... so it could be higher than the standard type. Michael Flemming: Rubens, are you meaning that the verification of the Spec 13 requires a different cost than other applicants? Rubens Kuhl: Michael, yes. Donna Austin, Neustar: Good point Rubens. Similarly, geographic names also require additional evaluation if the government support requirement stays in place. It would be simpler to maintain a astandard application fee. Michael Flemming: If that is the case, then I would like to see if we can reach out to ICANN or ask for Trang's input in regards to the impact of the verification procedure for Spec 13 applicants and if there was any data on how much that cost was. Rubens Kuhl: Donna, I'm more inclined to a standard application fee... but if we open this box for TLD types, my warning is that it might not be lower as some people think it would be. Donna Austin, Neustar: we are in agreement Rubens. Michael Flemming: I think it is a good point. Lets see if we can get the data that argues that point. Rubens Kuhl: If it's cost-recovery, then it can't be used for compliance or returned to community. So the two are contradictory. Donna Austin, Neustar: Agreed Rubens. Donna Austin, Neustar: Surplus from 2012 is not within our scope. Donna Austin, Neustar: Important distinction Jeff. Rubens Kuhl: BTW, ongoing fees are also outside of the picket fence. Justine Chew: Good point, Jeff Rubens Kuhl: Underserved Regions is an invitation for gaming. I'm from one such region, but I don't want to see people exploiting it as an arbitrage tactic. Michael Flemming: If we are talking about reducing fees for underserved regions, I think we need to talk about that together with Applicant Support. avri doria: and personally I would have to see us price the whole world except for the very rich out of the market. Justine Chew: Agree with Donna, perhaps we should consider a reasonably high entry point application fee but offer "subsidy-type" rebate to underserved regions. +1 Michael avri doria: ... would hate to see ... Michael Flemming: That is why we have Applicant Support and considerations for underserved regions should be done so there. avri doria: Does this just become a way for ICANN to make money? Michael Flemming: But also, we need to review the Applicant Support conditions, of course. Rubens Kuhl: And Flint, MI might be as underserved as Brazil... avri doria: Rubens, I agree on the defintion of underserved. it needs thinking. Justine Chew: @Michael, I'm not sure that Applicant Support applies to a reduction of fees as opposed to support in putting the application together for submission. avri doria: Justine in the last round it covered both, though not successfully. Michael Flemming: Applicant Support covered financial support and the complexity of the procedure. Justine Chew: Yes definition of underserved needs reconsideration. Jeff Neuman: i agree with the way Donna phrased it Justine Chew: Application fees goes towards cost of processing applications only, no? Jeff Neuman: I would also include things like covering the communication period, setting up the application systems, etc. Jeff Neuman: So Donna's version was more accurate than my formulation Alan Greenberg: @Justine, no, in the first round, there was a VERY substantive program development cost that was repaid via the fees. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Justine, there is going to be establishment costs, for example TAS has been retired and a new TAS needs to be developed. the application fee should, in my opinion, cover those establishment costs. Rubens Kuhl: As I mentioned in the list, I oppose keeping 185,000 as the application fee. Justine Chew 2: Thanks, Alan, Donna, and Jeff. I was attempting to clarify what Jeff had said earlier when my connection dropped. Michael Flemming: +1 Alan Greenberg: I wasn't assuming that, and that is one of the reasons I would support differential application fees depending on the type of registry. Rubens Kuhl: Brand TLDs are more of an ongoing cost for ICANN than commercial TLDs, due to them not being dedicated to the domain industry. Lots of compliance activity related to lack of payment of fees, lack of CZDS approvals etc. So from an administrative standpoint, brands are not that cheapear for ICANN. Alan Greenberg: HAve we lost Donna? Donna Austin, Neustar: sorry all, not sure what happened. Donna Austin, Neustar: Let me dial back in. Donna Austin, Neustar: but please don't wait for me Steve Chan: All, I think this is the last Cost Considerations document: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-04oct09-e… Jeff Neuman: I think this has been a good call in the sense of further refining the concept of cost recovery Steve Chan: The document I shared helps illustrate how the $185k was determined Justine Chew 2: Great, thanks Steve. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Christa, I disagree, I think there is agreement on cost recovery. Donna Austin, Neustar: I don't think the ceiling or floor clouds that principle.

1 0

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 08 August 2017 03:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

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, 08 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9qxc53mil1/ 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 Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/xAAhB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 08 August 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 08 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Jeff Neuman:We are rocking the attendance tonight, huh Christa Taylor:rocking Jeff Neuman:Lets give it a couple more minutes Jeff Neuman:but if it is just leaders and ICANN staff, it will be tough to have the call avri doria:there is the 5x5 rule they use in WS2 = 5 attendees (not staff, not chairs etc) by 5 minutes after the appointed time. Jeff Neuman:2 minute warning Sara Bockey:@avri, does that exclude leadership folks? avri doria:yep, we don't count. avri doria:although we can alwasy do what we want. Jeff Neuman:Why dont we get the recording started Christa / Sara and then see what attendance is like then Jeff Neuman:if still below 5 non-ICANN staff/leadership, we can call it Jim Prendergast:I'm having issues with dial in. anyone else? Michael Flemming:I don&t hear anything either Michael Flemming:Oh I hear Steve Christa Taylor:yes Jim Prendergast:yes Sara Bockey:yes I can hear now avri doria:yep avri doria:lets do it Rubens Kuhl:I suggest John Poole to deposit 1,000,000 from his money for every application filed. Jeff Neuman:Does Mr. Poole represent an organization or just himself Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, basically himself, he is the editor of Domain Mondo. Rubens Kuhl:http://www.domainmondo.com/ Rubens Kuhl:While Brand TLDs might have a different financial analysis, it also has a Spec13 validity or not for that TLD, which is an added cost... so it could be higher than the standard type. Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Michael Flemming:Rubens, are you meaning that the verification of the Spec 13 requires a different cost than other applicants? Rubens Kuhl:Michael, yes. Donna Austin, Neustar:Good point Rubens. Similarly, geographic names also require additional evaluation if the government support requirement stays in place. It would be simpler to maintain a astandard application fee. Michael Flemming:If that is the case, then I would like to see if we can reach out to ICANN or ask for Trang's input in regards to the impact of the verification procedure for Spec 13 applicants and if there was any data on how much that cost was. Rubens Kuhl:Donna, I'm more inclined to a standard application fee... but if we open this box for TLD types, my warning is that it might not be lower as some people think it would be. Donna Austin, Neustar:we are in agreement Rubens. Michael Flemming:I think it is a good point. Lets see if we can get the data that argues that point. Rubens Kuhl:If it's cost-recovery, then it can't be used for compliance or returned to community. So the two are contradictory. Donna Austin, Neustar:Agreed Rubens. Donna Austin, Neustar:Surplus from 2012 is not within our scope. Donna Austin, Neustar:Important distinction Jeff. Rubens Kuhl:BTW, ongoing fees are also outside of the picket fence. Justine Chew:Good point, Jeff Rubens Kuhl:Underserved Regions is an invitation for gaming. I'm from one such region, but I don't want to see people exploiting it as an arbitrage tactic. Michael Flemming:If we are talking about reducing fees for underserved regions, I think we need to talk about that together with Applicant Support. avri doria:and persoally I would have to see us price the whole world except for the very rich out of the market. Justine Chew:Agree with Donna, perhaps we should consider a reasonably high entry point application fee but offer "subsidy-type" rebate to underserved regions. +1 Michael avri doria:... would hate to see ... Michael Flemming:That is why we have Applicant Support and considerations for underserved regions should be done so there. avri doria:Does this just become a way for ICANN to make money? Michael Flemming:But also, we need to review the Applicant Support conditions, of course. Rubens Kuhl:And Flint, MI might be as underserved as Brazil... avri doria:Rubens, I agree on the defintion of underserved. it needs thinking. Justine Chew:@Michael, I'm not sure that Applicant Support applies to a reduction of fees as opposed to support in putting the application together for submission. avri doria:Justine in the last round it covered both, though not successfully. Michael Flemming:Applicant Support covered financial support and the complexity of the procedure. Justine Chew:Yes definition of underserved needs reconsideration. Jeff Neuman:i agree with the way Donna phrased it Justine Chew:Application fees goes towards cost of processing applications only, no? Jeff Neuman:I would also include things like covering the communication period, setting up the application systems, etc. Jeff Neuman:So Donna's version was more accurate than my formulation Alan Greenberg:@Justine, no, in the first round, there was a VERY substantive program development cost that was repaid via the fees. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Justine, there is going to be establishment costs, for example TAS has been retired and a new TAS needs to be developed. the application fee should, in my opinion, cover those establishment costs. Rubens Kuhl:As I mentioned in the list, I oppose keeping 185,000 as the application fee. Justine Chew 2:Thanks, Alan, Donna, and Jeff. I was attempting to clarify what Jeff had said earlier when my connection dropped. Michael Flemming:+1 Alan Greenberg:I wasn't assuming that, and that is one of the reasons I would support differential application fees depending on the type of registry. Rubens Kuhl:Brand TLDs are more of an ongoing cost for ICANN than commercial TLDs, due to them not being dedicated to the domain industry. Lots of compliance activity related to lack of payment of fees, lack of CZDS approvals etc. So from an administrative standpoint, brands are not that cheapear for ICANN. Alan Greenberg:HAve we lost Donna? Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry all, not sure what happened. Donna Austin, Neustar:Let me dial back in. Donna Austin, Neustar:but please don't wait for me Steve Chan:All, I think this is the last Cost Considerations document: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_t… Jeff Neuman:I think this has been a good call in the sense of further refining the concept of cost recovery Steve Chan:The document I shared helps illustrate how the $185k was determined Justine Chew 2:Great, thanks Steve. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Christa, I disagree, I think there is agreement on cost recovery. Donna Austin, Neustar:I don't think the ceiling or floor clouds that principle. Donna Austin, Neustar:Don't wait, we're at the top of the hour. Michael Flemming:But we did get through a topic! Michael Flemming:Good call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone Bye Bye for now Sara Bockey:thanks all avri doria:bye Justine Chew 2:My apologies for the next call.

1 0