September 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 1 Meeting 19 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Dear Work Track Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes from the meeting on 19 September. 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. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items and Notes, Work Track 1, 19 September RSP Accreditation Program (Slide 3) Benefits and risks (Slide 4) -- Is there any evidence of an issue about lack of competition? Is that a mandate for this group? -- BRG Supports the concept of an RSP program [see comments]. (Slide 5) -- Point: Terminology re: accreditation program. We are talking about a pre-approval process, not an accreditation program. -- The data that ICANN has come out with wasn’t available when we did the initial draft. The Registry RSP discussion group recently got additional information from Francisco and we are working through that to understand where the problems were, and a way to use the monitoring to resolve those problems. There is data now. Benefits and challenges (slide 7 & 8) -- Nominet: Support for a lighter touch regulatory regime for established providers, support for any RSP programs would be conditional on the outcomes (slide 9) -- Afilias, RySG, and Valideus provided comments on scalability (slide 13) -- CIRA and Demys: feedback on additional program elements (slide 14) -- BRG and ALAC: feedback on additional program elements (slide 15); Given ICANN's mandate on security and stability, it is most effective to set a minimum threshold for requirements up front. This seems consistent with BRG's comment to avoid barriers to entry in the marketplace. - 1.1.3 (slide 16) -- Nominet: Does not see any other option than ICANN being responsible -- Afilias, RySG, Valideus: Support for continuing to the use the model from the 2012 round -- BRG: Support for using the same provide for testing associated with the RSP Program and application evaluation. Concern about statement by Afilias regarding involvement of Compliance team to confirm that all existing RSPs are meeting existing contractual requirements. This will be picked up on the next call. >From the chat: Sarah L Verisign: Preapproval of an RSP without making commensurate changes to the test cases used during PDT might not improve performance at all if you take ICANNs data into account detailing the number of EBERO triggering incidents that are occurring. Jeff Neuman: For clarity - and I did not have a role in drafting the comments for Valideus - but those were not challenges, but rather statements addressing the challenges raised by others. Jim Prendergast, Afilias, Jannik Skou: Opposition to establishing an accreditation or preapproval Program at this time, recommendations for alternative mechanism to create process efficiencies (slide 10-11) Justine Chew: Could someone remind me of the difference between "accreditation" and "certification" plse? Donna Austin, Neustar: Justine, i don't think there is one. Justine Chew: @Donna, really?! Donna Austin, Neustar: Justine, in this discussion we have generally used them interchangeably. So I'm sure there is a difference, but in this context i don't believe there is. Rubens Kuhl: Justine, this is an area where there is the market reading of the terms and the ICANN reading of it. Usually, certification goes into deeper assessment and checking of a capability, while accreditation is lighter. But due to registrar relations that are called accreditation in ICANN world, people usually equate accreditaiton with a contract framework. Jeff Neuman: In the ICANN context, "Accreditation" generally means that based on your application, you are approved to perform certain services in the future.... Jonathan Robinson: There was an earlier comment that an approval process could test the ability to scale. There is no evidence provided for the fact that this could be done effectively. Such a process goes beyond setting a minimum standard and (potentially) confers authority to the tester (ICANN) for performance testing beyond minimum standards Jeff Neuman: "Certification" is a process that evaluates performance and certifies that you have met the performance standards (based on past behavior) Jeff Neuman: So, Accreditation looks towards the future, Certification looks to the past Jeff Neuman: But....that said....I am not sure that the comments here make that distinction and Donna is right that they use the terms interchangeably Justine Chew: Noted. Thanks, Jeff. Thanks, Donna. Jonathan Robinson: @Jeff. Agreed that one could argue for a disctinction but they do seem to have been used interchangablly here - ALAC: Doubt expressed regarding value of ongoing expansion on gTLDs, issue is of relatively little importance to Internet users (slide 11) - Question 1.1.2 - CIRA, Nominet, BC, Google, BRG: Feedback on the issue of scalability (slide 12) - Support expressed for setting a minimum standard/threshold so applicants can be confident in their application passing through. That is different from evaluating live operating TLDs for performance. - At the time that an RSP is seeking pre-approval, they are going to need to identify system and capacity. Any RSP is going to provide a pretty good picture at that that time. Important to seperate that from the compliance function that takes place during operation. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Scalability problems could be number of TLDs, number of DUMs or number of peak transactions. Usually the later is the one that hits more frequently. Jeff Neuman: They also need to provide supporting documentation to show evidence of their scalability. Jeff Neuman: So, it would not just be affirmatively making that assertion, but demonstrating their ability Rubens Kuhl: There is one small technical function that is linked to number of TLDs in DNSSEC, but it's unusual to hit such a problem. - The entire purpose is to set a minimum threshold. Too many barriers up front create hurdles that are difficult to prove up front and establish inappropriate barriers to entry. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: The more features of a registry system ICANN evaluates, the more liability it creates if such infrastructure doesn't deliver on that promise. Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jonathan, the pre-approval process is intended to establish that the potential RSP has the technical wherewithal to run a registry. Rubens Kuhl: And since new gTLDs are not getting the gigantic registration volumes once foreseen, scability concerns seem overzealous at this point. Donna Austin, Neustar: Good point Rubens, and also highlight the difficulties associated with predicting registration volumes.

2 1

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Sept. 19, 2017

Sept. 19, 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, 19 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p7jvnfqk9ya/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4c3b942c19b662a3…> https://participate.icann.org/p7jvnfqk9ya/ 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/8hkhB> https://community.icann.org/x/8hkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 September 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 19 September 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_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6Z04n4A45NXawKHktu70Vv_OCWBrMjpF3hMxR8A5pYk&s=D8QkddagJbXemgRHm0gh6-NY6RInnqtXuqrAPB-5g9k&e= Jeff Neuman:hello all Jeff Neuman:Looks like Alan and Justine are the only ones I can tell not in the contracted parties :) Jeff Neuman:I had hoped for more people given the tpic Jeff Neuman:topic Michael Flemming:Sorry, additional time means we will go over? Sara Bockey:Michael, possibly Michael Flemming:Undeerstood, thanks! Michael Flemming:Sarah, you are kind of soft Christa Taylor:No, we won't go over time Christa Taylor:We have a continuation as required on the schedule Michael Flemming:I see. Jonathan Robinson:Good to not go over time. Need to schedule additional meetings if required. Christa Taylor:Currently on slide 3 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ok you have my right brain Justine Chew:@CLO: good one! *I still haven't figured out which side of my brain is where. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):three meetings at once sigh Michael Flemming:You only have two ears, how does that work? I've done the two, but usually rely on auto streamed transcripts for the third. Jonathan Robinson:@Sara. Sorry for referring to you as Christa. I have recently got up at 3:30 am! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ambient audio and that screen must be centre with ear and screen sides switched from the usual cross over Donna Austin, Neustar:who are these comments from? Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Sara Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Donna Jeff Neuman:I agree with Donna....we should forever change the term to pre-approval Jeff Neuman:@Sara - no need to apologize. That is the term that was used in the charter Donna Austin, Neustar:no apology necessary Sara, we're reviewing comments that referred to RSP Accreditation Just wanted to flat it. Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry, flag it. Rubens Kuhl:Or a ranking system... (it should also not be) Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jonathan and Rubens points. Jeff Neuman:Sorry Jonathan - that was my instruction to make it easier to find the themes Jonathan Robinson:@Jeff / Sara. It is helpful. I agree with the highlights in this case :-) Steve Chan:@Jonathan, all, to the extent the staff highlighting is not helpful, or even misleading, definitely let us know! Justine Chew:@Donna, excellent news. Sarah L Verisign:Pre-approval of ann RSP without making commensurate changes to the test cases used during PDT might not improve performance at all if you take ICANNs data into account detailing the number of EBERO triggering incidents that are occurring. Jeff Neuman:For clarity - and I did not have a role in drafting the comments for Valideus - but those were not challenges, but rather statements addressing the challenges raised by others. Justine Chew:Could someone remind me of the difference between "accreditation" and "certification" plse? Donna Austin, Neustar:Justine, i don't think there is one. Justine Chew:@Donna, really?! Donna Austin, Neustar:Justine, in this discussion we have generally used them interchangeably. So I'm sure there is a difference, but in this context i don't believe there is. Rubens Kuhl:Justine, this is an area where there is the market reading of the terms and the ICANN reading of it. Usually, certification goes into deeper assessment and checking of a capability, while accreditation is lighter. But due to registrar relations that are called accreditation in ICANN world, people usually equate accreditaiton with a contract framework. Jeff Neuman:In the ICANN context, "Accreditation" generally means that based on your application, you are approved to perform certain services in the future.... Jonathan Robinson:There was an earlier comment that an approval process could test the ability to scale. There is no evidence provided for the fact that this could be done effectively. Such a process goes beyond setting a minimum standard and (potentially) confers authority to the tester (ICANN) for performance testing beyond minimum standards Jeff Neuman:"Certification" is a process that evaluates performance and certifies that you have met the performance standards (based on past behavior) Jeff Neuman:So, Accreditation looks towards the future, Certification looks to the past Jeff Neuman:But....that said....I am not sure that the comments here make that distinction and Donna is right that they use the terms interchangeably Justine Chew:Noted. Thanks, Jeff. Thanks, Donna. Jonathan Robinson:@Jeff. Agreed that one could argue for a disctinction but they do seem to have been used interchangablly here Justine Chew:Thanks Rubens. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):they would be crazy not to Donna Rubens Kuhl:Scalability problems could be number of TLDs, number of DUMs or number of peak transactions. Usually the later is the one that hits more frequently. Jeff Neuman:They also need to provide supporting documentation to show evidence of their scalability. Jeff Neuman:So, it would not just be affirmatively making that assertion, but demonstrating their ability Rubens Kuhl:There is one small technical function that is linked to number of TLDs in DNSSEC, but it's unusual to hit such a problem. Rubens Kuhl:The more features of a registry system ICANN evaluates, the more liability it creates if such infrastructure doesn't deliver on that promise. Jonathan Robinson:@Rubens. Agreed. Christa Taylor:Slide 13 Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jonathan, the pre-approval process is intended to establish that the potential RSP has the technical wherewithal to run a registry. Jonathan Robinson:Apologies. Old hand. Rubens Kuhl:And since new gTLDs are not getting the gigantic registration volumes once foreseen, scability concerns seem overzealous at this point. Donna Austin, Neustar:Good point Rubens, and also highlight the difficulties associated with predicting registration volumes. Rubens Kuhl:I don't see why we should stipulate ICANN doing it itself or outsourcing it. Donna Austin, Neustar:Can I make a quick comment before we move on? Jonathan Robinson:@Rubens. Agreed. Being responsible for it doesn't mean actually doing it Christa Taylor:I'll add to open that up next call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone bye ðŸ‘‹ for now Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Jonathan Rubens Kuhl:Bye all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ðŸ‘‹ Jonathan Robinson:Thank-you! Christa Taylor:Thanks All!

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for 19 September 2017 @ 3:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 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, 19 September 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 * RSP Accreditation Program 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

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Julie Bisland Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 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, 5 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p64hbbzg59r/<https://participate.icann.org/p64hbbzg59r/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=f0f4dcd59786ab91…> 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/7hkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 5 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach on Tuesday, 05 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Vanda Scartezini:hi Julie, Julie Bisland:hello Vanda :) Vanda Scartezini:already muted my phone Julie Bisland:excellent, thank you and welcome :) Vanda Scartezini:my office is in a large avenue and has always people singign in the street with lots of noise... Julie Bisland:oh my! sounds lovely (until you need quiet time) :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Vanda has a stunning view I have seen some great post by Jorge Emily Barabas:slides are now unsynced so everyone can zoom as needed to read the text Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:I do see the page counter - x/23 - but can't see any slides. Anyone else? Rubens Kuhl:Katrin, normal for me using Firefox. Julie Bisland:Katrin, you may need to log out and back in. Christa Taylor:Working here as well Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:I see... :-/ Workaround has been downloading it. Alan Greenberg:It happens occasionally for reasons unknown. Relogging on tends to fixit. Jeff Neuman:I was wondering if there was anyone from the BC that could expand on the comment on "behavoir experienced in the last round." Jeff Neuman:I like trying to use the regional IGF networks if that is possible Jeff Neuman:just dont know if their rules allow that Jim Prendergast:as long as its basic awareness building and info sharing - shouldnt be a problem Jeff Neuman:How far in advance do we need to suggest topics to the IGF organizations Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Jeff there is a strong nexus between Regional igfs and our ICANN hubs so should be ways Jim Prendergast:schedule varies - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.intgovforum.org_mul… Alan Greenberg:Important to understand that the only applicants for the program were ICANN insiders. Greg Shatan:ISOC and its chapters could be used as well. Rubens Kuhl:Some ccTLDs see ICANN outreach regarding new gTLDs as ICANN promoting one of their "sons" instead of applying similar amounts of money to also promote ccTLDs. Vanda Scartezini:EVEN IGF DOS NOT ACCESS COMPANIES AROUND THAT COULD APPLY Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and the National Initiatives are opportunities for outreach Vanda Scartezini:in our region is more associations in general that can make the information flows. Greg Shatan:Agree with Vanda that a way to reach the business sector is important. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yep avri doria:Basically should use as many of these channels as possible. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Jeff Neuman:THere are alo of responses that are great at a high level, but I am not sure that it helps us on a micro level. For example the BC says we should streamline the process, but what specifically can be streamlined? Jeff Neuman:I would love to state in the Preliminary report a question that states: "What can your SO/AC/Constituency do to improve awareness of the progra?" Jeff Neuman:program Greg Shatan:I would add to that Jeff: How can we help? Vanda Scartezini:like your question jeff Jeff Neuman:I agree with Cheryl that most of the comments do seem positive on keeping an Applicant Support Program in some form Jeff Neuman:Most also state that Applicant Support should involve more than just financial support, but also technical support, etc. Vanda Scartezini:during the survey I did in this region I promise to several companies to infrom them when the program will start Vanda Scartezini:even here cost was not the main point - infromation about on how to apply will be more relevant Christa Taylor:one sec Jeff Neuman:Applicants that wanted to be in the JAS program had to pay $47,000 up front as the reduced application fee Donna Austin, Neustar:dropping off adobe, will still be on the phone Vanda Scartezini:video with cations in aseveral language would be good Vanda Scartezini:captioning Phil Buckingham:Q : so how much should ICANN put up to support a programme . How we do we arrive at this number . Vanda Scartezini:to strat a new gTLD offer in the market you will need much more money than just the fees. so As I ahve asking here , the fees was not the barrier. Vanda Scartezini:the knowledge, timely aware, on how to trust to be backend technical etc are the barriers Sara Bockey:go ahead Vanda Scartezini:thank you for sharing your thoughts. appreciate the call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good call thanks everyone ðŸ‘‹ bye for now then... Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:Thanks and bye, everybody. Phil Buckingham:thanks very mcuh

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 1 - 5 September 2017
by Emily Barabas Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/7hkhB. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 2. SOIs -- No SOI updates 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions a. Applicant Support - Summary of discussions to date: possible reasons that may have contributed to the liminted number of applications; suggestions on how to address the issues identified (see slides for details). - Question 1.2.1 - feedback on proposal to expand the Applicant Support Program - BC, RySG, and ALAC provided feedback on Applicant Support for IDNs. - BC, RySG, ALAC, and Jannik Skou submitted comments on the concept of the "middle applicant." - Nominet and Afilias suggested focusing on other areas of the New gTLD ecosystem. - Valideus suggested research and studies into program needs and weaknesses. - John Poole opposed expanding the Applicant Support Program. - Question 1.2.2 - feedback on other support mechanisms beyond financial support/application submission. - Nominet - shorter and simpler documentation and publicity/education. - RySG – focus on application process and improving outreach and publication of the ASP. - ALAC – make criteria less stringent, expand the definition of communities, and expand technical training, mentorship, and knowledge/capacity building. - BC - support applicants targeting registrants in underserved regions that use the language and script of that region, leverage lessons learned from the JAS program; mechanisms should address TLD operator's needs; work with local/regional experts. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I was wondering if there was anyone from the BC that could expand on the comment on "behavoir experienced in the last round." - Question 1.2.3 -- suggestions for improving publicity/outreach. - Jannik Skou – engage with ccNSO/GAC/ALAC, add multilingual customer support, improve outreach materials. - Nominet – leverage regional IGFs. - RySG – improve outreach ans publication, build relationships with business associations. - Afilias - identify appropriate partners. - BC - simplify the process - ALAC – improve communications and expand training and awareness opportunities. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I was wondering if there was anyone from the BC that could expand on the comment on "behavoir experienced in the last round." Jeff Neuman: I like trying to use the regional IGF networks if that is possible Jeff Neuman: just dont know if their rules allow that Jim Prendergast: as long as its basic awareness building and info sharing - shouldnt be a problem Jeff Neuman: How far in advance do we need to suggest topics to the IGF organizations Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Jeff there is a strong nexus between Regional igfs and our ICANN hubs so should be ways Jim Prendergast: schedule varies - http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-regional-and-national-i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.intgovforum.org_mul…> Alan Greenberg: Important to understand that the only applicants for the program were ICANN insiders. Greg Shatan: ISOC and its chapters could be used as well. Rubens Kuhl: Some ccTLDs see ICANN outreach regarding new gTLDs as ICANN promoting one of their "sons" instead of applying similar amounts of money to also promote ccTLDs. Vanda Scartezini: EVEN IGF DOS NOT ACCESS COMPANIES AROUND THAT COULD APPLY Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and the National Initiatives are opportunities for outreach Vanda Scartezini: in our region is more associations in general that can make the information flows. Greg Shatan: Agree with Vanda that a way to reach the business sector is important. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yep avri doria: Basically should use as many of these channels as possible. - Question 1.2.4 - suggestions for metrics that could be used to evaluate success. - Jannik Skou –number of domain names registered. - BC - number of workshops, attendance, and follow up communication - RySG - number of applications and number of successful applications. - ALAC – consider broader context of success; in terms of metrics, look at numbers of people within LDCs who participate and are successfully trained as registrars. - 1.2.5 - additional recommendations for improving ASP - BC - streamline the application process and improving the network of informal support for applicants. - ALAC - support people from underserved regions to improve chances of meeting eligibility criteria. - RySG - applicant must be able to demonstrate that there is a business case for the TLD. - NCSG - better advertising and an exclusive round for applicants from developing countries. - GAC - referenced CCTRT Draft Report comments. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: THere are alo of responses that are great at a high level, but I am not sure that it helps us on a micro level. For example the BC says we should streamline the process, but what specifically can be streamlined? Jeff Neuman: I would love to state in the Preliminary report a question that states: "What can your SO/AC/Constituency do to improve awareness of the program Jeff Neuman: I agree with Cheryl that most of the comments do seem positive on keeping an Applicant Support Program in some form Jeff Neuman: Most also state that Applicant Support should involve more than just financial support, but also technical support, etc. Vanda Scartezini: during the survey I did in this region I promise to several companies to infrom them when the program will start Vanda Scartezini: even here cost was not the main point - infromation about on how to apply will be more relevant - Important to take the next step in consolidating feedback and looking at specific opportunities for improvement in the program. - Applicants that received support were required to pay a part of the application fee in the 2012 round. Did this hinder applicants? From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Applicants that wanted to be in the JAS program had to pay $47,000 up front as the reduced application fee b. Communications - 1.9.1 - suggestions for additional areas for improvement in communications. - Jannik Skou - produce a video. - BRG - develop tailored information information and processes for different business models. - ALAC - regional teams need to be organized within underserved regions to more effectively introduce, educate and inform. - GAC UK - leverage regional IGFs. - RySG, Afilias - push notifications, SLAs for responding to applicant questions, helpline, searchable FAQ page and knowledge base, webinars and sessions with detailed minutes. - 1.9.2 - metrics to measure success of communications - BRG - mainstream media coverage, response time. - RySG, Afilias - hire an experienced firm to do comms, use established metrics. - ALAC - training program participation and successfully meeting goals, number of RSPs set up, number of outreach opportunities that get people to apply. - John Poole - total "revamp" From the chat: Vanda Scartezini: video with cations in aseveral language would be good Vanda Scartezini: captioning - We don't know to what extent reducing the application fee was addressing the main issue. Are there other other impediments to having successful application from developing economies? If so, what are those impediments? Not clear if more information would have helped. Hard to tell if we know what we are trying to accomplish and how we are going to accomplish it. - For some applicants, it wasn't so much an issue of the cost, it was that there wasn't a good enought business case to apply. - There was also a punitive aspect. If you applied for support and didn't succeed, that was the end of your application. Did this effect anyone? Timing issue may also have had an impact. - Agree the timing issue could have been important. A single awareness-raising event without sustained follow up may not be enough. Needs and approach may vary by region. It may take more time in some regions to develop plans and prepare applications. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Q : so how much should ICANN put up to support a programme . How we do we arrive at this number . Vanda Scartezini: to strat a new gTLD offer in the market you will need much more money than just the fees. so As I ahve asking here , the fees was not the barrier. Vanda Scartezini: the knowledge, timely aware, on how to trust to be backend technical etc are the barriers 4. AOB - None

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for 5 September 2017 @ 20:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear All, Apologies for the delay! The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions * Applicant Support * Communications 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