January 2018 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 09 January 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC Chat of the call are attached to this email. The AC recording and Mp3 are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 09 January 2018 at 03:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track1-09jan18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1l2j2tbun2/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** 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/Sx1yB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle -------------------------------

4 3

Response to Inquiry to ICANN Org about ICANN Becoming a Registry of Registries
by Steve Chan Jan. 25, 2018

Jan. 25, 2018

Dear WT1 Members, WT1 has discussed comments made by Akram Atallah, related to possible concerns the community might have about ICANN Org becoming a “registry of registries.” Per action item 8 captured on WT1’s action list here (https://community.icann.org/x/aRq4Aw) please find ICANN Org’s response below. During the last couple of WT1 calls, there were requests for clarification regarding the context of Akram’s comment that one of the things the PDP Working Group should consider is whether ICANN should be a registry of registries. Please find below the response to this request to share with WT1. Akram’s comment referred to by WT1 was a suggestion for the PDP Working Group to consider what it envisions to be the end goal of the new gTLD Program (i.e., whether it envisions a few thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions gTLDs to be added to the root, and is there a cap). Once the end goal is known, the Program, including fees, could then be structured to meet the goal and achieve the vision. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

FW: Letter from RySG RSP DG to SubPro WG
by Christa Taylor Jan. 23, 2018

Jan. 23, 2018

Hello All WT1 Members, Attached is a letter from Stephane van Gelder of the RySG RSP DG regarding the RSP/Accreditation Program. We will be discussing Accreditation Program during our next call (Feb 6 at 20:00 UTC) and ask that you review and provide comments any feedback on the WT1 working document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark84 tmg Cheers, Christa Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA Skype: christat13 christa(a)dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com --- From: Stéphane Van Gelder - Milathan <svg(a)milathan.ltd <mailto:svg@milathan.ltd> > Date: January 23, 2018 at 4:57:00 AM EST To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> > Subject: Letter from RySG RSP DG to SubPro WG Dear Cheryl, Dear Jeff, Please find attached a letter drafted by the RySGs Discussion Group on RSPs. We hope you find this letter useful in your own groups discussions and would ask that you share the letter with the SubPro WG as appropriate. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. As mentioned in the letter, we are aware of your Feb 9 call and should you need me to attend that call to provide an overview of the DGs work, please let me know. Alternatively, members of the DG are planning to attend the Feb 9 call and can therefore also provide updates. Best regards, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" Discover The Milathan Post on <http://post.milathan.com/> http://post.milathan.com Follow me on Twitter: @stephvg

1 0

FW: Letter from RySG RSP DG to SubPro WG
by Sara Bockey Jan. 23, 2018

Jan. 23, 2018

Dear All, Please see the attached letter from the RySG RSP DG. Our next call on February 6, 2018 at 20 UTC will discuss the RSP Program. Best, Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com<mailto:sbockey@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: Stéphane Van Gelder - Milathan <svg(a)milathan.ltd<mailto:svg@milathan.ltd>> Date: January 23, 2018 at 4:57:00 AM EST To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Subject: Letter from RySG RSP DG to SubPro WG Dear Cheryl, Dear Jeff, Please find attached a letter drafted by the RySG’s Discussion Group on RSPs. We hope you find this letter useful in your own group’s discussions and would ask that you share the letter with the SubPro WG as appropriate. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. As mentioned in the letter, we are aware of your Feb 9 call and should you need me to attend that call to provide an overview of the DG’s work, please let me know. Alternatively, members of the DG are planning to attend the Feb 9 call and can therefore also provide updates. Best regards, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ———————— Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com<http://post.milathan.com/> Follow me on Twitter: @stephvg ————————

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 20:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 16, 2018

Jan. 16, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC Chat of the call are attached to this email. The AC recording and Mp3 are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 at 20:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-track1-16jan18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5elru9b3nv/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** 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/Sx1yB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle -------------------------------

1 0

Notes and Action Items Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 16 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 16, 2018

Jan. 16, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB. See the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Action Items from Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 16 January 2018: 1. SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of potential recommendations for Variable Fees (4.2.17) Consensus Items: -- Artificially increasing costs may discourage innovation and competition. -- Different application fees for different types of applicants is only warranted if the difference is greater than 20%. -- The excess of these fees could follow the same disbursement mechanism as detailed in the Application Fees section. -- Sanctions for changing the ytpe of application should be higher than applying for the desired TLD type originally -- the additional fees should be at 125% of the difference between the different application types in terms of fees plus any other related processing fees. -- Applicants who apply for multiple TLDs should not received any discounts on their application fees. Discussion: -- Discussed previously whether it should be percentage, a set amount or something else. -- Discussed previously applications fees by type. -- Still in agreement on consensus items? Don't agree that there should be different fees for different types of applications. Not sure how you would put a differential on the fees given there will be initial establishment costs for the next iteration of the progress everyone will have to be responsible for some of those costs. -- The idea was that once ICANN goes through the application fees and determines the costs they would determine that for the different types of application. Did not do a vote on this, just conversations in prior calls. -- Discussed excess fees in the Application Fees section. -- In the 2012 found there was a basement and then additional fees for additional evaluations might be needed. The WG could decide to tackle it in another way. These variable fees existed in the 2012 round already. -- CPE was one example. Don't know of others unless you went through an objection process. Geographic names had a different steps with scrutiny on letters of support. Also, RSTEP. So, could be a based with additional fees say for scrutiny of letters for geographic names, brands for trademarks, etc. -- Another aspect to consider is that we didn't have brands, so there might be another category with different costs. -- What might make the conversations around application types difficult is that we don't know the procedural differences between the types. -- On the consensus items -- Don't know what we mean by "excess of these fees"? Don't think we should talk about sanctions for changing the type. The excess fees was based on the application fees. How to distribute the excess over the actual costs. Maybe move back to the discussion section. Will update the language instead of "sanctions". -- "...should not receive any discounts on their application fees based on their multiple applications" -- Shouldn't be penalized that they have multiple applications. -- We talked about excess fees in Application Fees in general and once that's resolved if there are excess fees then those excess fees in Variable Fees these should be handled the exact same way in the previous section. Aspects for further discussion: -- Do we want to consider the speculation of TLDs? -- How would fixed assets that are used over multiple rounds be allocated? -- Are we okay with ICANN being a registry of registries? -- How do we manage compliance with a growing volume of registries? Impact on variable costs? -- How do we promote competition and encouraging innovation via pricing? -- Would like insight from IANA re: implications on the volume of TLDs and any stability issues. -- Do we want to address excesses and the timely disbursement of excess funds? Implications on the limit of delegations per year – scaling, planning, instability, compliance Discussion: -- Costs from when this program starts and until the TLD is evaluated. Compliance is not involved there should not be costs relating to compliance. -- On the question on registry of registries -- brought up by Akram Atallah. Asked for clarfication from staff. -- Need clarification in the text by what we mean by "registry of registries". >From the chat: Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): how the difference is measured? in %of text? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): when we talk aboout %s Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): we need to usderstand what formula is used Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Different application fees for different types of applications is only warranted if the difference is significant (for discussion purposes, 20% was used with the actual percentage to be determined). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): about this bit Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): quite small change of text can change application idea a lot Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): application = texts + PDFs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I mean - we need to define how do we see if the change is significant Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): to prevent vague reading at the implementation phase Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): the issue is not the value of the threshold Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): but the way we evaluate the particular difference (for exaple 20%) Kurt Pritz: How about, “the expense for handling changes to applications (when allowed) will be borne by the applicant.” (or am I missing the whole point? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Kurt, do you mean that if that leads to additional evaluations - then they should be paid for again? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): like additional community review adds the cost of the latter Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I think we need to clearly show in the text if we are talking about difference in costs or in the texts of the application - to avoid misunderstanding Kurt Pritz: @ Maxim: I think so - I would keep the policy statement more general and not pre-suppose different types of applications Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I did not remember the voting about it Jon Nevett: Not sure where we are going with this one either? The excess of these fees could follow the same disbursement mechanism as detailed in the Application Fees section. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so far all funds go to some accounts of ICANN , without any explanations of what is going to happen with it Jon Nevett: Donna +1 Jon Nevett: what does that mean? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I meant excess fees Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I have a question : do we see 5k USD amount (TMCH fee) as installation fee too? Jon Nevett: extended evaluation fee too Steve Chan: RSTEP, Objections (as you noted) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): some cities demanded money for the letters ... but not to ICANN Phil Buckingham: if we are going to do a cost plus model for each application type , then the initial application fee will be different . Surely it will be more expensive to apply for a community application than say a brand application Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): in reality only rich communities prevailed in the process jeff neuman 2: I believe brands needed to have a TMCH token so they paid for that....which could count as their evaluation fee as a brand Phil Buckingham: Steve +1 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): excess fees looks like "leftovers after the process finished" - and the current reading of it by ICANN that the 2012 round is not finished yet, so we can not estimate it Kurt Pritz: @ Jon (about excess fees - I think): The Application fee section states that, “Excess funds resulting from the application costs versus the floor (item a) should be distributed back to applicants or used to benefit and to another category?” Then a number of other categories are listed, e.g., outreach and so on. I would change that to: Excess funds resulting from the application costs versus the floor (item a) should be distributed back to applicants (period). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): also some applicants went out of business .. who inherits their hypothetical share? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): also some applicants went out of business .. who inherits their hypothetical share? Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jon's comment and the general intent of that point. Jon Nevett: @jeff thanks for the clarification Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): at least IANA (PTI ) is a registry of registries Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we be more specific about what is meant by Registry of Registries. There was considerable discussion around this last week and I think it would be helpful to be more descriptive about what this means. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it sounds like fist comes pays less Donna Austin, Neustar: I mean in the text, not for discussion now. Kurt Pritz: How about, "How do we promote competition and ecourage innovation via pricing and the current ICANN fee structure?" Phil Buckingham: i would have thought amortisation / depreciation of fixed assets would have to be in sync with ICANN 501 Californian corporation status Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): then 5k USD is not a part of costs (RO pays for TMCH after the execution of the RA) Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree Jeff. It is for ICANN to manage the Compliance department within their current budget. Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, yes, on my to-dos list. jeff neuman: @Donna - Ah....yes, we need to be clear in the text....once we get Akram's response. Agree 3. Review of potential recommendations for Application Submission Period (4.2.13) -- Considerable discussion how we wanted the next window or round to take place -- how to get to a continuous state (page 16 in Google doc). Consensus Items: The application submission window was too quick and too short. Due to uncertainty related to demand, the WG suggests a Hybrid approach where a single round is set (with a minimum 3 months notice) followed by an annual window, e.g., three months of application acceptance (potential publication/objection period??), remaining 9 months to complete evaluation, repeat on a yearly basis. Evaluations are conducted on a rolling basis. The set application window timeline provides predictability, with post application to delegation steps running in parallel with any subsequent window. This process will lead into a “continuous” application process. The Lead-up round should closely reflect end-goal of continuous/annual application process. Round should be a means of refining the continuous application process. Applicants in the next round (regardless whether delegated or not) have priority over additional/ subsequent round applicants. Discussion: -- Potential publication or objection period. -- Do we want to get things in a continuous motion? -- What do we do with those who can make it through in the 9-month process and is the delegation completed in the original window too? When a next window opens to you mention strings in a reconsideration process? Just make them not eligible to be applied for in the next round. >From the chat: jeff neuman: [Personal Opinion] When people claimed that the submission window was too short / too quick, I think they were more referring to the lack of effective communication announcing that the round was going to open as opposed to having 90 days to enter applicant information into the portal. jeff neuman: I am not sure they were saying that 90 days is too short to enter your information. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I suggest adding at least 1 month between rounds (to make cleaning / changes e.t.c) jeff neuman: Plus, having predictable open windows should lessen the emphasis on the time period to enter information into the application portal Jon Nevett: i have 10 applications filed just about 6 years ago that have been in various states of hell -- is 1 year enough? jeff neuman: Jon - so long as no one can apply later for the strings that are in your personal hell, then does that matter Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): if no resolution for the leftover applications of the round is foreseen it might start looking like a Ponzi scheme Phil Buckingham: + 1 Jeff applicants should have notification - say six months - that the application window (for said type) opens on ... They have (say) one month to enter all data / models on apllication Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co Chair): makes sense Jeff Jon Nevett: Yes Jeff. I agree that my personal hell might not matter, but if we can save others from in in the future, let's try to help them. 4. Next Meeting: Registry service provider pre-approval process. Give notice of the next meeting: Feb 6 at 20:00 topics include Applicant Support and RSP/Accreditation Program.

1 0

WT1 Agenda for Tuesday, 16 January at 20:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Jan. 15, 2018

Jan. 15, 2018

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, 16 January at 20:00 UTC. We will be working off the WT1 shared document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8… . Please feel free to access the document at your leisure and add any comments/thoughts. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of potential recommendations for Variable Fees (4.2.17) 4. Review of potential recommendations for Application Submission Period (4.2.13) 5. Next Meeting 6. AOB Best regards, Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

1 0

Notes and Action Items Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 09 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 9, 2018

Jan. 9, 2018

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB. See the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes/Action Items from Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 09 January 2018: Action Item: For Application Fees – Staff to help capture the remarks by Akram Atallah from ICANN on ICANN as a registry of registries and that WT1 Sub Team is addressing them. Notes: 1. SOIs: No updates. 2. Review of Timeline: Next meeting is on Tuesday, 16 January at 20:00 UTC. 3. Review of potential recommendations for Clarity of Application (4.2.6) The Google doc is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8… Discussion: -- Re: The Registry Agreement -- Is that encompassed here? -- That is one of the items reflected here, and also in Work Track 2. -- Call out some of the items so that people know what is covered or not. -- How are we going to reflect these in our Final Report? Not clear about how these would appear in a final report. -- These will be recommendations. -- Need to delineate between a policy implementation and policy. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: On the clarifying questions themselves, this is a topic that Work Track 4 is working on. They are trying to find a way to create better questions in the application form so as to minimize the amount and type of clarifying questions that need to be asked Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): That is our aim, we are yet to breck through a couple of issues with access to the data we would like to base that work on as yet in WT4 Jeff Neuman: @Jim - Yes, that is one of the items included.....and also included in WT2 as a recommendation.... Jeff Neuman: Good idea to spell out the "associated docs" Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): indeed! Justine Chew: How might possible categorization of application types be factored in 4.2.6 (if at all)? Christa Taylor: The AGB section refers to audience driven sections Justine Chew: Thanks, Jeff. Then it does not merit a need to be bookmarked for refinement post-discussion on categories then? Jeff Neuman: @Justine - right. it applies across the board 4. Review of potential recommendations for Application Fees (4.2.10) Aspects for Further Discussion: -- When we start plugging real numbers into this it may not make sense. -- If there is some kind of floor it should reduce the perception of ICANN as a registry of registries. What does that mean? Are we okay with ICANN having so many registries out there that it becomes a registry of registries, so perceived as being conflicted. Concern raised by Akram Atallah. Can staff get more information about his concern? -- Look at an appropriate amount. -- Perhaps we should clarify what factors should be considered in setting the floor – like preventing ICANN being a registry of registries – recommendation that an economist or group be retained to take these factors and develop an appropriate floor amount? Take the concerns, look at costing, and look at scenarios so that this WG doesn’t waste time coming up with the number. -- Think we have acknowledged previously that this is a really difficult discussion. Look back at the rationale for a price floor and these could become the principles for setting that floor. We know there are excess fees from the $185,000. We don’t know what the demand is and whether $185,000 will be inhibiting or whether it’s reasonable. This is the second time we’ve had this discussion with a smaller group (APAC participants, mainly). -- Overarching issue of whether there should be a cap on applications – the point was that the WG was not interested in putting a cap on categories. -- Re: research – this could be a recommendation for ICANN to do additional work. >From the chat: Justine Chew: "Excess funds resulting from the application costs versus the floor (item a) should be distributed back to applicants or used to benefit another category as follows:" Trang Nguyen: I would not characterize Akram's point as a concern, but as a potential implication in the fees discussion. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Thanks Trang ... Point well noted Donna Austin, Neustar: Is the point not to make the application fee so low as to allow for frivolous applicants, or perhaps those that are applying in the hope of a windfall from auctions. Jeff Neuman:thanks Trang. Perhaps i mischaracterized it as a concern.....but I hope I am reflecting his thoughts on what we need to address Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, yes, you reflected his thoughts well. I think his thoughts are merely to point out the implication of additional future gTLDs and role that application fees have. Kurt Pritz:ICANN, I think, is the registrar of registries – and IANA is the registry. Notwithstanding that, is the policy question we are discussing is: should the number of new TLDs be capped? That seems like a difficult and perhaps-not-valuable discussion. Donna Austin, Neustar:Yep, okay Jeff. Trang Nguyen:ICANN org's finance team can assist with that work as well, Jeff. Jeff Neuman:Thanks. LEts make it clear in our preliminary report that we are not setting the floor in this group and not seeking feedback on what that number should be. Jeff Neuman:@Steve - Correct Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, sure, we can do that.

1 0

WT1 Agenda for Tuesday, 9 January at 3:00 UTC.
by Sara Bockey Jan. 5, 2018

Jan. 5, 2018

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, 9 January at 3:00 UTC. We will be working off the WT1 shared document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark8… . Please feel free to access the document at your leisure and add any comments/thoughts. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of Timeline 4. Review of potential recommendations for Clarity of Application (4.2.6) 5. Review of potential recommendations for Application Fees (4.2.10) 6. Review of potential recommendations for Variable Fees (time permitting) (4.2.17) 7. AOB Best regards, Sara sara bockey sr. policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

1 0