- Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 - lists.icann.org

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 31 January
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 31 January. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Please note also that the slides referenced below are attached and for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items 31 January 1. Recap of outcomes from Jan 10th call a. Application Queuing (slide 4) -- "Lottery" was the way to go. -- In the last round in 2012 there was a decision by the Board to prioritize IDN applications (randomized them first). Then randomized the non-IDN application. If you wanted to enter the randomization process you paid a fee. Then randomized those that didn't want to be in the "lottery". Should talk about whether there should be some priority on IDNs this time or not. -- Question: IDNs were prioritized to facilitate their entrance in the market -- correct? Yes. There was a political desire to have IDNs introduced in the market first. -- CC2 draft question -- whether or not certain application types should be moved to the front of the queue. -- What might help that we do have information that could be useful as to whether putting IDNs first was worthwhile -- gather some data on whether those applications who received prioritizatioin took advantage of that. -- No feedback/objections on the "lottery" ("raffle") approach. -- No insight/feedback on further discussion questions. Will recirculate. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: We can call it "Randomization Process" for now. Kurt Pritz: ICANN called it a "raffle" for important reasons. I think we should adopt that wording if we are indicating that we want to recommend the same process. b. Application Submission Period (slide 5) -- We should talk about the communication period for the first application window as opposed to subsequent communication periods. Would assume that would be longer and for subsequent ones if there is some sort of regular process (from the drafting team on overarching issues) -- such as 2 windows a year -- that may overlap with other things going on. Push that off until we get some work product from the drafting team. -- Also ties into a couple of other topics. >From the Chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jeff, that there is a distinction in communication between the first v subsequent window application/ Jim Prendergast: yes - agreed c. Application Fees/Variable Fees (Slides 6 and 7) -- As we move these processes we probably need to have a few fundamental conversations, such as around categories. Where we end up might influence this conversation and in the legal/regulatory track. -- Not sure agree that there will be differences in time and effort for different applications, but can't know that without doing the research. What you need to factor in is what you are applying for is unique and has cost associations. -- Not sure that we should give any weight to the fact that applicants in the last round paid $185k. Decide on the core methodology -- cost recovery or cost recovery+. -- We could get agreement from the group that a registry backend provider would only get evaluated once, which could eliminate the technical evaluation from every other application. -- Efficiencies could be gained in a bunch of the processes. >From the chat: Jim Prendergast: When does cost recovery from previous round stop and cost recovery for this next procedure/round start? Phil Buckingham: +1 Donna , so we have two application fee elements ? a fixed price + variable cost plus ? Jon Nevett: No weight? Jeff Neuman: Correct, I dont think what groups paid in the first round should have any weight. It didnt have any weight in the 2005 round or the 2012 round. Jon Nevett: cause it went up. Donna Austin, Neustar: I think the same applies with regard to what financial information is required, ie. if there is no requirement for a COI. Jeff Neuman: Technically the first TLDs paid nothing.......but the 2000 round did not argue for parity Jim Prendergast: I think we need to ask ICANN why they insisted on evaluating RSP over and over and see if those reasons still stand. We can make all the arguments we want but if ICANN legal says that we did it for liablity prevention reasons, I don think our outcome whill change that. Jeff Neuman: @Jim - if you read the implementation plan, they did not indicate that they did that for any liability reasons. Jon Nevett: Agree with Donna that the $185K should have some weight. Jeff Neuman: In fact, I believe their input was the opposite...sorry I meant the ICANN Implementation review. Kurt Pritz: One way to think about it: if the cost is $20K, do we agree with cost recovery; if the cost is $50K do we agree with cost recovery; if the cost is $100K do we agree with cost recovery? d. Invoice Challenges (Slide 7): -- Do we agree that there should be an invoicing system? -- ICANN had challenges on the ability to invoice, which caused some issues for some applicants. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I think all we are saying is that we agree that there should be an invoicing process when applying for TLDs. As opposed to having to get in the money a few weeks before or whatever the process was. Many big companies have rules that they can only pay after receiving a valid invoice. Steve Chan: Or make it available on request? I recall, maybe incorrectly, someone saying that having an invoice is actually problematic? Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services: Applicants that needed a statement/invoice (generally larger companies and governments) had to request such from ICANN for the 185k and ICANN eventually provided something. 2. Systems (Slide 9) Our task: WG may want to consider providing implementation guidance, such as a minimum set of security and infrastructure standards, for consideration by ICANN during implementation of subsequent procedures (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.9+Systems?preview=/58735915/5… ). -- Context (from the Issue Report): No guidance in the 2007 final report, so this is a new topic. We are talking about applicant-facing systems: (from slide 9) TLD application System (TAS), Customer Portal, additional support solutions -- Digital Archery, Centralized Zone Data Service, Application Comments Forum. See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf. -- Take into consideration that we have moved on quite a bit from this. The best we can do is some high-level recommendations that go to a better user experience. -- If we get the summary from staff and agree that would be a good thing. -- We need to balance that with the needs of those that have to evaluate the applications at the end of the day. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: all of these topics were referred to us by the GNSO whether considered policy or implementation. IF we want to provide guidance, we should.....if not, that is fine too. The systems issue is not really policy either, but more implementation...but it is part of the subsequent procedures Jon Nevett: if get into that level of detail on every issue, 2020 will be optimistic Jeff Neuman: I am not sure we are getting too deep. We are just recommending that an invoicing process be made available. Jon Nevett: Systems should be safe and secure -- avoiding glitches and data breaches that we have had in the past. Jeff Neuman: For systems, we may recommend better usability........ability to copy applications....ability to do non-ASCII. Jon Nevett: ok and better user experience. Jeff Neuman: Perhaps for the next call, we can summarize the ICANN staff recommendations...and if they make sense, just sign off on them Donna Austin, Neustar 2: The recommendations on this should be high level and not in the weeds. Phil Buckingham: we require changes to the CZDS . For starters - not to have to reapply every 90 days to every single Registry ! Jeff Neuman: @Phil...I am not sure that CZDS falls within our mandate. The requirement to provide a zone file as a requirement would be, but not sure that that system is for us. Phil Buckingham: @ jeff , I agree CZDS is outside our mandate , but Registry reporting of their zone file data is ? 3. Communications (Slide 10) Our task: Consider suggesting targeted groups or sectors, communication methods, as well as metrics to help identify if the communications plan was effective. A PDP-WG may also want to consider what themes should be conveyed and to what parties, as it may be beneficial to customize messaging based on the needs of the particular demeographic…consider providing implementation guidance related to communication methods, goals for communications, success criteria and other elements. (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.11+Communications?preview=/58…) 2011 Communications Plan: See: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical- documentation/matrix-plans. The program implementation review document discusses Communications on pg 189. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf -- Concerns: Whether communications were enough, adequate, and timely. Lack of outreach to developing countries. -- Could provide guidance on methods, goals, measuring success, groups to target, etc. -- Touched on having a database that is easily searchable. Could be part of the applications process discussion. -- This another area where things improved over time. Things are now running a lot smoother. Registry Stakeholder Group had a running dialogue with the GDD. -- Staff can provide a summary of recommendations on the next call. -- Agree that after applications were submitted they improved communications. ICANN posted advisories but not everyone knew to look for them. Look at a better mechanism, such as a subscription. >From the Chat: Jeff Neuman: Agree with Donna on communications after applications were submitted. But someone needs to go through the application knowledge database and clean that up. 4. Accreditation (Slide 11) -- Call for volunteers from ICANN. Not sure there will be a group. Trying to find out if there is a group and what we should take on. Will give an update on the next call.

1 0

Agenda - Work Track 1
by Sara Bockey Jan. 30, 2017

Jan. 30, 2017

Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 31 January 2017 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Recap of outcomes from Jan 10th call * Application Queuing * Application Submission Period * Application Fees/Variable Fees 4. Systems * Our task: WG may want to consider providing implementation guidance, such as a minimum set of security and infrastructure standards, for consideration by ICANN during implementation of subsequent procedures (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.9+Systems?preview=/58735915/5… ) 1. Communications * Our task: Consider suggesting targeted groups or sectors, communication methods, as well as metrics to help identify if the communications plan was effective. A PDP-WG may also want to consider what themes should be conveyed and to what parties, as it may be beneficial to customize messaging based on the needs of the particular demeographic…consider providing implementation guidance related to communication methods, goals for communications, success criteria and other elements. (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.11+Communications?preview=/58… ) 1. Accreditation Program 2. AOB Attached for your convenience are excerpts from the final report on Systems and Communications, which further outline the question(s) we are to address. Please review this material prior to the call to assist in topical, focused discussions. Thanks, sara bockey policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

1 0

WT1 Jan 10th Call Outcomes, Follow-Ups, Further Discussion and Future Topics
by Christa Taylor Jan. 30, 2017

Jan. 30, 2017

Thank-you to all who joining the WT1 call this morning (January 10th). As mentioned, we will be utilizing more email lists to solicit feedback and making progress to meet deadlines. Application Queuing Outcomes: * First come, first served was discussed and the lottery system which was the method used in round one was thought to be most relevant. * Vote on whether to keep the current lottery system: yes/no -- lottery system 10 approvals and no objections. This is based on the assumption that rounds will be used and are similar to the first round, a prioritization based on the type of application such as IDNs can be used. * We seem to have consensus but please send an email to the chairs, co-chairs and working group along with an explanation why the decision is believed to be in error in time for the next meeting. Next meeting, we will review the above along with any comments received to ensure we have full consensus. Follow-ups: * Need to confirm ICANN can/will continue to use the lottery license/system in future rounds Further discussion: * If rounds are not going to be used, then what method should be used? * If it's a continuous application period - how will we deal with application queuing? First come first served? What is appropriate? Application Submission Period Outcomes: * For approval: Initial period is three months, subsequent period is two months -- 7 approvals and no objections. This is based on the window to submit applications based on the pretense that there is sufficient length of time between communicating when the window will open and the submission period beginning. The length of this initial communication to application submission can vary depending on the circumstances. * We seem to have consensus but please send an email to the chairs, co-chairs and working group along with an explanation why the decision is believed to be in error in time for the next meeting. Next meeting, we will review the above along with any comments received to ensure we have full consensus. * Based on the next application periods based on rounds (see further discussion below). Follow-ups: * Need to draft the language re: above as there is currently no guidance for the length of time. Further discussion: * Does the application submission period of 3 months and 2 months have any implications on applicant support? * If we have a few next 'rounds' followed by continuous application periods, how should the application submission period be handled? Application Fees Outcomes: * n/a Follow-ups: Alternatives to cost recovery keeping in mind that any alternatives other than cost recovery could impact ICANN's Not-For-Profit (NFP) status. However, profits from fees could be used exclusively for promoting its stated goals. However, activities that a NFP should not be engaging in include: goods and services are not restricted to members and their guests and operation on a profit basis rather than a cost-recovery basis. Further discussion: * Existing policy is based on cost recovery. * Impact to variable fees based on application types (topic for next meeting) * Should we implement cost floors/ceilings? Seems like we might be more concerned about a floor. What are the implications if we choose a methodology other than cost recovery? * Current overages from the first round have no policy Variable Fees Outcomes: * One Fee Fits All approach Follow-ups: * Applicant support fees discount Further discussion: * The $90m first round overages have no policy on how the money will be used which is outside the scope of our discussion however, we should be mindful of this in future rounds i.e. how accepting will applicants be of fees that exceed costs and the policy or other items that should be included in the variable fees to deal with such overages? Next Call Preparation: * Further discussion items from today's call (see above) * Systems: "may want to consider providing implementation guidance, such as a minimum set of security and infrastructure standards, for consideration by ICANN during implementation of subsequent procedures" (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.9+Systems?preview=/58735915/5 8737114/Section%204.2.9.pdf ) * Communications: "consider suggesting targeted groups or sectors, communication methods, as well as metrics to help identify if the communications plan was effective. A PDP-WG may also want to consider what themes should be conveyed and to what parties, as it may be beneficial to customize messaging based on the needs of the particular demeographic.consider providing implementation guidance related to communication methods, goals for communications, success criteria and other elements" (https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.11+Communications?preview=/58 735919/58737118/Section%204.2.11.pdf ) * Accreditation based on carve out on new working group and this WT CCT2 Questions * Application Fees: Given that fees are to be for cost recovery, and given the surplus from the last round, do you believe cost recovery based on the existing cost structure is still appropriate? With cost recovery in mind, should there be a floor/ceiling threshold? * Variable Fees: Should the New gTLD application fee be variable based on such factors as application type (e.g., open or closed registries), multiple identical applications, or other factors? * Application Submission Period: Is three months the proper amount of time? Is the concept of a fixed period of time for accepting applications the right approach? We welcome all input from the working group to expand this list of question Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA Mobile: 604-961-9460 Skype: christat13 <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa(a)dottba.com <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 10 January
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 10 January. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Please note also that the slides referenced below are attached and for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items 10 January 1. Work Track Progress Status [reading from slide 3] -- Good progress on all of the topics -- Adjusting the work plan a bit -- Focus to see if we can close a few topics -- Accreditation -- had hoped to close by mid-December but still discussing -- Still on track for applicant support -- Need more discussion on clarity of application process, application fees, and variable fees -- application queuing and submission period will fall under clarity of application process 2. Clarity of application process [reading from slide 4] Accreditation -- new working group and carving out policies for WT1 to focus on for the next meeting Clarify of application process [reading from slide 5] -- Any additions to what is on the slide? -- Will put forward what we have to the list for consideration Application Queuing [reading from slide 6] -- Need feedback on whether we still believe that first come, first served is relevant, or if another mechanism is more appropriate -- If it is a round is first come, first served relevant? Could be some other method after that. -- This just the order that the application is reviewed. -- Not sure how this would play out in an application period. Two options -- wait for the last one in the contention set or everyone gets the benefit of the first one selected -- all applications for the same TLD would be evaluated. -- To be clear we are talking about the substantive processing, which could potentially go all the way through to delegation. Processing on contention sets has to be done on all of the applications. -- First what would happen is ICANN woudl time stamp the applications as received, wait until the end of the period, determine the contention sets, they would do the review application 1, 2, etc. Use the priority numbers to release the intial results, but that wouldn't be processing everything, just the priority number for initial processing. -- The question we are trying to address is whether first come, first served is still relevant. -- First come, first served: Yes/No; lottery system: yes/no -- lottery system 9 approvals and no objections. -- Went away from first come, first served to the lottery. We are seeing a preference for a lottery and not seeing why we should go back to first come, first served. -- Could hold multiple lotteries within categories (as with IDNs). -- Should not use the term "lottery". Cannot get a license for that process. Action Items: 1. Put forward lottery system to the list. 2. Ask staff what they would need to do to keep their lottery license to continue to do lotteries >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: As long as we are doing rounds, it is not relevant. Rubens Kuhl: Changes are required at least to reflect what has already been done. Alexander Schubert: 1stcome1stserve would only benefit the portfolio guys with their unlimited rescources! Alexander Schubert: In a gTLD round! Jeff Neuman: So, is everyone comfortable with the randomization/lottery that ICANN held Steve Chan: The current guidance should be viewed in contrast with the prioritization. Jeff Neuman: (assuming ICANN can maintain the license to run lotteries)? Michael Flemming: Firstly in rounds, then yes as long as we have objections of course :) Jeff Neuman: If we do rounds, I would not be comfortable with first come first served. I think the lottery was the only fair way to go. Michael Flemming: once again are we talking about rounds? Jeff Neuman: I think a question needs to go to staff (legal) to see whether they can maintain their license to run the lottery Alexander Schubert: +1 Jeff - two scenarios: Round and ongoing application period Michael Flemming: secondly, if a long term period, then first come first serve as long as we have objections of course :) Ashley Roberts: Agree some kind of randomised assignment of priority numbers is preferable to FCFS Laura Watkins (Nominet): +1 Ashley Alexander Schubert: How about prioritizing GEo's - as they are usually clear cut cases with no contention (as they usually require the OK of the Government) Rubens Kuhl: FCFS is an invitation to dropcatch-like practices where people will bomb the application system to hell so their TLDs go first in application processing. Michael Flemming: I'm with Jeff Trang Nguyen: In the current round, the priority numbers were used to release IE results. Alexander Schubert: Another idea: Have 10% of slots being prioritized by the Internet Community! So the 10% strings the Internet Users in the world value as potentially most impacting would be awarded the top 10% slots? Negative: Potential gaming. Rubens Kuhl: We can let every applicant point one other string as their main competitor, and the process would honor those requests so the results would be released in the same time. Steve Chan: The priority numbers were also used for contracting, PDT, and transition to delegation, if I'm not mistaken. Jeff Neuman: So again, we need to ask ICANN legal whether they could maintain the license to run the "lotteries" and what they need to do to maintain that license. Rubens Kuhl: But if not in the policy, it should be written that processing would always favor and only be based on process efficiencies. Queueing would be only applied, if applied, to release of results. Alexander Schubert: +1 Rubens: We should NOT honor drop-catchers! Trang Nguyen: Perhaps one question that the group could consider is what was the intent behing the GNSO policy recommendation of first come first served, and given objections/string contention, whether the intent could be achieved. Jeff Neuman: @Steve - that was the theory, but not sure how much that was honored given all of the interruptions in the application processing Trang Nguyen: There is a negative aspect to using priority numbers... the ability to normalize priori to releasing IE results. Alexander Schubert: Lottery and some system whereby e.g. GEO applications (with no contention) get prioirity as they serve communities? Michael Flemming: I'd prefer the lottery Laura Watkins (Nominet): Agree Alexander. It makes sense that applications less likely to have contention gets priority Justine Chew: If FCFS caused issues, then keeping the lottery system makes sense 3. Application Submission Period [reading from slide 7] Assuming that the next round is for a fixed period of time, is three months sufficient? -- Suggestion: 3 months is long enough for the first of the application windows as long as there is a long enough communication period prior to the start. Each subsequent window could be shorter, such as 30 or 60 days. -- In writing the Issue Report for this topic we didn't see that there was guidance for the exact length of time for the application period, but guidance of when to start after the request for proposal. This was not a policy issue identified in the Issue Report, but the WT could draft some language if it wishes. -- In considering the example of applicant support in order to apply, would 3 months be relevant in considering those parties? Or do we want to address that in the applicant support area? -- Think it would be in the applicant support area. -- For approval: Initial period is 3 months, subsequent period is 2 months -- 7 approvals. -- Approved assuming we are talking about rounds and a delay before the next round, and in no other areas, such as applicant support. >From the chat: Jeff Neuman: So again my proposal would be a three month submission period for the first application window, but to have a shorter 60 day application window for subsequent application windows Rubens Kuhl: Preparing can be done before application window. If the community needs time, postpone the begining of the application period Rubens Kuhl: Until we know how Applicant Support would play out, it's premature to determine something to support it. Steve Chan: Policy recommendations could potentially be less specific than an actual number of months. Laura Watkins (Nominet): If applications are to be batched anyway should the submission period(s) relate to number of applications received rather tha running for a set time? Justine Chew: I abstain. Not comfortable with questions surrounding the AGB. Jeff Neuman: @Alan - Agree we need to sync with other recommendations 4. Application Fees [reading from slide 8] -- Methodology was cost recovery. -- Are we requiring more substance to understand the methodology? "It may be useful to evaluate how well costing estimates compared to actual costs incurred by ICANN...consider providing implementation guidance to be taken into account when ICAN works with the community to develop the costing methodology for subsequent procedures." -- Need to determine how we address overages. -- Should we implement cost floors/ceilings? Seems like we might be more concerned about a floor. What are the implications if we choose a methodology other than cost recovery? Look at comments on the list. >From the chat: Alexander Schubert: The fees should NOT be lowered in the next round. We are inviting speculators otherwise. A good .com is much more expensive than the gTLD application fee. Rubens Kuhl: If we are arbitrating fees, than it's not cost-recovery. Phil Buckingham: + 1 Alan . should Applicant support applications to go through a separate process channel Alexander Schubert: Actually 500k USD would be more appropriate. Michael Flemming: I disagree. I think costs need to be lowered to a more realistic cost. More substance would help to determine a realistic fee. Jeff Neuman: existing plicy is cost recovery at this point. Phil Buckingham: Should be free . Fund it from auction funds and Round 1 "profit excess ",. Michael Flemming: I think you need to set a cost analysis per TLD category. Rubens Kuhl: Arbitrating fees to market value could put ICANN non-profit status in jeopardy. Trang Nguyen: One thing to note is that we have much more information based on this round than we did when we estimated the cost of the program (from a cost recovery perspective). The learnings from this round can be used to better estimate the actual cost for next round. Alexander Schubert: ICANN could do it at a cost of $US 15k probably - we would have 25,000 applications then...... Michael Flemming: Some TLD types require much less check and the process can. e much more streamlined to be cost effective. Justine Chew: Having a surplus is a good problem to have. For starters can use some of this to fund application support, no? Phil Buckingham: Dont need a legal contingency fund (1/3 ) anymore for a Round 2 ?? Rubens Kuhl: Phil, .africa and .merck are showing that legal contingencies could be needed... and we don't yet if .amazon will turn into another legal battle. Jeff Neuman: I agree with Trang. I also believe that having such a large contingency fund (legal fund) for future rounds would be unnecessary. Rubens Kuhl: Size of the fund can be argued, though. Variable fees: Seemed to be consensus that there should be one fee. Is that still the case or do we want to revisit this? May need to revisit. >From the chat: Laura Watkins (Nominet): Agree fixed fee - except in the situation of applicant support - those fees could effectively be discounted in some way maybe Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Alan good points Trang Nguyen: There was no difference in application processing costs for applications this round.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 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, 10 January 2017 at 15:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 10 January 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 10 January 2017 at 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Alan Greenberg:Number ending in 9001 is me. Terri Agnew:@Alan, I have renamed the line Rubens Kuhl:As long as we are doing rounds, it is not relevant. Rubens Kuhl:Changes are required at least to reflect what has already been done. Alexander Schubert:1stcome1stserve would only benefit the portfolio guys with their unlimited rescources! Alexander Schubert:In a gTLD round! Jeff Neuman:So, is everyone comfortable with the randomization/lottery that ICANN held Steve Chan:The current guidance should be viewed in contrast with the prioritization. Jeff Neuman:(assuming ICANN can maintain the license to run lotteries)? Michael Flemming:once again are we talking about rounds? Rubens Kuhl:Not comfortable with Bingo, Jeff... Michael Flemming:Firstly in rounds, then yes as long as we have objections of course :) Jeff Neuman:If we do rounds, I would not be comfortable with first come first served. I think the lottery was the only fair way to go Jeff Neuman:I think a question needs to go to staff (legal) to see whether they can maintain their license to run the lottery Alexander Schubert:+1 Jeff - two scenarios: Round and ongoing application period Michael Flemming:secondly, if a long term period, then first come first serve as long as we have objections of course :) Rubens Kuhl:ZZzzzZZzzz... ;-) Ashley Roberts:Agree some kind of randomised assignment of priority numbers is preferable to FCFS Laura Watkins (Nominet):+1 Ashley Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx Jeff Alexander Schubert:How about prioritizing GEo's - as they are usually clear cut cases with no contention (as they usually require the OK of the Government) Rubens Kuhl:FCFS is an invitation to dropcatch-like practices where people will bomb the application system to hell so their TLDs go first in application processing. Michael Flemming:I'm with Jeff Trang Nguyen:In the current round, the priority numbers were used to release IE results. Alexander Schubert:Another idea: Have 10% of slots being prioritized by the Internet Community! So the 10% strings the Internet Users in the world value as potentially most impacting would be awarded the top 10% slots? Negative: Potential gaming. Rubens Kuhl:We can let every applicant point one other string as their main competitor, and the process would honor those requests so the results would be released in the same time. Steve Chan:The priority numbers were also used for contracting, PDT, and transition to delegation, if I'm not mistaken. Jeff Neuman:So again, we need to ask ICANN legal whether they could maintain the license to run the "lotteries" and what they need to do to maintain that license. Rubens Kuhl:But if not in the policy, it should be written that processing would always favor and only be based on process efficiencies. Queueing would be only applied, if applied, to release of results. Alexander Schubert:+1 Rubens: We should NOT honor drop-catchers! Trang Nguyen:Perhaps one question that the group could consider is what was the intent behing the GNSO policy recommendation of first come first served, and given objections/string contention, whether the intent could be achieved. Jeff Neuman:@Steve - that was the theory, but not sure how much that was honored given all of the interruptions in the application processing Trang Nguyen:There is a negative aspect to using priority numbers... the ability to normalize priori to releasing IE results. Alexander Schubert:Lottery and some system whereby e.g. GEO applications (with no contention) get prioirity as they serve communities? Michael Flemming:I'd prefer the lottery Jeff Neuman:I think for now, we need to just consider the main method for queing before determining whether certain types of applications should get priority in thelottery Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Alan agree Justine Chew:Agree with Alan Rubens Kuhl:We will make Digital Archery Great Again. Alexander Schubert:+1 Alan Laura Watkins (Nominet):Agree Alexander. It makes sense that applications less likely to have contention gets priority Justine Chew:If FCFS caused issues, then keeping the lottery system makes sense Alan Greenberg:I think we should appoint Rubens President! Laura Watkins (Nominet):Eeek! I can't figure out how to vote! Michael Flemming:consensus reached? Rubens Kuhl:Laura, it's the same button to raise hand. Jeff Neuman:9 approvals Alexander Schubert:9 approvals? Laura Watkins (Nominet):Aaah got it - thanks Rubens. done it now Alexander Schubert:Alan disappeared again :-) Jeff Neuman:10 now Terri Agnew:@Laura, top tool bar, select icon that has person with raised hand. Rubens Kuhl:Steve has his hand up. Rubens Kuhl:And Jeff too. Rubens Kuhl:Just an implementation note: bundle the lottery ticket with the application fee so there is need for a separate payment. Christa Taylor:Just like we did with IDNs in the last round Christa Taylor:agreed Alexander Schubert:+1 Jeff Christa Taylor:draw Rubens Kuhl:Bingo Justine Chew:Random picking Christopher Niemi:'priority draw' Jeff Neuman:"Game of chance" Michael Flemming:draw straws Trang Nguyen:@Rubens, I believe a nominal fee must be collected for the priority draw for legal reasons. Alexander Schubert:Well, the application system could assign a random number when you apply - the number is stored (and nobody can see it) - and it is later used to avoid a lottery! Trang Nguyen:We can look into whether that can be collected with teh application fee, or has to be separate. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Trang Rubens Kuhl:@Trang, yes, but it can be bundled. US$85,000 - application fee ; US$85 - draw ticket. Deposit of US$ 85085 to clear both. Phil Buckingham:@ Trang - thats my understanding . Phil Buckingham:I thought i was $100 per lottery ticket Jeff Neuman:I think this is a good question for CC2 Sara Bockey:I agree Jeff Rubens Kuhl:Shorter is better. Longer periods invite events of chance. Justine Chew:Assuming there is enough support to assist applicants in preparing and submitting their applications? Trang Nguyen:@Phil, yes, each draw ticket was $100 USD Michael Flemming:Forgot about the Applicant Guidebook for a minute. Jeff Neuman:So again my proposal would be a three month submission period for the first application window, but to have a shorter 60 day application window for subsequent application windows Rubens Kuhl:Preparing can be done before application window. If the community needs time, postpone the begining of the application period. Michael Flemming:Sorry my question has relevance now. Justine Chew:Yes, hence my question before! Rubens Kuhl:Until we know how Applicant Support would play out, it's premature to determine something to support it. Steve Chan:Policy recommendations could potentially be less specific than an actual number of months. Laura Watkins (Nominet):If applications are to be batched anyway should the submission period(s) relate to number of applications received rather tha running for a set time? Justine Chew:I abstain. Not comfortable with questions surrounding the AGB. Jeff Neuman:@Alan - Agree we need to sync with other recommendations Justine Chew:+1 Alan Alexander Schubert:The fees should NOT be lowered in the next round. We are inviting speculators otherwise. A good .com is much more expensive than the gTLD application fee. Rubens Kuhl:If we are arbitrating fees, than it's not cost-recovery. Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Alan . should Applicant support applications to go through a separate process channel Alexander Schubert:Actually 500k USD would be more appropriate. Michael Flemming:I disagree. I think costs need to be lowered to a more realistic cost. More substance would help to determine a realistic fee. Jeff Neuman:existing plicy is cost recovery at this point. Phil Buckingham:Should be free . Fund it from auction funds and Round 1 "profit excess ",. Michael Flemming:I think you need to set a cost analysis per TLD category. Rubens Kuhl:Arbitrating fees to market value could put ICANN non-profit status in jeopardy. Trang Nguyen:One thing to note is that we have much more information based on this round than we did when we estimated the cost of the program (from a cost recovery perspective). The learnings from this round can be used to better estimate the actual cost for next round. Alexander Schubert:ICANN could do it at a cost of $US 15k probably - we would have 25,000 applications then...... Michael Flemming:Some TLD types require much less check and the process can. e much more streamlined to be cost effective. Justine Chew:Having a surplus is a good problem to have. For starters can use some of this to fund application support, no? Phil Buckingham:Dont need a legal contingency fund (1/3 ) anymore for a Round 2 ?? Alexander Schubert:If it is "free" we have ".xyz"-times :-) Rubens Kuhl:Phil, .africa and .merck are showing that legal contingencies could be needed... and we don't yet if .amazon will turn into another legal battle. Jeff Neuman:I agree with Trang. I also believe that having such a large contingency fund (legal fund) for future rounds would be unnecessary Rubens Kuhl:Size of the fund can be argued, though. Alan Greenberg:I think we should say we will determine the cost only after we know how many appilications there are. That wasy we can predict costs more accurately. And limit applications to only those with near infinite money. Alan Greenberg:(That was a joke) Michael Flemming:haha Rubens Kuhl:Alan, although a joke, it's an alert that some organizations are not that price-sensitive as others. Michael Flemming:I'm surprised no one came up with a Trump joke Phil Buckingham:Rubens - I m just lobbing out the Q - I agree with you actually . ICANN will need all of it going forward Alan Greenberg:@Rubens. Indeed. When you look at profit made by some in the self-auctions, the cost from ICANN was never meant to indicate the VALUE of the TLD. Michael Flemming:I thought this meeting runs for another half hour Julie Hedlund:@Michael: That was an error. The meeting is for 60 minutes. Michael Flemming:Thank you. Michael Flemming:I would like to revisit Rubens Kuhl:I have to drop at the hour anyways... Laura Watkins (Nominet):Agree fixed fee - except in the situation of applicant support - those fees could effectively be discounted in some way maybe Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Alan good points Trang Nguyen:There was no difference in application processing costs for applications this round. Trang Nguyen:Except for CPE. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx everyone... bye for now... good progress Justine Chew:Thanks, Christa, Sara for leading the discussions on calls and looking forward to the email list discussions. avri doria:bye Alexander Schubert:Bye! Ashley Roberts:thanks Michael Flemming:great meeting Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks and bye , everyone. Phil Buckingham:Great job , Christa and Sara

1 0

Agenda - Work Track 1
by Sara Bockey Jan. 9, 2017

Jan. 9, 2017

Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, Jan 10, 2017 at 15:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Work Track Progress Status 4. Clarity of Application Process 5. Application Submission Period 6. Application Queuing 7. CCT2 questions (if there is time) 8. AOB Attached for your convenience are excerpts from the final report on Application Submission Period and Application Queuing, which outline the question(s) we are to address. As we are currently behind numerous timelines, please review this material prior to the call to assist in topical, focused discussions. Thanks, sara bockey policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 13 December
by Steve Chan Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 December. 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. Best, Steve Notes and Action Items 13 December 4. Applicant Support - Financial support by itself is inadequate (e.g., coaching, mentoring, partnering) - Need perspectives of those in relevant areas - Rubens - one idea is to lift a bit vertical integration restrictions for under-developed markets 5. Application Process & Cost - Clarity of Application Process - Clarifying Questions, Streamline Answer Submission, Contacts by Categories, Knowledge Database - Streamline Answer Submissions - Re: RSP "tick a box" to note using RSP (already identified via RSP discussion, should be tied back here) - What is the purpose of seeing the actual CQ and responses versus the themes, categories, etc. as identified in the PIRR? - Trang - As Donna mentioned, CQs could be indicative of the nature of the question, which is not a process issue. They could also be an indication of the non-structured way that answers were collected, which is a process issue that can be fixed. 6. Application Submission Period & Queuing - Is there a floor price that should be established to avoid TLDs becoming a commodity? Or ceiling? - Invoices - allow for generation, but make it optional (since there may be tax implications) - Should $185k have any bearing on future costing estimates/models? - Cost recovery was basis for 2012 round - should that carry forward? It's very difficult to do without a true understanding of demand (e.g., 2012 round had far more than the estimated 500 applications) - Is there support for cost recovery in future processes? What are the alternatives? - Rubens - "market value" pricing - Donna - Went with fixed fee because demand was unknown - Cheryl - Support the concept of cost-recovery, thinks that first-movers assume some risks, higher costs. As such, uneven playing field is ok. - Alan - Supports points of Cheryl. How/who puts forward a number? - Rubens - Perhaps the policy and the implementation drifted apart, but the policy guidance was cost-recovery and this still seems to resonante with people. - Kurt - we won't know costs until the policy and implementation work is done, i.e., when we have a new question set. E.g., if categories are included, that would drive costs up; and the form of objection processes drive costs also. - Support from multiple commenters to stick with previous approach from 2012 round. Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 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

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 2016

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, 13 December 2016 at 03:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 December 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 03:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Yoshi Murakami:Hi Steve Chan:@Sara, the slides are unsynced - did you want to have control over them for the group? Christa Taylor:yes please we need to be on Schedule of Topics Kurt Pritz:can you paste the link into the chat? Christa Taylor:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann572016.sch… Kurt Pritz:thanks Christa Terri Agnew:@Sara, we are unable to hear you Sara Bockey:ok let me log back in Kurt Pritz:this is a link to the Hyderabad meeting on accreditation, correct? Trang Nguyen:@Donna, my understanding is that the efforts that Francisco is leading is targeted at improving the process for RSP changes for current ROs under the existing RA. Rubens Kuhl:I can't talk loud at this our in my timezone, but one idea is to lift a bit vertical integration restrictions for under-developed markets. Rubens Kuhl:(at this time) Justine Chew:+1 Kurt Justine Chew:Wasn't there some thought about simplifying the application process too? Rubens Kuhl:I just did what Alan mentioned, see above in the chat... ;-) Kurt Pritz:Good idea Alan Justine Chew:Sorry I could be jumping the gun on the next agenda item :) Rubens Kuhl:The mirror idea of lifting vertical integration restrictions is to establish must-carry rules for registrars. Which are bound to be unpopular. Donna Austin, Neustar:@ Rubens, if you can shift it to a collaborative partnering similar to what Kurt suggested, then it might be more palatable if considered voluntary and for the greater good of the industry. Kurt Pritz:Should we agree to get some opinions like alan said? Rubens Kuhl:That's why I prefer the non-mirror, original idea: not forcing anyone to do something they don't want to. Steve Chan:Here is the link to the AMGlobal report - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Steve Chan:This study was conducted on behalf of the CCT-RT Rubens Kuhl:CQs answers were not available. Confirmed by Christine Willet. Trang Nguyen:The PIRR report provides the number of CQs issued for each of the application questions. Trang Nguyen:CQs and responses were not posted. Steve Chan:And here is a link to that report again: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_… Steve Chan:Program Implementation Review Report = PIRR Rubens Kuhl:The questions and answers for CQs for publicly-posted questions had no reason to not be published. Trang Nguyen:As Donna mentioned, CQs could be indicative of the nature of the question, which is not a process issue. They could also be an indication of the non-structured way that answers were collected, which is a process issue that can be fixed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I agree Rubin's.. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry I am father quite today now about to start driving and so will not be readily available in chat either just audio Rubens Kuhl:Just to add an opt-out mechanism on invoices... some countries, including mine, have a bit bizarre tax system. Kurt Pritz:I agree we don't have the future cost but it could be markedly lower than previous rounds cost. The application could be simplified, risks could be mitigated, fixed costs might be reduced the second time around. Kurt Pritz:Omigosh, it would be a mess trying to allocate costs for each of these types and watch the applicants trying to qualify for lower application fees Rubens Kuhl:I think the WT is ready for doing a Consensus Call on the model being cost-recovery, but it hasn't happened yet AFAIK. Rubens Kuhl:Noting that cost-recovery doesn't mean granular cost-recovery. Agree with Kurt on losing efficiencies by trying to set a per-type cost. Alan Greenberg:I have a problem voting for one option not knowing what the other(s) might be. Christopher Niemi:Alan +1 Rubens Kuhl:Different from cost-recovery could be "market value" pricing. Rubens Kuhl:(Which I do not support, but identify as an option) Rubens Kuhl:Even the 185,000 was already cost-recovery... Donna Austin, Neustar 2:@Rubens, yes it was based on the cost-recovery but it was not accurate for various reasons Donna Austin, Neustar 2:+89m at this point Rubens Kuhl:Donna, perhaps the policy and the implementation drifted apart, but the policy guidance was cost-recovery and this still seems to resonante with people. Kurt Pritz:we won't know costs until the policy and implementation work is done, i.e., when we have a new question set. E.g., if categories are included, that would drive costs up; and the form of objection processes drive costs also. avri doria:the policy last time was cost recovery, but the cost being 'recovered' was not exactly agreed upon by all. Justine Chew:Sorry, I have to drop off now. Catch up next time. Donna Austin, Neustar 2:Thanks Sara Rubens Kuhl:We should only use FCFS if no rounds/windows. If using slotted system, we should not use FCFS, like what was done in the 2012-round. Donna Austin, Neustar 2:i think my answer would be B. Trang Nguyen:There are potential impacts to FCFS, CQs for example. Kurt Pritz:I agree with Rubens - the queueing should be as the previous round. Trang Nguyen:Thank you, all. Bye. Donna Austin, Neustar 2:thanks Sara and Christa

1 0

Work Track 1 - proposed agenda for 12 Dec 2016
by Sara Bockey Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 2016

Dear All, The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 03:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. RSP Accreditation 4. Applicant Support 5. Application Process & Cost 6. Application Submission Period & Queuing 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

Notes and Action Items for 29 November meeting – New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1
by Emily Barabas Nov. 30, 2016

Nov. 30, 2016

Dear All, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the sub team 1 meeting on 29 November. These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar . Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: 2. SOIs: no updates. 3. ICANN 57 Recap – Accreditation and Applicant Support - Good feedback received in the WG meeting - Additional meetings held (Alice from the GAC, APAC) - Takeaway: We need to fully understand why the applicant support program failed before moving forward. - Cost was an important factor. - GAC will put forward a plan for work to better understand challenges related to applicant support. - Concern flagged that North American companies may not understand other regions, review should be led by someone that understands the impacted regions. - Comment on the presentation slides: We need clarity in the way we describe these issues in the future. It is important to be specific (for example, if cost was an issue, which costs specifically?) - COE study recommends that ICANN should do more outreach and can still be impartial in doing so (https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docum…) [rm.coe.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rm.coe.int_CoERMPublic…> - Feedback from Alice Munyua in the GAC --If we do pursue applicant support going forward, need to understand priorities of prospective applicants in underserved regions. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: I agree Christa -- if there is no market for domain names or infrastructure or resources to support a TLD, then providing financial support to apply for a TLD may not necessarily solve the problem. Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group: I think the ongoing costs issue is important. $185 k is just the beginning. Donna Austin, Neustar: @Jim, agree - Need to revisit the balance between preventing gaming vs. making the applicant support program successful. By setting the bar so high to prevent gaming, we may have discouraged too many potential applicants in the last round. From the chat: avri doria: we need to be clear that accusations of possible gaming do not become in themselves a form of gaming. Jeff Neuman: One question is whether we believe ICANN needs an ongoing set of funds to pay for infrastructure for any RSP that agrees to support one of the Applicants who qualifies for support - Was the original intent of the program to target specific TLDs or regions or was it more focused on serving those who did not have the financial ability to apply for a TLD? - JAS report that came out at the time is useful background reading. The program wasn’t about any specific TLD, but there was a sense that IDNs would be valuable. There was a recommendation from the GAC that fees needed to be low for developing economies. There was a component that was just financial, but there were also elements of the program offering other types of help. - Important to remember that the ASP work was done very late, some felt that it was misdirected. We need to do a zero base budgeting exercise -- We should go back and look at what we really need, not base future work on the JAS proposal alone. - Re-evaluate the goals of the program in order to help determine what represents success going forward. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Our experience in LAC region shows distribution channel as the largest barrier to overcome, at least for open TLDs. Rubens Kuhl: So in our experience, revisiting the vertical integration policy and registrar accreditation policy would go much further than paying application fee or part of it. avri doria: there is also a big difference between the JAS report and the Board designed program. 4. Clarity of Application Process - Generally it was felt that the AGB was the proper vehicle for implementing recommendations, but transparency was lost in implementation of operational processes and procedures. - These processes got better over time as ICANN rolled them out. The change requests were too opaque. Customer support got better over time. Application prioritization in the end became largely irrelevant as other issues came up. The draw iself was reasonable successful, but ultimately did not have much relevance. ICANN has done some work documenting its process and opportunities for improvement. Maybe we can use this as a starting point for our discussion. - One possible recommendation --ICANN developed a knowledge base. Every time a question was asked that generally applicable, the question and answer were added to the knowledge base. It was very difficult to search and find answers. We could recommend improving and reorganizing this knowledge base and making more searchable and readable. Make sure we capture in the applicant guidebook any clarifications that were made in those knowledge base entries to improve clarity of language guidebook. - We don't have good insight into the clarifying questions that were asked. The public does not have any record of the clarifying questions (without revealing what was asked to specific applicants). It would be useful to have a list of these questions that were used in general. - To the extent that an applicant or an RSP got a question, it got the same question for every application it supported. It would be helpful to devise a process where an applicant could answer the question once and have the answer apply to all applications submitted by that applicant. From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: AGB is a mixture of "how to"'s and "why"'s. A simplified how-to only version would be easier to digest. The "why's" are only needed when changes to AGB or new processeses are needed. Rubens Kuhl: CQs and answers for published responses should have been published. Donna Austin, Neustar: The clarifying questions could also indicate that the question was ambiguous and in that regard the question should be reviewed to remove ambiguitiy or any other problems. - It would be helpful to have a clear method of determining the correct point of contact and communication channel. - Staff response to discussion on CQs: There is useful information on pages 52, 79, 85 of the Program Implementation Review report https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf[i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> 5. Application Fees except & Variable Fees - Application fees: it would be useful to review total cost recovery anticipated vs actual. - Staff response: Financial Management section of the Program Implementation Review is a useful resource (see page 183), includes some numbers on forecast and actual costs. - Application fee for 2012 was $185000. If the next round is in 2018, do we use $185000 as a basis for the future fee if we don’t do it on a cost recovery model? The $185000 probably wasn’t the right amount if we do it on a recovery basis, but was that a reasonable fee? - There was a lack of invoices, which was identified as challenge for applicants in the previous round. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Application Fees based on cost recovery is difficult to do if you don’t understand the demand, which is evidenced from the 2012 rounds. Phil Buckingham: + 1 Donna . cost recovery of which costs - 1/3 of the fee was a legal contingency cost . Is this needed now. avri doria: or even if we do stay with a cost recovery model. the model slected was quite controversial at the time. Rubens Kuhl: I support cost-recovery. Donna Austin, Neustar: even if that means $5,000/application? Rubens Kuhl: Donna, even in this case. Donna Austin, Neustar: I don't agree. Donna Austin, Neustar: a unique piece of real estate on the internet has a value - and I think that needs to be part of the discussion. Rubens Kuhl: Errors of the past don't justify making them forever. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 29 November 2016 at 22:25 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue 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, 29 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn…> 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 29 November 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue onTuesday, 29 November 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):audio? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):OK thx Terri Agnew:@Cheryl calling you Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):IN Terri Agnew:Sara is back avri doria:unfortantely Rafik did not make it. apologies for promising something i could not deliver on. Alan Greenberg:Not really an error, just a need to be clearer. Steve Chan:Here is a link to the study Jeff mentioned: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rm.coe.int_CoERMPublic… Steve Chan:It is also available on the Wiki under 4.4.5 Community Applications Donna Austin, Neustar:I agree Christa -- if there is no market for domain names or infrastructure or resources to support a TLD, then providing financial support to apply for a TLD may not necessarily solve the problem. Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group:I think the ongoing costs issue is important. $185 k is just the beginning. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jim, agree Terri Agnew:@Sara, let me know if a dial out to the hotel room would be helpful Jeff Neuman:One question is whether we believe ICANN needs an ongoing set of funds to pay for infrastructure for any RSP that agrees to support one of the Applicants who qualifies for support Sara Bockey:I'm back. sorry about that Donna Austin, Neustar:@Alan, when you say not use the program again do you mean the Applicant Support program or the TLD program? avri doria:we need to be clear that accusations of possible gaming do not become in themselves a form of gaming. Steve Coates:+1 Terri Agnew:Rubens has joined Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Rubens Kuhl:AC on Chrome is a bit shaky. Will try switching to Firefox. Rubens Kuhl:Our experience in LAC region shows distribution channel as the largest barrier to overcome, at least for open TLDs. Rubens Kuhl:So in our experience, revisiting the vertical integration policy and registrar accreditation policy would go much further than paying application fee or part of it. Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Avri and Alan avri doria:there is also a big difference between the JAS report and the Board designed program. Kurt Pritz:is this sub team essentially the new JAS or will that be undertaken elsewhere? Rubens Kuhl:AGB is a mixture of "how to"'s and "why"'s. A simplified how-to only version would be easier to digest. The "why's" are only needed when changes to AGB or new processeses are needed. Rubens Kuhl:CQs and answers for published responses should have been published. Donna Austin, Neustar:The clarifying questions could also indicate that the question was ambiguous and in that regard the question should be reviewed to remove ambiguitiy or any other problems. Steve Chan:The report Russ is talking about is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste… Donna Austin, Neustar:Russ, i think its on pg 52 of the report Steve Chan:And mentioned by Donna. And a resoucee for us to continue to use going forward. Donna Austin, Neustar:Application Fees based on cost recovery is difficult to do if you don't understand the demand, which is evidenced from the 2012 rounds. Russ Weinstein:Thanks Donna, Pg 52 has the high level, page 79 has further detail about CQ's from the Technical Panel; pg 85 for Financial; Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Donna . cost recovery of which costs - 1/3 of the fee was a legal contingency cost . Is this needed now. avri doria:or even if we do stay with a cost recovery model. the model slected was quite controversial at the time. Rubens Kuhl:I support cost-recovery. Donna Austin, Neustar:even if that means $5,000/application? Rubens Kuhl:Donna, even in this case. Donna Austin, Neustar:I don't agree. Alan Greenberg:Dropping off bridge to go to other call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):THX everyone, I need to leave fr my next back to back call now... Bye for now Donna Austin, Neustar:a unique piece of real estate on the internet has a value - and I think that needs to be part of the discussion. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Christa - agree - Rubens Kuhl:Errors of the past don't justify making them forever. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Indeed Rubens Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye avri doria:bye, thanks, good meeting

1 0