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

WT1 Agenda
by Sara Bockey March 27, 2017

March 27, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 15:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Recap & Discussion from ICANN 58 * Costing * Clarity of Application Process * RSP Program Thanks, Sara sara bockey policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting - Sub Team 1 - 28 February 2017
by Emily Barabas March 1, 2017

March 1, 2017

Dear All, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the Sub Team 1 meeting on 28 February 2017. 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 recording is available at https://community.icann.org/x/l7PDAw. Kind regards, Emily Agenda: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Communications & Systems a. From the New gTLD Program Implementation Review provided several recommendations that the group may want to consider in developing implementation guidance on Systems and Communications. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf i. Systems (see page 174) ii. Communications (see page 198) 4. Application Guidebook,https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.5+Applicant+Guidebo… 5. CC2 Questions, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…> 6. AOB Action Items: ACTION ITEM: WT1 leads will circulate request for input on CC2 questions by email. Notes: 2. SOIs - No updates. 4. Application Guidebook - Introduction: - Background: The AGB is different from some of the other subjects the group is considering in that it is not the result of consensus policy. - The AGB was the vehicle for implementation of the policy. There were 9 versions of the AGB over 4 years. Used as a guide for staff in the implementation. - Questions & Concerns: Some DG members suggested dividing the AGB into sections by audience or making it a procedural guide with background separated out in a different section. Some suggested that the AGB was not the right vehicle although no alternative was proposed. - Rationale for policy development - the DG did not anticipate policy development, but the WG may want to make suggestions for changing the AGB structure or approach. The WG could also recommend an alternate vehicle to the AGB. - Discussion: - Is the AGB the right methodology? - The AGB is as good as any other potential vehicle, we don't need to completely revamp it. There is a lot of rationale and background, legalese. - There is an opportunity to do an "idiot's guide" or a stripped down version with the things applicants need to know (rationale in a different section or document). - How can the current AGB be improved? By type of application? Can it be made more readable? - Not necessarily by type of application. As things currently stand, the information would be similar for different application types. - It may be helpful to break out certain information, for example information for technical providers and registry operators if there is a RSP program. - Should it be step-based depending on the type of application? - No additional comments. From the chat: Ashley Roberts: I'm happy with the AGB as the correct methodology. There may be a case for small changes based on individual implementation changes, but in general the AGB does the job. Vanda Scartezini: agree with jeff. not by the kind of application. 3. Communications & Systems a. Systems: - Review of recommendations from the Implementation Review on Systems (8.1.a and 8.1.b). - Discussion and findings to date indicate a need for: 1. Improvements to security and stability 2. Ability to use non-ASCII 3. Systems should be capable of sending automated invoices. - Applicants and registries don't "own" correspondence because it is held in ICANN's portals. Security concerns - risk of data loss. There is also a risk associated with ownership of the correspondence if there is a dispute or legal action. - Clarification regarding invoices - the requirement would be for making invoices available, not about the specific system. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Part of the problem was that ICANN believed it had to develop cusomized systems at the beignning as opposed to looking at what was out there. Rather than cusomizations, ICANN should look now at what is out there and not wait until the next round starts Jeff Neuman: On beta testing, this is something that we did propose for the last round, but ICANN was afraid that giving some of us access for beta testing purposes would be some kind of advantage in the application process Jeff Neuman: I didnt agree, but that was their view Trang Nguyen: Is the requirement for the system to be able to generate invoices, or to just send? invoices might need to be generated in a different system than the application system. Christa Taylor: Trang - idea is to be able to generate and send an invoice if they need it for their own internal purposes for payment systems Jon Nevett: I am sure that we discussed this before, but systems need to be secure -- the data breach -- where highly confidential information was accessed -- was very problematic for many applicants Ashley Roberts: A possible solution to the issue I raised could be to have the systems automatically email a copy of any new added correspondence to applicants so that they have an email copy as well as in the portal. Alan Greenberg: Issue is not, I presume, whether invoice is delivered through portal, but that it can be requested. b. Review of recommendations in the Program Implementation Review regarding Communications (8.4.a and 8.4.b) - Discussions and findings to date indicate need for: 1. the knowledge base to be made more timely and searchable 2. better communication of applicant advisories. consolidation of program information into a single site 3. Leverage GSE team to promote awareness about the new gTLD program 4. metrics to understand level of success. - There was lots of discussion of the communication plan in the Implementation Review, but little discussion of timing of communications period, budget of communications period, languages, etc. - This topic is connected to customer service, and we should probably spend some time on that. There was a phone line before the application period started, but that was eliminated during the application period. Email was much slower. - Recommend real-time customer support. if phone is not possible, maybe a chat function could be implemented. - ICANN doesn't send you communication, it sends you a note that there is an update in the portal. It would be helpful if you could get messages through email rather than having to log into the portal to get messages. - The policy process was still going on for some topics (for example RPMs) while the New gTLD Program was being implemented. There was a strict prohibition on ICANN staff talking to applicants, but they could talk to other community members in policy discussions, which seems unfair. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: should not invoicing be done through ICANN's accounting system .., which should be totally separate from the application syatem ,. The overriding requirement must be to absolutely elliminate any attempt (s) of a breach of the application portal , this time . Trang Nguyen: For background and context, phone support was provided during the application window for technical issues related to accessing TAS. To ensure equal access to information, ICANN developed knowledge articles when a question is received, and then point to it to respond. Jeff Neuman: Fear of communicating with applicants led to ICANN not being clear with applicants...this led to I believe an increase in having to issue Clarifying questions Jeff Neuman: @Trang, but it was impossible to really search the knowledge database and get the answers Jeff Neuman: On the TAS system, I am not sure why the submission of applications had to only be in ASCII, no links, no diagrams, etc. Trang Nguyen: Yes, the search capability of the knowledge base had room for improvement. Jeff Neuman: Lots of complaints about that Ashley Roberts: Tagging onto Jeff's point, any applicant information should be easy to locate and preferably stored in one place. In the first round information was stored in various locations - the AGB, the knowledge base, FAQs, etc, making it hard to fiind what you were looking for. Phil Buckingham: + 1 Ashley Jeff Neuman: And if you had a question,customer support took days to answer because all answers needed to be approved by legal Jeff Neuman: and other parties Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, to ensure equal access to information, we had to generalize questions received, draft responses, run the draft responses by subject matter experts to ensure accuracy, post and then answer the question, pointing the applicant to the knowledge article. This takes time and did impact response time. But, if the same question is asked again, response time is within 24 hours for those where existing content exists. Jeff Neuman: @Trang, the issue is that the questions are never asked the same way....so getting a quick response was rare. I believe the equal access argument was overplayed. Equal access would only apply to any NEW information. Not answering questions about existing systems, processes, etc. Trang Nguyen: customer service stats: http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/costarica2012/bitcache/New%20gTLD%20Pr…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__archive.icann.org_en_me…> Average resolution tme is 1.6 days. 80% responded within 24 hours. 5. CC2 Questions Revisions to CC2 questions: - Cost recovery - the real word should be "break even," the point where total revenue and total expenses are equal. - Language has been revised on cost floor and ceiling. - Question on the use of shortage or surplus of funds. On the last call, the group agreed to keep it "out of the weeds" and make recommendations at a high policy level. Request for the group to review the language. - 1.4.3 - asks about how floor and ceiling amounts should be set. - 1.4.2 – question for the group - is this question still valid? - Questions about language related to use of excess funds. - New language added to 1.4.3 regarding use of surplus for underserved regions. - 1.5.3 - Is there something specific that we want to address regarding the volume of applications? - 1.1.11 - regarding funding of an RSP program - do edits properly represent discussion on 14 Feb call? ACTION ITEM: WT1 leads will circulate request for input on CC2 questions by email. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I think the use of excess funds needs further exploration. From a policy level, we should just state that the AG should set forth the use of excess funds if any From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I believe that IF there is an RSP Program it should be self funded Jeff Neuman: meaninig that it should be paid for by those participating 6. AOB - none.

1 0

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 28 February 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 28, 2017

Feb. 28, 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, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** 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/l7PDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 February 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall/Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Sara Bockey:please mute if not speaking Ashley Roberts:I'm happy with the AGB as the correct methodology. There may be a case for small changes based on individual implementation changes, but in general the AGB does the job. Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Vanda Scartezini:sorry to be late, it is carnival here - very noise place - just listen. Vanda Scartezini:agree with jeff. not by the kind of application Christa Taylor:Thanks Vanda. Jeff Neuman:Part of the problem was that ICANN believed it had to develop cusomized systems at the beignning as opposed to looking at what was out there. Rather than cusomizations, ICANN should look now at what is out there and not wait until the next round starts Jeff Neuman:On beta testing, this is something that we did propose for the last round, but ICANN was afraid that giving some of us access for beta testing purposes would be some kind of advantage in the application process Jeff Neuman:I didnt agree, but that was their view Trang Nguyen:Is the requirement for the system to be able to generate invoices, or to just send? invoices might need to be generated in a different system than the application system. Vanda Scartezini:yes. many studies ahve been done from underserved regions that can be used Jon Nevett:I am sure that we discussed this before, but systems need to be secure -- the data breach -- where highly confidential information was accessed -- was very problematic for many applicants Christa Taylor:Trang - idea is to be able to generate and send an invoice if they need it for their own internal purposes for payment systems Ashley Roberts:A possible solution to the issue I raised could be to have the systems automatically email a copy of any new added correspondence to applicants so that they have an email copy as well as in the portal. Alan Greenberg:Issue is not, I presume, whether invoice is delivered through portal, but that it can be requested. Jeff Neuman:Customer support was in the "Communications" section of the Implementation Review documnet from ICANN, so I assumed it belonged here Karen Day:+1 Jon Phil Buckingham:should not invoicing be done through ICANN's accounting system .., which should be totally separate from the application syatem ,. The overriding requirement must be to absolutely elliminate any attempt (s) of a breach of the application portal , this time . Trang Nguyen:For background and context, phone support was provided during the application window for technical issues related to accessing TAS. To ensure equal access to information, ICANN developed knowledge articles when a question is received, and then point to it to respond. Jeff Neuman:Fear of communicating with applicants led to ICANN not being clear with applicants...this led to I believe an increase in having to issue Clarifying questions Jeff Neuman:@Trang, but it was impossible to really search the knowledge database and get the answers Jeff Neuman:On the TAS system, I am not sure why the submission of applications had to only be in ASCII, no links, no diagrams, etc. Trang Nguyen:Yes, the search capability of the knowledge base had room for improvement. Jeff Neuman:Lots of complaints about that Ashley Roberts:Tagging onto Jeff's point, any applicant information should be easy to locate and preferably stored in one place. In the first round information was stored in various locations - the AGB, the knowledge base, FAQs, etc, making it hard to fiind what you were looking for. Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Ashley Jeff Neuman:And if you had a question,customer support took days to answer because all answers needed to be approved by legal Jeff Neuman:and other parties Jeff Neuman:I think the use of excess funds needs further exploration. From a policy level, we should just state that the AG should set forth the use of excess funds if any Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, to ensure equal access to information, we had to generalize questions received, draft responses, run the draft responses by subject matter experts to ensure accuracy, post and then answer the question, pointing the applicant to the knowledge article. This takes time and did impact response time. But, if the same question is asked again, response time is within 24 hours for those where existing content exists. Jeff Neuman:@Trang, the issue is that the questions are never asked the same way....so getting a quick response was rare. I believe the equal access argument was overplayed. Equal access would only apply to any NEW information. Not answering questions about existing systems, processes, etc. Jeff Neuman:I believe that IF there is an RSP Program it should be self funded Jeff Neuman:meaninig that it should be paid for by those participating Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):... Safe travels to those going to ICANN 58thanks everyone... bye for now Jeff Neuman:thanks Trang Nguyen:customer service stats: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__archive.icann.org_en_me… . Average resolution tme is 1.6 days. 80% responded within 24 hours. Vanda Scartezini:safe traveks to all kisses

1 0

Recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 28 February 2017
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 28, 2017

Feb. 28, 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, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** 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/l7PDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 February 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall/Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Sara Bockey:please mute if not speaking Ashley Roberts:I'm happy with the AGB as the correct methodology. There may be a case for small changes based on individual implementation changes, but in general the AGB does the job. Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. Vanda Scartezini:sorry to be late, it is carnival here - very noise place - just listen. Vanda Scartezini:agree with jeff. not by the kind of application Christa Taylor:Thanks Vanda. Jeff Neuman:Part of the problem was that ICANN believed it had to develop cusomized systems at the beignning as opposed to looking at what was out there. Rather than cusomizations, ICANN should look now at what is out there and not wait until the next round starts Jeff Neuman:On beta testing, this is something that we did propose for the last round, but ICANN was afraid that giving some of us access for beta testing purposes would be some kind of advantage in the application process Jeff Neuman:I didnt agree, but that was their view Trang Nguyen:Is the requirement for the system to be able to generate invoices, or to just send? invoices might need to be generated in a different system than the application system. Vanda Scartezini:yes. many studies ahve been done from underserved regions that can be used Jon Nevett:I am sure that we discussed this before, but systems need to be secure -- the data breach -- where highly confidential information was accessed -- was very problematic for many applicants Christa Taylor:Trang - idea is to be able to generate and send an invoice if they need it for their own internal purposes for payment systems Ashley Roberts:A possible solution to the issue I raised could be to have the systems automatically email a copy of any new added correspondence to applicants so that they have an email copy as well as in the portal. Alan Greenberg:Issue is not, I presume, whether invoice is delivered through portal, but that it can be requested. Jeff Neuman:Customer support was in the "Communications" section of the Implementation Review documnet from ICANN, so I assumed it belonged here Karen Day:+1 Jon Phil Buckingham:should not invoicing be done through ICANN's accounting system .., which should be totally separate from the application syatem ,. The overriding requirement must be to absolutely elliminate any attempt (s) of a breach of the application portal , this time . Trang Nguyen:For background and context, phone support was provided during the application window for technical issues related to accessing TAS. To ensure equal access to information, ICANN developed knowledge articles when a question is received, and then point to it to respond. Jeff Neuman:Fear of communicating with applicants led to ICANN not being clear with applicants...this led to I believe an increase in having to issue Clarifying questions Jeff Neuman:@Trang, but it was impossible to really search the knowledge database and get the answers Jeff Neuman:On the TAS system, I am not sure why the submission of applications had to only be in ASCII, no links, no diagrams, etc. Trang Nguyen:Yes, the search capability of the knowledge base had room for improvement. Jeff Neuman:Lots of complaints about that Ashley Roberts:Tagging onto Jeff's point, any applicant information should be easy to locate and preferably stored in one place. In the first round information was stored in various locations - the AGB, the knowledge base, FAQs, etc, making it hard to fiind what you were looking for. Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Ashley Jeff Neuman:And if you had a question,customer support took days to answer because all answers needed to be approved by legal Jeff Neuman:and other parties Jeff Neuman:I think the use of excess funds needs further exploration. From a policy level, we should just state that the AG should set forth the use of excess funds if any Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, to ensure equal access to information, we had to generalize questions received, draft responses, run the draft responses by subject matter experts to ensure accuracy, post and then answer the question, pointing the applicant to the knowledge article. This takes time and did impact response time. But, if the same question is asked again, response time is within 24 hours for those where existing content exists. Jeff Neuman:@Trang, the issue is that the questions are never asked the same way....so getting a quick response was rare. I believe the equal access argument was overplayed. Equal access would only apply to any NEW information. Not answering questions about existing systems, processes, etc. Jeff Neuman:I believe that IF there is an RSP Program it should be self funded Jeff Neuman:meaninig that it should be paid for by those participating Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):... Safe travels to those going to ICANN 58thanks everyone... bye for now Jeff Neuman:thanks Trang Nguyen:customer service stats: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__archive.icann.org_en_me… . Average resolution tme is 1.6 days. 80% responded within 24 hours. Vanda Scartezini:safe traveks to all kisses

1 0

WT1 agenda
by Sara Bockey Feb. 27, 2017

Feb. 27, 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, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Communications & Systems * From the New gTLD Program Implementation Review provided several recommendations that the group may want to consider in developing implementation guidance on Systems and Communications. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf * Systems (see page 174) * Communications (see page 198) 1. Application Guidebook,https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.5+Applicant+Guidebo… 2. CC2 Questions, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…> 3. AOB Attached for your convenience is a link to the final report on the Applicant Guidebook. 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.

3 2

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 14 February 2017
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 14 February. 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 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call Tuesday, 14 February 2017 at 3:00 UTC Apologies: Laura Watkins, Susan Payne On audio only: Agenda: 1. Welcome & SOIs 2. Update: Accreditation Program 3. Application Fees/Variable Fees – Consensus Vote 4. Application Guidebook, https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.5+Applicant+Guidebook?preview… 5. CC2 Questions, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… Notes: 1. Update: Accreditation Program -- Update from Jeff Neuman on parallel GDD RSP Program: Need to determine policy work. Timing in relation to GDD RSP. -- Discussed that there would be a number of similarities from one registry to another. ICANN process. Recognized that there would be a lot of similarities in the processes. Discussed in Hyderabad. In early January ICANN issued a call for volunteers for this group. -- Note current CC2 questions (slide 4) 2. Applications & Variable Fees (slide 5) -- Asked for responses using the green checkmarks: Statement: Lack of Invoices were a challenge: Responses: 8 green checkmarks. -- Different costs for different categories -- considering that? Trying to get some insight into that. May not be worth having different fees, but having a different cost structure. -- Set out the policy principle -- that this is a valuable piece of real estate. May lower the cost recovery. -- We need to keep the bar raised. Explore that cost recovery is supposed to be for? -- ICANN may have overestimated evaluation costs. Policy construct should be based on this last round. There should be a floor in place. -- Cost recovery is likely to stay in place without making things too cheap. -- Get community feedback. Come up with a policy position. Don't say the cost, but how to determine it. Focus more on the policy issues. Extract principles from this call. Recognition that ICANN recover all of its costs and this is a valuable part of ICANN real estate. >From the chat: Alan Greenberg: If some people need invoices, what would be the reason for not doing it? Rubens Kuhl: Alan, tax regulations in some countries are more bizarre that the old English colonies habitants can think of... ;-) Michael Flemming: Alan, the issue is that the invoices are not sent timely, have a lot of mistakes, and some invoices don't even make it to us. 3. Cost Recovery Fees (slide 5) -- Reword the question: Even if costs are much lower there should be a floor that is lower. -- Agree with Jeff. Cost recovery is important. Why not change it do a deposit? -- Take a closer look at the numbers. >From the chat: Alan Greenberg: Apparently we need to not only ask for an invoicing system but a TIMELY one... Jon Nevett: do we need to justify the difference? Trang Nguyen: @Jeff: I'm happy to give my personal opinion if asked, but don't think it's appropriate for me to vote on consensus calls. I view my role here as providing information to help inform deliberations. Rubens Kuhl: We could offset the fixed fees of all registries that come out of a procedure. If 1 million was raised, 900 thousand spent, 100 thousand divided by 1000 applicants, 100 dollars discount for everyone. Donna Austin, Neustar: I think my point was that the application fee needs to take into account that the applicant is acquiring a unique piece of internet real estate. In this context i don't think it's unreasonable to have the floor set at $185,000. Michael Flemming: But the problem comes back at two points.. 1. The cost recovery is too high; and 2. What do you do with the extra? That is from a Brand perspective, of course. Jon Nevett: unlike in the 2012 Round, we need to indicate what happens to excess application fees -- the 2012 AGB said what happens to auction proceeds, but not excess application fees Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jon Michael Flemming: I agree with Jon there. I wasn't even aware of the cost recovery until they talked about offsetting the fees. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that makes sense to me Jeff Jeff Neuman: I agree with Jon and Donna on that. I thikn we do ask that in CC2 Jon Nevett: depends on how long we take -- ICANN charges back for historical costs -- $185 might not be enough :-) Rubens Kuhl: $185k is not small cash for some world regions. So even for organisations that don't qualify for applicant support, and shouldn't, would be disinfranchised by such a large fee. Jeff Neuman: So, how can we word this as a policy concept without indicating an exact figure? Donna Austin, Neustar: @Rubens, I accept that is the case but running a TLD is also not small cash. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Rubens Jeff Neuman: So let ICANN figure out what the figure should be, but indicate we really mean cost recovery this time, but having a floor to reflect this is a piece of Internet real estate, but that we do not necessarily need such a large contingency fund.....and perhaps the "pre-approval" of RSPs ccould cover their own costs Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, iwhat multiple of yearly recurring costs would you find applicable for the application fee ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): as we explored in the old Applicant Support work though Donna, getting funding for ongoing costs is often easier in some communities and economies, than raising funds for a 'blue sky' project.... Donna Austin, Neustar: @Rubens, I don't understand your question. Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, let's say that running a registry costs USD 100k a year. So 2 times for application fee would be enough ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Rubens Jeff Neuman: So let ICANN figure out what the figure should be, but indicate we really mean cost recovery this time, but having a floor to reflect this is a piece of Internet real estate, but that we do not necessarily need such a large contingency fund.....and perhaps the "pre-approval" of RSPs ccould cover their own costs Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, iwhat multiple of yearly recurring costs would you find applicable for the application fee ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): as we explored in the old Applicant Support work though Donna, getting funding for ongoing costs is often easier in some communities and economies, than raising funds for a 'blue sky' project.... Donna Austin, Neustar: @Rubens, I don't understand your question. Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, let's say that running a registry costs USD 100k a year. So 2 times for application fee would be enough ? Justine Chew: I agree with Jeff's approach. Also can some portion of the excess application fees from 2012 be designated as financial support for the next round of applicants which fall under Ruben's group of "some world reigion" - based on some set criteria of course? Jon Nevett: so maybe the fee shouldn't be cost recovery -- it should be a fixed amount -- but any excess amounts collected should go to Y. i definitely don't agree that excess fees of one round should go to the next -- might be ok for auction proceeds, but not excess app fees Donna Austin, Neustar: @CLO, perhaps the Applicant Support aspect should be expanded to cover Ruben's point. Jon Nevett: @Donna -- and that would be a good use of auction proceeds Rubens Kuhl: Justine, I'm not advocating for lesser fees for all organisations from underserved regions... even in underserved there are some "large pockets". But a large pocket in those regions mean one thing, in others, another. Trang Nguyen: There's some program cost in the FY17 CANN budget here (page 32) https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy17-25ju…. Page 33 of that budget has a break-down of eval cost per eval panel. Justine Chew: @Rubens, sure, I don't mean in blanket. Any such an applicant ought to be deserving, based on some set criteria. @Jon, what is Y? Rubens Kuhl: The deserving applicants are of concern for applicant support... but by establishing a fee that is not based on cost recovery, but from economic power of usual orgs in large markets, this automatically cuts in a different level for underserved regions. Michael Flemming: But does everyone want to contribute to applicant support? Do our fees make up for applicant support? Rubens Kuhl: And there is the warning that's usually repeated that defining fees per region leads to gaming by setting up shell corporations in those regions.. Michael Flemming: I think that goes back to a point that was made at the Hyderabad APAC space in regards to this subject that if the applicant fees are too low for underserved regions, then it undermines the actual costs of the variable fees that they need to undertake to run the TLD. Trang Nguyen: And this is the new gTLD Program budget memo from 2010: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-new-gtld-pro…, Michael Flemming: The special pieceJon Nevett: review=withdrew Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, it's difficult to break down the eval cost of internet real estate is not just the application fee, but the cost that goes into running it, too. Jeff Neuman: Trang, its hard to read that slide 32 without knowing how many evaluations we conducted. Jon Nevett: Some review pre-eval, but not too many Jeff Neuman: CC2 asks some questions on this as well (namely, how should surpluses be spent), et. Justine Chew: +1 Jeff. Jon Nevett: review=withdrew Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, it's difficult to break down the eval cost per app because some apps were withdrawn after initial eval, some required re-evaluation due to change requests. What the FY17 budget tells us is the total eval cost. Christa Taylor: Will combine and come up with a high level questions to consider for the next call 4. Application Queuing: IDN prioritization (slides 6, 7, and 8) -- See slides 5, 6, and 7. -- Had to choose whether they were in the prioritization draw. -- There were IDN applications could purchase a ticket to be one of the 100 applications to purchase a ticket.

1 0

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

Feb. 13, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p9bolyisgiy/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=35164ca55b0b4325 1de3126b2595278b4418e8a455ee85906e150b73fd5ffb72> https://participate.icann.org/p9bolyisgiy/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn so-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsubsequent-2D16may16-2Den.mp3&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll 3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_ fjAZ8X8f1kW0l0GMcnTYAJub8JIzI-nbGkDB_FNy0s&s=Xc2HCgoInyY4sazVMVxejDycY3Vw2SB D9TFBrxEGM60&e=> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Wiki agenda page: <https://community.icann.org/x/lLPDAw> https://community.icann.org/x/lLPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 February 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call onTuesday, 14 February 2017 at 3:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_l LPDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ lLPDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zB U&s=2iBCrg1wsIR7ZTBc16Al2zmIacRbI9ADFPpJjvSqhYM&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=2i BCrg1wsIR7ZTBc16Al2zmIacRbI9ADFPpJjvSqhYM&e= Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):3rd time was the charm Jeff Neuman:Hello all Terri Agnew:Welcome to AC portion Cheryl, glad it worked on third time Vanda Scartezini:hi all, good meeting this evening. Trang Nguyen:626 676 9458 is Trang Rubens Kuhl:Allan, it seems that typing sounds is coming from your line... Alan Greenberg:Sorry, forgot to mute. Now ok. Steve Chan:CC2 questions here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen t_d_1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR-5Fb6-2DjH2Wl5eVH-2DWWM_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume nt_d_1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR-5Fb6-2DjH2Wl5eVH-2DWWM_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=s2 EnsOWyGee1FHml7Fwx-JZzp60IIlUgqEDxvIQn6Gg&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=s2 EnsOWyGee1FHml7Fwx-JZzp60IIlUgqEDxvIQn6Gg&e= Jeff Neuman:Donna, Rubens, Jon, if I missstated anything, let me know Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, nothing sounded weird to me. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, I think there is still some confusion around this topic. Hopefully, we will have more clarity once the RySG group makes some progress. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Donna. Rubens Kuhl:I note though that it should be optional. Michael Flemming:I pray for this every 3 months. Alan Greenberg:If some people need invoices, what would be the reason for not doing it? Rubens Kuhl:Alan, tax regulations in some countries are more bizarre that the old English colonies habitants can think of... ;-) Michael Flemming:Alan, the issue is that the invoices are not sent timely, have a lot of mistakes, and some invoices don't even make it to us. Jeff Neuman:I think ICANN staff on this call cant really vote (Trang being one of them) Jeff Neuman:Not that we believe they cant vote Jeff Neuman:But they may not be comfortable voting Alan Greenberg:Apparently we need to not only ask for an invoicing system but a TIMELY one... Jon Nevett:do we need to justify the difference? Trang Nguyen:@Jeff: I'm happy to give my personal opinion if asked, but don't think it's appropriate for me to vote on consensus calls. I view my role here as providing information to help inform deliberations. Rubens Kuhl:We could offset the fixed fees of all registries that come out of a procedure. If 1 million was raised, 900 thousand spent, 100 thousand divided by 1000 aplicants, 100 dollars discount for everyone. Donna Austin, Neustar:I think my point was that the application fee needs to take into account that the applicant is acquiring a unique piece of internet real estate. In this context i don't think it's unreasonable to have the floor set at $185,000. Michael Flemming:But the problem comes back at two points. Michael Flemming:1. The cost recovery is too high Michael Flemming:and 2. What do you do with the extra? Michael Flemming:That is from a Brand perspective, of course. Jon Nevett:unlike in the 2012 Round, we need to indicate what happens to excess application fees -- the 2012 AGB said what happens to auction proceeds, but not excess application fees Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jon Michael Flemming:I agree with Jon there. I wasn't even aware of the cost recovery until they talked about offsetting the fees. Michael Flemming:So make it clear for cost recovery and if nothing happens, it turns into a deposit, or like Rubens said, it comes back as a discount. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that makes sense to me Jeff Jeff Neuman:I agree with Jon and Donna on that. I thikn we do ask that in CC2 Jon Nevett:depends on how long we take -- ICANN charges back for historical costs -- $185 might not be enough :-) Rubens Kuhl:$185k is not small cash for some world regions. So even for organisations that don't qualify for applicant support, and shouldn't, would be disinfranchised by such a large fee. Jeff Neuman:So, how can we word this as a policy concept without indicating an exact figure? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Rubens, I accept that is the case but running a TLD is also not small cash. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Rubens Jeff Neuman:So let ICANN figure out what the figure should be, but indicate we really mean cost recovery this time, but having a floor to reflect this is a piece of Internet real estate, but that we do not necessarily need such a large contingency fund.....and perhaps the "pre-approval" of RSPs ccould cover their own costs Rubens Kuhl:@Donna, iwhat multiple of yearly recurring costs would you find applicable for the application fee ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):as we explored in the old Applicant Support work though Donna, getting funding for ongoing costs is often easier in some communities and economies, than raising funds for a 'blue sky' project.... Donna Austin, Neustar:@Rubens, I don't understand your question. Rubens Kuhl:@Donna, let's say that running a registry costs USD 100k a year. So 2 times for application fee would be enough ? Justine Chew:I agree with Jeff's approach. Also can some portion of the excess appllication fees from 2012 be designated as financial support for the next round of applicants which fall under Ruben's group of "some world reigion" - based on some set criteria of course? Jon Nevett:so maybe the fee shouldn't be cost recovery -- it should be a fixed amount -- but any excess amounts collected should go to Y Jon Nevett:i definitely don't agree that excess fees of one round should go to the next -- might be ok for auction proceeds, but not excess app fees Donna Austin, Neustar:@CLO, perhaps the Applicant Support aspect should be expanded to cover Ruben's point. Jon Nevett:@Donna -- and that would be a good use of auction proceeds Rubens Kuhl:Justine, I'm not advocating for lesser fees for all organisations from underserved regions... even in underserved there are some "large pockets". But a large pocket in those regions mean one thing, in others, another. Trang Nguyen:There's some program cost in the FY17 CANN budget here (page 32) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system _files_files_adopted-2Dopplan-2Dbudget-2Dfy17-2D25jun16-2Den.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste m_files_files_adopted-2Dopplan-2Dbudget-2Dfy17-2D25jun16-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c =FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa 0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=MjVkfirAOBDeU kIP04mSI3qs52KO6ltuKVuuoxIdX0M&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=Mj VkfirAOBDeUkIP04mSI3qs52KO6ltuKVuuoxIdX0M&e= Trang Nguyen:Page 33 of that budget has a break-down of eval cost per eval panel. Justine Chew:@Rubens, sure, I don't mean in blanket. Any such an applicant ought to be deserving, based on some set criteria. Justine Chew:@Jon, what is Y? Rubens Kuhl:The deserving applicants are of concern for applicant support... but by establishing a fee that is not based on cost recovery, but from economic power of usual orgs in large markets, this automatically cuts in a different level for underserved regions. Michael Flemming:But does everyone want to contribute to applicant support? Michael Flemming:Do our fees make up for applicant support? Rubens Kuhl:And there is the warning that's usually repeated that defining fees per region leads to gaming by setting up shell corporations in those regions. Michael Flemming:I think that goes back to a point that was made at the Hyderabad APAC space in regards to this subject that if the applicant fees are too low for underserved regions, then it undermines the actual costs of the variable fees that they need to undertake to run the TLD. Trang Nguyen:And this is the new gTLD Program budget memo from 2010: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_to pics_new-2Dgtlds_explanatory-2Dmemo-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dprogram-2Dbudget-2D22oct1 0-2Den.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_t opics_new-2Dgtlds_explanatory-2Dmemo-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dprogram-2Dbudget-2D22oct 10-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXA vSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_ FT-zBU&s=4NPRkP3a_iGpp7p8orEnSiRv8jpg23SzVUBqTQi4n4o&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=2eOaQ07_Kb95YLhe9lCSG1k9KbrAxObE4aEn_FT-zBU&s=4N PRkP3a_iGpp7p8orEnSiRv8jpg23SzVUBqTQi4n4o&e= Michael Flemming:The special piece of internet real estate is not just the application fee, but the cost that goes into running it, too. Jeff Neuman:Trang, its hard to read that slide 32 without knowing how many evaluations we conducted Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, 1930 ? Jon Nevett:Some review pre-eval, but not too many Jeff Neuman:CC2 asks some questions on this as well (namely, how should surpluses be spent), et. Justine Chew:+1 Jeff Jon Nevett:review=withdrew Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, it's difficult to break down the eval cost per app because some apps were withdrawn after initial eval, some required re-evaluation due to change requests. What the FY17 budget tells us is the total eval cost. Christa Taylor:Will combine and come up with a high level questions to consider for the next call Michael Flemming:I think an important question to ask here is how many signed a Registry Agreement after evaluation ended? Michael Flemming:oh Michael Flemming:that is the data on here Michael Flemming:oops Rubens Kuhl:Automatically assigned Michael Flemming:Thank you Rubens Kuhl:(For IDNs) Jon Nevett:we had to pay $100 per app Jon Nevett:to be in the draw Jeff Neuman:That went to charity :) Rubens Kuhl:But the non-paying IDNs were given better priority numbers than the paying ASCII, I believe. Jeff Neuman:All I remember is that .xmas brought in a Santa Claus to entertain us during the draw Sara Bockey:yes Steve Chan:Non-paying IDNs were after paying ASCII, but before non-paying ASCII I believe? Jeff Neuman:correct Steve Rubens Kuhl:Smaller fees for IDN TLDs... ;-) Justine Chew:So if nothing at all, could it be implied that a large number of IDN applicants believed that it was a good idea to participate in the prioritization, no? Jeff Neuman:I think the benefits of having IDNs go before ASCII is inconclusive Christa Taylor:They may not have participated in the draw Sara Bockey:Michael, we lost you Terri Agnew:@Micheal, we are no longer able to hear you Jeff Neuman:But there were a number of external factors as well....namely the technoogy to support IDNs was not there to support launches Jeff Neuman:Also Registrars were not there to support the early IDN launches Kurt Pritz:To promote IDNs and diversity Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that is my recollection of rational as well Kurt Jon Nevett:political decision -- we all went along with it to get the process to move forward Rubens Kuhl:I think IDN priority was more tied to a moral imperative of the community than to actual planning. Kinda like a feeling of guilt. Kurt Pritz:it made the reffle (which seemed mercenary) more attractive to those promoting diversity Kurt Pritz:raffle Jeff Neuman:CLO - I think the Business Constituency and IPC may have agreed with that as well, but it was not a policy decision Jeff Neuman:from the GNSO Steve Chan:Could a CC2 question be added to ask if ASCII applicants were substanitally impacted by having IDNs evaluated first? Michael Flemming:Ande what kind of priority of course Jeff Neuman:@Steve - Was thinking the same thing Rubens Kuhl:We could ask applicants for ( ) prefer to move faster ( ) prefer to move slower ; active proponents would prefer faster, defensive, slower. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):understood Jeff and yes later in the process / iterations of AGB some constituencies of GNSO also made the case for IDNS Jeff Neuman:But also asking whether priority should still be given to IDN applications? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Steve - IDNs were a small percentage of the applications, so I think that needs to be factored into the equation. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes to asking Jon Nevett:some folks were concerned that IDN brands went before ASCI brands and that IDN-equivalents of .com went before those TLDs that were trying to compete with .com Jeff Neuman:I remember having to fend off US Congressional inquiries based on lobbying from the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and this being a point to show them that we did want to promote diversity Jon Nevett:@jeff yep -- hence a political decision Jeff Neuman:That was 5 years ago now.....where is the ANA today? Rubens Kuhl:@Jeff - waiting for the next procedure, when they will show up at the last moment saying the sky will fall. Christa Taylor:Another 'set' ;-) Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jeff, I don't think a total revamping is required. Rubens Kuhl:Two cuts, which end up four pieces: rules x rationales, application x after contract signing Terri Agnew:The next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Justine Chew:I was looking at the CC2 earlier - Jeff was still editing it ! Jeff Neuman:@Rubens - Yes, I think we can cut some of the background and rationales out and put them in Appendices for those that want to read :) Jon Nevett:Thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone.... bye for now... Jeff Neuman:But we should create a practical guide to applying for everyone else Christopher Niemi:Thanks Trang Nguyen:Thank you! Bye!

1 0

Systems and Communications recommendations from the New gTLD Program Implementation Review
by Emily Barabas Feb. 13, 2017

Feb. 13, 2017

Dear WT 1 members, As discussed on yesterday’s call, the New gTLD Program Implementation Review provides several recommendations that the group may want to consider in developing implementation guidance on Systems and Communications. The following text is excerpted directly from the report (available at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf) Systems (see page 174) …there are additional considerations from this round that can be used to inform the next round. In particular, the system development process many have benefited from leveraging industry standard best practices for product development. In this round, there was limited time available between the finalization of system requirements and the launch of the TLD Application System. In future application rounds, the Program timeline should provide additional time for system development, including the definition of robust system requirements and appropriate testing. In summary: 8.1.a In developing timelines for future application rounds, provide an appropriate amount of time to allow for the use of best practices in system development. 8.1.b Explore beta testing programs for systems to allow for lessons learned, to increase effectiveness of such systems, and to provide further transparency, clarity, and opportunity for preparation to applicants. Communications (see page 198) Although the success of Program Communications during this application round is difficult to assess because “success” was not defined within the Communications Plan, there are lessons learned that should be taken into consideration for future rounds. In the 2012 application round, the New gTLD microsite was developed to house all New gTLD Program information. To increase accessibility and usability for future rounds, Program information should be consolidated into a single site with other ICANN information. Another consideration for future rounds is that ICANN’s Global Stakeholder Engagement team is much larger than it was before the 2012 application round, and this team should be leveraged to help promote awareness of the New gTLD Program within their respective regions/constituencies. In summary: 8.4.a Consolidate all next round program information into a single site and make information as accessible as possible. 8.4.b Leverage ICANN’s Global Stakeholder Engagement team to promote awareness of the New gTLD Program within their regions/constituencies. Kind regards, Emily Emily Barabas | Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

3 2

WT1 Agenda
by Sara Bockey Feb. 12, 2017

Feb. 12, 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, 14 February 2017 at 3:00 UTC. Please pre-read the CC2 questions ahead of the call to maximize the use of everyone’s time so we can focus on the content rather than reading them out loud. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & SOIs 2. Update: Accreditation Program 3. Application Fees/Variable Fees – Consensus Vote 1. Application Guidebook,https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.5+Applicant+Guidebo… 2. CC2 Questions, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…> Attached for your convenience is a link to the final report on the Applicant Guidebook. 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

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 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, 31 January 2017 at 20:00 UTC. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn so-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsubsequent-2D16may16-2Den.mp3&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll 3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_ fjAZ8X8f1kW0l0GMcnTYAJub8JIzI-nbGkDB_FNy0s&s=Xc2HCgoInyY4sazVMVxejDycY3Vw2SB D9TFBrxEGM60&e=> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/SbPDAw> https://community.icann.org/x/SbPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 31 January 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 31 January 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_S bPDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ SbPDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=c_pDZyAeBhAPJgAZAcBoWpAtMU0PNiGObWx1b7l87H 8&s=j94kSGThskTNFTXyuO5LUAHU3fHhQRd36JDgoUykQBs&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=c_pDZyAeBhAPJgAZAcBoWpAtMU0PNiGObWx1b7l87H8&s=j9 4kSGThskTNFTXyuO5LUAHU3fHhQRd36JDgoUykQBs&e= Emily Barabas:at the moment everyone can scroll for themselves Emily Barabas:but we can control the slides if you prefer Jeff Neuman:@Steve - We will come up with something to call it other than "lottery" Jeff Neuman:We can call it "Randomization Process" for now Steve Chan:Thanks. I have an open request to ICANN legal for input on the viability of the prioritization draw, or similar, in the future. Donna Austin, Neustar:Hi All, sorry for the delay in joining. Kurt Pritz:ICANN called it a "raffle" for important reasons. I thin we should adopt that wording if we are indicating that we want to recommend the same process Sara Bockey:Thank you, Kurt. We will note that. Jeff Neuman:it is a good question to ask the community, but it would be helpful for this group to discuss as well Julie Hedlund:@Jeff has his hand up. Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jeff, that there is a distinction in communication between the first v subsequent window application/ Jim Prendergast:yes - agreed Jon Nevett:No weight? 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 ? Jeff Neuman:Correct, I dont think what groups paid in the first round should have any weight Jeff Neuman: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 tthink 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..... Jeff Neuman: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? Jon Nevett:needs more explanation Jeff Neuman:you may need to repeat Donna Austin, Neustar:What invoicing are we reffering to? Jim Prendergast:application fee invoicing Jon Nevett:invoicing the $185K? Jeff Neuman:I think all we are saying is that we agree that there should be an invoicing process when applying for TLDs Donna Austin, Neustar:Wasn't there an initial $5k fee to sign up and then the remainder was due on completion? Jeff Neuman:As opposed to having to get in the money a few weeks before or whatever the process was Jeff Neuman: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 Jim Prendergast:Xavier has a few years to figure that out Jon Nevett:ahh -- ok -- seems like an implementation issue not a policy one Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:perhaps refer to what ICANN provided last time and make it available upon request Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree Jon Trang Nguyen:@Jon, agree. We can figure that out in implementation. Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:correct Jon, this is very much an implementation issue Emily Barabas:staff is prepared to do a topic summary if you would like Emily Barabas:yes Phil Buckingham:Exactly Jim . 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 Jeff Neuman: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 Emily Barabas:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_e n_system_files_files_program-2Dreview-2D29jan16-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJ p6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4x R2EBk&m=c_pDZyAeBhAPJgAZAcBoWpAtMU0PNiGObWx1b7l87H8&s=BOI2FGTt9aGdRTuJJNsOhL CxZCcRW_s7eeBpgHVbciA&e= 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. Emily Barabas:@jeff, staff can do this Phil Buckingham:we require changes to the CZDS . For starters - not to have toreapply every 90 days to every single Registry ! Jeff Neuman:@Phil...I am not sure that CZDS falls within our mandate Jeff Neuman:The requirement to provide a zone file as a requirement would be, but not sure that that system is for us Emily Barabas:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__newgtlds.icann.o rg_en_about_historical-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4 I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=c_pDZyAeBhAPJgAZAcBoWpA tMU0PNiGObWx1b7l87H8&s=kg_hwuKqbmoU3yiS69d62rxctgGzbDEnsWtEVayZlqQ&e= documentation/matrix-plans Emily Barabas:The program implementation review document discusses Communications on pg 189 Emily Barabas:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_e n_system_files_files_program-2Dreview-2D29jan16-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJ p6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4x R2EBk&m=c_pDZyAeBhAPJgAZAcBoWpAtMU0PNiGObWx1b7l87H8&s=BOI2FGTt9aGdRTuJJNsOhL CxZCcRW_s7eeBpgHVbciA&e= 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. Emily Barabas:staff can provide a summary of these recommendations as well on the next call Christa Taylor:Perhaps we can pull some metrics out of there Jeff Neuman:Because communications during the application phase was not the greatest Phil Buckingham:@ jeff , I agree CZDS is outside our mandate , but Registry reporting of their zone file data is ? Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 at 3:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now then Donna Austin, Neustar 2:Thanks Sara and Christa Trang Nguyen:Thank you! Bye!

1 0