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?docume...): [rm.coe.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rm.coe.int_CoERMPublicC...> - 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[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_program-2Dreview-2D29jan16-2Den.pdf&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=qrEyeVNmahQyGktILDOi2b-EZ4EjsTE0xP8CPUJtyLA&s=9gUgC9b5wj4klQWI93GE9QouotaziX9XVTJI-wLsQ_c&e=> 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@icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Date: Tuesday 29 November 2016 at 22:25 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@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_gns...> 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_G... 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_CoERMPublicC... 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_system... 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