Dear all,

If you have not yet, please review the below information before tomorrow’s call.

Thanks,

Sara

From: Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 1:45 PM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>
Cc: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com>
Subject: WT1 Jan 10th Call Outcomes, Follow-Ups, Further Discussion and Future Topics

Thank-you to all who joining the WT1 call this morning (January 10^th).

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:

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=/58735915/58737114/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=/58735919/58737118/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
christa@dottba.com