Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p9scdni1ceb/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=fe4916c8d08a1d57 b6033c272f8baf21b82328e1f63d18ee81e3277664cd772f> https://participate.icann.org/p9scdni1ceb/ 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 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/ERLfAw> https://community.icann.org/x/ERLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 June 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_E RLfAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ ERLfAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=0K10mBy4jHOg4U63DDMB9i2OJDzQPAjdwQ_XR_iXpo 0&s=TboFt15bK3-_i0YzzjTYnNIqYT3s-07POfSIxz1tnsk&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=0K10mBy4jHOg4U63DDMB9i2OJDzQPAjdwQ_XR_iXpo0&s=Tb oFt15bK3-_i0YzzjTYnNIqYT3s-07POfSIxz1tnsk&e= Sarah L:No different Sarah :-) Terri Agnew:everyone can turn the slides themselves Michael Flemming:We can all scroll. Michael Flemming:Multiple logins! Michael Flemming:or multiple users. Michael Flemming:exactly Michael Flemming:What are all the portals or systems that could centralized? Michael Flemming:Sorry that goes back to the previous topic. Steve Chan:please go donna Michael Flemming:So we will leave these at recommendations and allow it to be decided in implementation. Well understood, thank you! Steve Chan:@Michael, the WG can develop recommendations around systems or communications. it can also develop implementation guidace as well. or, as you said, some specifics can be determined during implementation. Steve Chan:Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to cut off discussion in any way. Michael Flemming:Thank you, Steve. Jeff Neuman:Adequate outreach can also mean language support as well? Jeff Neuman:Those who want to file objections or public comments may need to be communicated with as well Jeff Neuman:could that be a distinction Donna Austin, Neustar:I think we need more clarity around what this is supposed to address Jeff Neuman:In other words the "knowledge base" was not only for applicants, but for the whole community of participants Jeff Neuman:We should update this with the tie from the discussions earlier in the full group on the model Jeff Neuman:(FCFS vs. Rounds) Jeff Neuman:@Donna - Agree. It is amount of fees vs process to make payments Donna Austin, Neustar:right Jeff Neuman:Point a relates to the latter Christa Taylor:Its annotated Christa Taylor:#annotated Michael Flemming:Legal contingency as in projected legal costs for litigation? Jeff Neuman:The $185,000 was based on 3 elements and assuming only 500 applications. (i) cost of evaluation/processing of applications, (ii) Historical costs and (iii) legal contingency fees. Do we have agreement these are the same types of fees we should be paying for going forward Jeff Neuman:In otherwords, is that the formula we should apply moving forward? Should we still reimburse "historical costs"? What does that mean? Jeff Neuman:Deposit of $1 Million was only in the case of an auction. Michael Flemming:As long as that is clear. Jeff Neuman:I am not sure where this comment came from though Michael Flemming:Thank you. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Christa, so this is just a sample of the comments submitted? Christa Taylor:yes it does not cover all of them but items that we may have not considered or discussed to date. The link has all of the responses Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Surely the Historical costs were cost recovered with the over subscription compared to the assummed 500 of applicant last round Jeff Neuman:It sounds like some want to add a 4th element (and that is a floor) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I believe it needs to include eval and legal contingency but the rest... hmmm Jeff Neuman:eg., if the elements of (i) though (iii) is too low, then make the price the floor. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree with cost neutral yes Michael Flemming:yes Donna Austin, Neustar:a Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree on that it should be time bound. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Fair point Jeff I can support that Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes it did Jeff Michael Flemming:My question is whether or not historical costs included unexpected delays in the program. I am for time bound costs as Jeff suggests, but I don't think there is a garuntee that a cost neutral would allow for unexpected delays. Michael Flemming:Registry level fees should pay for compliance. Michael Flemming:yes Terri Agnew:finding the line Christa Taylor:we can hear it Sarah L:It seems like there is an established mechanism within ICANN for dealing with excess funds but I am not sure there are mechanisms in place for dealing with scenarios or projects that are under-funded. Like Alan I would rather see a transparent active and robust compliance department and ensure there is funding in place for that. Donna Austin, Neustar:My compartmentalisation is consistent with Jeff's Alan Greenberg:I am still not sure how we reconcile the two opposite positions of 1) ultimately a TLD should not be more expensive than a 2nd level name; and 2) you are buying a core part of the Internet, a finite resource, and this should not be be cheap. Jeff Neuman:Sarah brings up a good comment that we have not addressed....which is what if the program is underfunded? Jeff Neuman:lets make sure we do not lose that question Donna Austin, Neustar:I don't believe the first dot point is within the purview of this group either. Michael Flemming:Jeff, Sarah does bring up an important question, but we did consider that didn't we? That was our entire base for considering cost-recovery in the first place, no? Steve Chan:@Jeff, there is a question in CC2 about excess or deficient funding Steve Chan:1.4.5 - Should the WG seek to establish more clarity in how the excess or deficiency of funds are utilized/recovered? If so, do you have any suggestions for establishing that clarity? Jeff Neuman:@Steve - thanks.....but I just want to make sure we as a group discuss it too Jeff Neuman:I havent read all the comments yet, but I am curious to see if anyone addressed the concept of underfunding. My guess is most people assumed overfunding Jeff Neuman:But I could be wrong Michael Flemming:I think as Jeff suggested, that there is a tendency that 1) That either the program was overfunded so fees should be lower or 2) In the event that expenses did not occur that, then those should be refunded. The problem here is that the consideration of refunding of fees in the current round have come to late in the game. I think what would satisfy many people is that if the floor was set at a similar price/model to what we have now with a promise for return of fees not occured once a contract is signed. Michael Flemming:Tendency in how people are responding. Michael Flemming:How do most registries feel about excess funds being used for community outreach rather than being returned in some way to the registry? Sarah L:ICANN could channel funds into increasing trust of the industry Donna Austin, Neustar:@Sarah L: that's a nice idea but how do you do that and what would the metrics be? Michael Flemming:If registries are happy to allow excess funds to be used in some way other than being returned to them, I feel that it would be important to perhaps have a separate PDP for determining excess funds? Or is this a necessity to have something in writing before we finish our PDP? Sarah L:@Donna I must admit I hadnt thought of it in that level of detail - iI agree there are alot of divergent opinons on this Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):That would be helpful Christa Michael Flemming:Thats a good question Donna, but I think that those fees are different to those paid in auction. Michael Flemming:I mean auction fees vs excess applicant fees. Michael Flemming:The principle behind them, I mean. Edmon:one thing useful to bring up is that the outreach and funds supporting applicants and as donna said for universal acceptance, etc. should not be confused or punted completely to the auction proceeds fund Jeff Neuman:ICANN Bake Sale ;) Alan Greenberg:Would be some mighty expensive brownies! Michael Flemming:Further to the point, if we are going to have excess fees for Universal Acceptance outreach, then there needs to be a clear cut plan for outreach. An actual piece of marketing that works. Jeff Neuman:The reality is that we can never de-risk any program completely. Some level of risk has to be taken on by ICANN Sara Bockey:thank you all Alan Greenberg:Indeed Jeff! Jeff Neuman:Thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thanks everyone... Lots to discuss still... but for now ... bye... Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Christa and Sara