Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 December. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Best, Steve Notes and Action Items 13 December 4. Applicant Support - Financial support by itself is inadequate (e.g., coaching, mentoring, partnering) - Need perspectives of those in relevant areas - Rubens - one idea is to lift a bit vertical integration restrictions for under-developed markets 5. Application Process & Cost -  Clarity of Application Process     - Clarifying Questions, Streamline Answer Submission, Contacts by Categories, Knowledge Database - Streamline Answer Submissions     - Re: RSP "tick a box" to note using RSP (already identified via RSP discussion, should be tied back here) - What is the purpose of seeing the actual CQ and responses versus the themes, categories, etc. as identified in the PIRR? - Trang - As Donna mentioned, CQs could be indicative of the nature of the question, which is not a process issue. They could also be an indication of the non-structured way that answers were collected, which is a process issue that can be fixed. 6. Application Submission Period & Queuing - Is there a floor price that should be established to avoid TLDs becoming a commodity? Or ceiling? - Invoices - allow for generation, but make it optional (since there may be tax implications) - Should $185k have any bearing on future costing estimates/models? - Cost recovery was basis for 2012 round - should that carry forward? It's very difficult to do without a true understanding of demand (e.g., 2012 round had far more than the estimated 500 applications) - Is there support for cost recovery in future processes? What are the alternatives?     - Rubens - "market value" pricing - Donna - Went with fixed fee because demand was unknown - Cheryl - Support the concept of cost-recovery, thinks that first-movers assume some risks, higher costs. As such, uneven playing field is ok. - Alan - Supports points of Cheryl. How/who puts forward a number? - Rubens - Perhaps the policy and the implementation drifted apart, but the policy guidance was cost-recovery and this still seems to resonante with people. - Kurt - we won't know costs until the policy and implementation work is done, i.e., when we have a new question set. E.g., if categories are included, that would drive costs up; and the form of objection processes drive costs also. - Support from multiple commenters to stick with previous approach from 2012 round. Steven Chan
 Sr. Policy Manager

 ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886
 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/