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, 11 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect Recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p2sbco0i6ib/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=436763efcaabf56f d0227f108d44d3c705d81ed2dd669eac5ee8f7b29a7d3189> https://participate.icann.org/p2sbco0i6ib/ 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/_bDRAw> https://community.icann.org/x/_bDRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 11 April 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 20:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_- 5FbDRAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ -5FbDRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSF pCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=I5Bnfz4eCTwQIZg0cmhHrPnjsMOBgW56GDRTDUa6 VYs&s=CKFrLDO4Z-gpbMKhYP32mEYbFHmfgBc369GCb9AkPX0&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=I5Bnfz4eCTwQIZg0cmhHrPnjsMOBgW56GDRTDUa6VYs&s=CK FrLDO4Z-gpbMKhYP32mEYbFHmfgBc369GCb9AkPX0&e= Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone Christa Taylor:Hello Vanda Vanda Scartezini:listen mode since I am in a road with traffic and high noise Terri Agnew:thank you for this information Vanda Emily Barabas:we can advance the slides Donna Austin, Neustar:Is the audio choppy or is it just me? Steve Chan:@Donna, I'm on phone and it's clear for me. Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Steve, must just be me. Terri Agnew:@Donna, if needed I can always dial out on the telephone. Terri Agnew:sometimes rejoining on the adobe connect using a differernt browser helps as well Donna Austin, Neustar:@Terri, that's what you told me last night :-) Christa Taylor:can you hear me? Julie Hedlund:@Christa: We can't hear you. Christa Taylor:one sec Christa Taylor:one sec Christa Taylor:can you let me know Christa Taylor:can you let me in the room Terri Agnew:@Christa , we are still unable to hear you Terri Agnew:We are not seeing you join on a second connection via adobe connect Terri Agnew:@Christa, second Adobe Connect has joined for you Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yeah! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Darn gremlins Alan Greenberg:Sorry, that was me. Forgot to mute. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Steve that needs clarification Jim Prendergast:ill call in Vanda Scartezini:last year we did a survey in LAC region and price was not the problem justifying interested organization did not enter into the process. lack of information was the main issue Ashley Roberts:May I suggest an alternate model: instead of spreading the application cost across different rounds, how about spreading it across the annual registry operator fees? So you could have a lower application fee, offset against slightly higher annual fees. It gets over the difficulty of predicting timing of further rounds. Terri Agnew:@Jim, if assistance is needed dialing in, please let me know Donna Austin, Neustar:The cost recovery is really difficult because there are too many unknown variables. If we knew the costs associated with developing systems and evaluating applications and how many applicants, it would be an easier proposition. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes @Avri the differential fees discussion is not yet finish at all... as seen in other WG's Jim Prendergast:im dialed in Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that's my assumption @Alan Vanda Scartezini: share cost as Ashley suggested looks interesting in my view avri doria:in a cyclical application period, there will be steady state costs and it may be challenging to budget just per single application cycle. I also assume the there would be efficinecies in terms of process that would drive costs down over time. Alexander Schubert:Lets put it this way: There needs to be a substential "hurdle" to apply for a new gTLD. Otherwise we will have hobby gTLD makers entering the arena - without any intend and ability to actually really operate their TLD. A financial hurdle is the easiest to create! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good question re staffing / re staffing Jim Prendergast:Im also in agreement wth CLO that cost+ is not the way to go. Jim Prendergast:And agree with Alexander - there need to be some financial barrier here to demonstarte financlial wherwithal. avri doria:are we suggesting high costs to keep people out? Jim Prendergast:Good point donna Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes indeed we should @Donna Alexander Schubert:If the costs are low we need another hurdle: Say some proof that the applicant WILL manage their TLD and know what they walk into. avri doria:I can just imagine the press that would great a price meant to keep people out of the market. Alexander Schubert:I agree Avri. Alexander Schubert:But I can tell you Domainers all over the world are already licking their fingers - they think they spend US $200k and then lean back and cash in.... "Hobby-TLDlers" Jim Prendergast:the $185 was just the beginning of the costs associated with TLD ownership. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agreed Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jim, but some paid much more than $185k for the TLD, so how do we factor that into the value of a TLD. Kurt Pritz:This is a pretty darned complex economics question. What is the effect of application cost on demand? What is the effect of application cost on developing area applications? What is the effect on gaming, I.e., how many applicants will enter the field to profit on private auctions? How will low cost increase the likelihood of applications that don't have the financial wherewithal to sustain a viable registry? How will increased demand increase the number of contention sets? Different types of applications multiplies the complexity. I don't see how anyone here can answer this question. One approach (that we very well likely to hate) is to get a competent economics analysis of these issues. I don't think taking the time would interfere with a 2019 launch date. It would have to be carefully crafted and sophisticated Jim Prendergast:@Donna - thats the market determining value, not ICANN. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Alexander, i think the financial questions and the COI were intended to understand the applicants ability to manage the TLD into the longer term. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am ok with that Steve Coates:Hard to discuss a ceiling without discussing a floor. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Jim Prendergast:ICANN cant go into debt on this so no celing Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Vanda Scartezini:I agree with Jim about no celing avri doria:personally (not as WG co-chair) I am uncomfortable with some of the assumption behind a floor. Jim Prendergast:it might help avri doria:i think it is a good idea to do so Christa Taylor 2:It was sent with the agenda in case it helps in viewing the document Vanda Scartezini:back end list of certified companies was one of demands in our survey in LAC region Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:Could the PDF docs be made downloadable, please? Thanks in advance. Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:ah, ok. Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks. Emily Barabas:The slides are also available on the wiki here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis play_NGSPP_4.2.8-2BAccreditation-2BPrograms <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di splay_NGSPP_4.2.8-2BAccreditation-2BPrograms&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mS VzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=I5Bn fz4eCTwQIZg0cmhHrPnjsMOBgW56GDRTDUa6VYs&s=ZhXiqecCREatHc2UvDIUADfUHxp9tSIzlt sfBjg7P0Y&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=I5Bnfz4eCTwQIZg0cmhHrPnjsMOBgW56GDRTDUa6VYs&s=Zh XiqecCREatHc2UvDIUADfUHxp9tSIzltsfBjg7P0Y&e= Steve Coates:Apologies - I agree with Avri's point on the floor. I think there need to be fundamentals behind a floor that do not take into account competitive hurdles (e.g. cost recovery, ensuring financial viability). Steve Chan:I would note that Ashley Roberts circulated a summary of Donna's proposed options. Provided Donna agrees with that summation, that might serve as a good high level reminder of what the three options/proposals are. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Steve, no objection Laura Watkins:I'm not sure I follow the logic of removing PDT. The RSP offering could differ depending on the type of TLD and TLD can be actually seen to reduce costs as it removes the obligation for the RSP to do their own testing and incur costs for that. If one of the reasons that we're citing for having a fee level is to prevent failure - how can we justify delegation without testing? The Pre-certified providers concerns me that it creates tiers of RSPs and could stiffle compettion and ionnovation in the market. Donna Austin, Neustar:@Laura, regardless of the type of TLD, the PDT was always the same. Laura Watkins:I appreciate it was the same - I know our tech team actually found it quite useful! Samantha Demetriou:My understanding is that PDT also didn't account for scalability, which could be an important factor if a single provider is running the back-end for large numbers of TLDs Donna Austin, Neustar:@Laura, ours didn't after they'd been through it many, many times. Donna Austin, Neustar:that's correct Sam. Kurt Pritz:One problem that we are trying to solve is to ensure that proven providers continue to be successful. An RSP program might also include forward looking criteria in addition to past looking. Forward looking requirements for RSPs might include statistical process controls to determine whether an RSP is degrading in performance before they fall outside the performance limits. Another requirement might be that there be a threat identification process so that new security threats are identified as they arise and RSPs would be obligated to act in some ways. Jim Prendergast:What happens and brand X selects an ICANN accredited RSP and there is a technical failure that results in a breach. Who does Brand X pursue? the RSP, ICANN? IS ICANN ready and wll to shoulder the burden/liabilty that comes with accreditng RSPs? Jim Prendergast:We already have a situtation where RSPs are failing an ICANN is coachng them back into compliance Samantha Demetriou:Thanks for confirming, Donna. So in that case, if applicants go with a "proven provider," then instead of just answering questions and going through a redundant PDT process, testing could focus on whether the RSP can scale appropriately - which in theory would be ensuring ongoing stability rather than just checking the box Samantha Demetriou:Basically, all of this is to say that I think having an RSP program presents an opportunity to improve the testing process Kurt Pritz:@ Jim: isn't that a reason that there be a direct relationship between ICANN and the RSP rather than creating stability through a thrid party? Jim Prendergast:Sam - I think there are ways to solve testing program issues without going down the accrediation path Ashley Roberts:JIm, Brand X would take it up with their RSP, as current 2012 registries would. They would have a contracual relationship with SLAs with the RSP. Laura Watkins:Is a new process needed for this? Could it be covered by the current material sub-contracting agreement fpr example? Samantha Demetriou:@Jim, sure, I can see that. Just putting a thought out there about a potential added benefit if such a program was put in place. Jim Prendergast:Ashley - But if ICANN accredits someone - there comes comes that ICANN seal of approval. And if ICANN approved them, and that was the basis of my decision to go with RSP1 over RSP 2 - Im not going to be happy Laura Watkins:+1 Jim Ashley Roberts:Jim, I don't think this proposal is talking about "accreditation" as such. I view is essentially doing exactly what was done in the 2012 round - ICANN is simply saying that an RSP meets the technial requirements set out in the AGB. The only difference between this proposal and the 2012 evaluations is that in this case ICANN only perform the evaluation and PDT once per RSP, rather than repeating the process over and over. Kurt Pritz:I remember in the first round discussion that Chuck from Verisign came to the microphone and said that the technical criteria for a new TLD should be stringent. The Guidebook questions were written with that in mind. Now the marketplace has markedly changed where there are a few RSPs that are separated from direct obligation to the ICANN community. Wouldn't a direct relationship between ICANN and RSPs (who control critical Internet infrastructure) comply with ICANN's missions? Jim Prendergast:So thats a helpful clarificaitonDonna - this is not an accrediation program - just problem solving the testing issues.\ Terri Agnew:Next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 at 3:00 UTC Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now then... thanks everyone good progress today more to come of course Vanda Scartezini:nice meeting tks to all good ideas. Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks & bye, everybody. Vanda Scartezini:happy Easter and Pesach to everyone