Dear Work Track Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording at https://community.icann.org/x/JQEhB. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 2. SOIs - No updates 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions - Systems - overview of status of discussions to date in the WT. Recommendations: -- Integrated login -- Different levels of access - Review of CC2 responses -- 1.8.1 - suggestions for areas of improvement in systems -- 1.8.2 - regarding invoicing -- general support for invoicing among respondents. - Variable Fees -- 1.5.1 - Should there be variable fees or "one fee fits all"? -- John Poole, CIRA, Nominet, BC, Afilias, RySG generally support a single fee model. -- Clarification on ALAC comment – there are potential circumstances for lower fees, for example communities or underserved regions. -- BRG, Nominet, and Valideus pointed out that there may be circumstances in which variable fees are appropriate to consider. -- GAC and Demys supported a model with variable fees. -- The only number referenced in the comments is that a 10% variance could justify variable fees for different types. -- Comment on community applications -- some comments suggest that there should be a reduced fee because of lower resources. Other comments suggest that some applications should have lower fees if processing the application might be less work and therefore less costly. If we have a discussion about fee reduction, we need to understand why we are doing that. There are two different potential reasons. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Maybe not reducing fees - but offering financial "support" then? Alan Greenberg: Agree with Donna both on need for discussion and potential reasons. -- 1.5.2 - What are the implications of having different costs for different types of applications. -- Nominet, Afilias, RySG, and ALAC did not generally support different costs for different application types. -- Demys identified possible benefits and CIRA identified possible negative impacts. -- BRG suggested that additional research should be conducted, particularly with respect to costing for dotBrands. 1.5.3 -- Should fees be variable based on number of applications per applicant? -- CIRA, Nominet, BC, BRG, John Poole, Afilias, RySG, and ALAC opposed this proposal -- Jannik Skou supported a volume discount. -- Nobody discussed increasing fees for those with multiple applications to increase competition. This is an interesting proposition from a public policy standpoint. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Good idea! - Concept is interesting, but don't necessarily agree. We have had the conversation for a while about possible discounts, but not about going in the other direction. - We have spent a lot of time talking about the mechanics of the application process, but have not talked about principles and public policy, goals we are trying to achieve with this program that could impact decisions on fee structure. This is a conversation we need to have. From the chat: Alexander Schubert: Problem: Volume based fee increase will be circumvented by the Donuts system: new entity for each app! Donna Austin, Neustar: For the record, I don't believe there would be any variation in the application fee. It should be the same across the types of applications and to Alexander's point earlier, we can look at reasons for providing financial support. Alan Greenberg: @Alexander. Perhaps, but they would have to work a lot harder at masking their shared ownership and presumably penalties for trying. Greg Shatan: Alexander, that probably could be controlled for - after all, everyone knows that all of those came from are all Donuts from the same Donuts shop. Donna Austin, Neustar: Donuts were not the only portfolio applicants. Alexander Schubert: Donna: But Donuts had unique legal entities for every app! That's what I am refering to. Greg Shatan: I think at least one other applicant used the multiple entity approach. Donna Austin, Neustar: Some of those are corporations. - Is the WT open to variable fees and if so, what is the trigger? - It is easy to identify where there is shared ownership of different TLDs. Relevant information is already collected about this. - The WG needs to look at public policy and look at fees based on what we are trying to achieve with the program. - Each application should have the same set base fee, but additional items, reviews, or additional steps may incur additional costs. That's essentially how it worked in the AGB in 2012. What we could do is have a single base fee with add-ons. - How did this work with communities in 2012 round? From the chat: Steve Chan: CPE was an additional fee that was paid back in the event the applicant met the criteria. - Even though there was a distinct category for geo names, every application still went through a screening to see if it was a geo name. Only those determined to be geo names went through an additional process. - Any review that every application has to go through should be included in the base fee. But if there are additional rights/privileges associated with a type of application, related applications would pay an extra fee for the associated evaluations. - Then we get into a discussion in which some of those types that require additional evaluation may also be those that are most likely to be eligible for financial assistance. Need to understand the consequences of going down this path. - It is possible that the additional fee and the financial assistance could go hand-in-hand. - Also important to consider closed registries/dotBrands and business models that might not need the same evaluations as other applications. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: I think as a general principle, we should aim to have the application process as simple as possible for the applicants and for ICANN to administer. It seems that we may be over-engineering for any positive outcome. - What if dotBrands pay more to save time and skip certain evaluations that might not be needed. - We should aim for an application process that is easy for applicants and easy for ICANN to administer. - We generally think the application fee should go down in the next round. Are we making it so complicated that the administration of the process will lead to delays and additional overhead? Is a $10,000 discount for some applicants really going to lead to a better outcome? From the chat: Jeff Neuman: It would only save time if no competing applications Alexander Schubert: Christa: Then you need to have a "test" on wheher they are a "real brand"! Anybody can register a TM and claim they are a "brand" - and all important generic terms are branded in many places! Katrin Ohlmer: We also support the concept of simplicity - for applicants and ICANN Alexander Schubert: "branded" = "trademarked" rather ..... Greg Shatan: The "community" status was arguably "gamed" quite a bit.... Greg Shatan: If a word is a trademark it is not being used in its generic sense. So it is not correct to say that "generic terms are trademarked," But I digress. - If the application fee drops substantially, this won't be such an issue, but we don't know yet if it will drop. Simple is better, but not if simple applications are subsidizing complex applications. - ICANN will have to go through the costing evaluation process to determine that future base fee based on cost recovery. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Ffrom the financial model / evaluation perspective we cant have a "one size fits " all this time. A brand model would so easier to evaluate than a community model . - Comment: not sure that we should settle on a cost recovery model. The direct costs are not necessarily the only costs that should be included. This is also a policy question about sources of income for ICANN. Cost recovery is one model but not the only model. There is also a cost plus option. There are things ICANN could be doing if it were better funded. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Greg - what are the indirect costs? Jeff Neuman: that you think should be covered Jeff Neuman: Remember we have defined the costs as being of the application process itself Alan Greenberg: Jeff, we also clearly included costs of developing the program. Alexander Schubert: Christa: Define "brand" application! So I can register a TM "orange" apply for ".orange" and then "lease" domains (much like CentralNic's .de.com third level registrations) avoiding all the hassle with registrant rights! People buy third level domain from CentralNic at even HIGHER prices than .com - the model works well. But "registrants" (leasees) have ZERO "rights". Jeff Neuman: Alan - Yes we did previously. Doesnt mean we should going forward...... Jeff Neuman: that is still an ongoing discussion 4. AOB -- Once we have momentum on a topic, can we roll it over into the next call? Might help us reach a point of closure on some of the topics. From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Ashley, it would be good if we could aim to wrap up discussions in a timely fashion rather than drawing them out. Greg Shatan: At a minimum, I would think the costs of developing the program would be included in any cost analysis. Jeff Neuman: We also need to balance that with a complete rehashing of the same issues if new people join :)