Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 19 January. 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 chat room or the recording. See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings. Kind regards, Emily --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Full WG update 4. CC2 questions (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit>) 5. WT4 schedule and planning until ICANN 58 6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes 7. AOB Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Rubens will send revised schedule to the WT Notes: 2. SOIs - No updates 3. Full WG update - Our next meeting is on Monday 30 January at 15:00 UTC - Full group is creating drafting teams, calls will go out at the end of the week - Drafting teams will focus on categorization, rounds vs. other models for subsequent rounds, discussions coming out of WT2 - WTs are working on questions for CC2 - The plan is for CC2 to go out mid- to late- February 4. CC2 questions - Working document for CC2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit> - Regarding IDNs, we may want to consider adding a CC2 question about IDN variants - Jeff Neuman suggested asking about experiences from those that have launched IDN TLDs and challenges they experienced - Rubens was not sure if CC2 was the right place to ask for this input, but agreed it would be useful to have input on this issue From the chat: Jeff Neuman: For technical evaluation: Should the number of TLDs applied for, plus ones they currently run, be taken into consideration in the evaluation. If so, how Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, you are correct. Applications were evaluated on a standalone basis in the 2012 round - Where can we factor in possible limitations in infrastructure? Rubens will propose text for a question on the list - Should other factors be taken into account when someone applies for multiple vs. one TLD (evaluations, launch schedule, architecture, business continuity issues, etc)? - The exact metrics and methods are not yet known, but the volume should be factored in - Evaluation panel did raise this issue to ICANN - There was a reference in the AGB that applications needed to be evaluated on a standalone basis, which is why evaluations occurred this way From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Question for ICANN/Evaluators: Did the evaluators/panelists submit performance improvement reports or other comments on what improvements could be made for subsequent procedures? Jeff Neuman: Was there any post mortem process? Jeff Neuman: If so, can we see those? Trang Nguyen: We had debriefs with the evaluation panels and they provided comments and suggestions, which we took into account when drafting the PIRR. Jeff Neuman: PIRR? Trang Nguyen: Program Implementation Review Report Jeff Neuman: Is it possible to see the original comments? Trang Nguyen: They were provided to ICANN as confidential documents, not for external consumption. Jeff Neuman: Why confidential? Trang Nguyen: We could check with them to see if they would have any issues with releasing them. Jeff Neuman: I can understand redacted portions related to individual applications......but it would be great to see their comments. It may help us to revise questions that were asked of applicants Trang Nguyen: Their comments/suggestions were largely consistent with ICANN's observations as reflected in the PIRR, but we could take an action to ask them whether we can share their reports. 5. WT4 schedule and planning until ICANN 58 - Current plan: focus next call on IDN and UA - Target: produce CC2 questions in WTs by the end of January, full WG will consider all CC2 questions and send out for public comment in mid-February - No objections expressed regarding this timeline 6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes - "Financial Evaluation must be performed in aggregation of a registry family" - Question to consider: should the financial evaluation be different for certain types of applications? - Trang Nguyen (staff): The financial panel recognized two types of financial models 1. closed model (self supporting) 2. open model (meant to generate revenue). They looked at the applications differently and different thresholds were applied. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Q should there be a separate financial template for each "type" of business model Jeff Neuman: @Trang. That makes total sense.....We should document that formally and put it into the guidebook Martin Sutton: That would be helpful to have more detail Trang - can that be shared? - If the group can get additional information about the existing models of evaluation, this could be put out for comment as part of CC2. - We are not in the business of evaluating business models. We need to be flexible about the questions we ask in order to ensure sustainability. - Trang: We can't assume that model of the applicant will be the business model forever. Therefore we need to look at the broader picture of the application. From the chat: Martin Sutton: @Trang - good point, but that could be built in to a transition process where checks have to be completed before they switch over - Some of these issues are discussed in the Program Implementation Review Report - One model discussed including a second level in a yearly membership, example of different ways of looking at business model - For future consideration: change of features post-contract - what are the change processes? Do the processes we have now address all the possible changes that could occur? From the chat: Jeff Neuman: @Avri - Changes are right now through RSEP process and that is currently beyond the scope of this PDP Jeff Neuman: Other than accounting for changes in the contracting process, I am not sure we should be delving into how future changes are done. We can recommend a separate PDP for that, but if we go down that path now, we will never finish. Steve Chan: I think it has been discussed in the context of other topics (e.g., different TLD types), but there is not a dedicated topic related to the subject. Jeff Neuman: Plus, that has applicability to existing registries as well as for those for future ones - This WG may want to go deeper into the types of issues that should be considered in evaluations - In the last round, change in business model sometimes occurred during application process or after signing registry agreement. This caused challenges for ICANN staff. Maybe it would be less of an issue if the rounds were shorter. - Jeff: We should probably deal with changes in the application process but not after the contracting phase. We could recommend a separate PDP to address changes later in the process. -If application processing is faster in future rounds, there may be fewer changes to the model during the application process. From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): re change of mode Phil Buckingham: Agree Jeff- cant backtrack . Martin Sutton: Agree with Jeff - recommendation for separate PDP to progress this, as it is a post-application change Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): mode=model yes Jeff agree From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Date: Thursday 19 January 2017 at 17:37 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call 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 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 15:00 UTC. The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: 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-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wLPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 January 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations onThursday, 19 January 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_w... Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks Terri Terri Agnew:@Jeff audio quality is good at this time Terri Agnew:30 January New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:All hands have been cleared Jeff Neuman:Not sure how to phrase this, but I would love to hear about experiences from those that have launched IDN TLDs Jeff Neuman:What challenges they have had Jeff Neuman:what can be done for improvement Alan Greenberg:I am not seeing anything in the centre pod. Alan Greenberg:oops - now back! Martin Sutton:need to amend the financial question to quote financial Martin Sutton:its done Martin Sutton:thx Jeff Neuman:For technical evaluation: Should the number of TLDs applied for, plus ones they currently run, be taken into consideration in the evaluation. If so, how Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, you are correct. Applications were evaluated on a standalone basis in the 2012 round. Jeff Neuman:Question for ICANN/Evaluators:Did the evaluators/panelists submit performance improvement reports or other comments on what improvements could be made for subsequent procedures? Jeff Neuman:Was there any post mordem process? Jeff Neuman:If so, can we see those? Trang Nguyen:We had debriefs with the evaluation panels and they provided comments and suggestions, which we took into account when drafting the PIRR. Jeff Neuman:PIRR? Trang Nguyen:Program Implementation Review Report Jeff Neuman:Is it possible to see the original comments? Trang Nguyen:They were provided to ICANN as confidential documents, not for external consumption. Jeff Neuman:Why confidential? Trang Nguyen:We could check with them to see if they would have any issues with releasing them. Jeff Neuman:I can understand redacted portions related to individual applications......but it would be great to see their comments. It may help us to revise questions that were asked of applicants Trang Nguyen:Their comments/suggestions were largely consistent with ICANN's observations as reflected in the PIRR, but we could take an action to ask them whether we can share their reports. avri doria:Trang, that would be good to check if you could. Thanks Phil Buckingham:which bullets points do you wish to discuss . Phil Buckingham:Q should there be a separate financial template for each "type" of business model . Jeff Neuman:@Trang. That makes total sense.....We should document that formally and put it into the guidebook Martin Sutton:That would be helpful to have more detail Trang - can that be shared? Martin Sutton:Should there also be some differentiation between self-funded registries where they are the only registrant, i.e. impact on registrants is not relevant? Phil Buckingham:@ Trang , does ICANN have the points scored for each question by application by type of business model ( ie closed / open / IDNs ) . Then possibly we can start to identify the problem questions Martin Sutton:@Trang - good point, but that could be built in to a transition process where checks have to be completed before they switch over Phil Buckingham:@ trang- when an applicant reaches a set number of DUMs ? I thought it was 50K that would trigger a change from closed model to an open one ? Jeff Neuman:@Trang - good questions Jeff Neuman:@Avri - correct. That is being implemented by some TLDs now Jeff Neuman:@Avri - Changes are right now through RSEP process and that is currently beyond the scope of this PDP Phil Buckingham:Exactly Avri - does a change of application status mean new financial evaluation / due diligence Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am not aware of any of our WT s looking at that either Avri so yes we need to catch them Jeff Neuman:Other than accounting for changes in the contracting process, I am not sure we should be delving into how future changes are done. We can recommend a separate PDP for that, but if we go down that path now, we will never finish. Steve Chan:I think it has been discussed in the context of other topics (e.g., different TLD types), but there is not a dedicated topic related to the subject. Jeff Neuman:Plus, that has applicability to existing registries as well as for those for future ones Phil Buckingham:+1 Steve Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):re change of mode Phil Buckingham:Agree Jeff- cant backtrack . Martin Sutton:Agree with Jeff - recommendation for separate PDP to progress this, as it is a post-application change Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):mode=model yes Jeff agree Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations will take place on Thursday, 09 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Trang Nguyen:Sorry, i will try to provide answers to questions aked in the chat via the mail list. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:thanks Ruben and the rest avri doria:thanks Trang Nguyen:Thanks, all!