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 Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. 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#nov> ** 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 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/K6HDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 December 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_K... Julie Hedlund:That sounds fine -- thanks! Phil Buckingham:rubens - you are very faint . Could you speak up avri doria:idoegraphic cs. non ideographic avri doria:? Phil Buckingham:me too - re headphones . but still faint avri doria:might want to consider adding ", if any" at the end of the stmt. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good point Avri avri doria:i think we need two reading, both on calls to close a consensus call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes the rationale is important on this proposed recommendation Phil Buckingham:this is a catch 22 , since the technical costs/ so contractual relationship with the backend provider will need be incurred and the costs put in the financial model for evaluation . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx Avri Phil Buckingham:no audio Phil Buckingham:thanks Cheryl avri doria:wee have to learn to speak again on AC. hard to do i know, i almost forgot how. Steve Chan:@Phil, we are happy to provide a dial out if you'd care to join! Phil Buckingham:point taken , Avri Steve Chan:If I recall, part of why every application was considered indivudually overall was related to principles of fairness? Kurt would probably be able to fact check that statement. Kurt Pritz:I have a bad connection. and did not hear the question Kurt Pritz:can you repeat. ? or skip me? Phil Buckingham:Totally agree Kurt. and nobody knew who was going to apply , how many portfolio players would submit multiple applications using the same model Rubens Kuhl:Kurt, that was Steve question from the chat above. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):chat above from Steve Phil Buckingham:the financial model was templated / standardised . It wont work for Round 2 . Each applicant's financial model needs to treat separately , evaluated , due diligence accordingly Phil Buckingham:Agreed Alan . Alot more . Steve Chan:@Rubens, I tried to note that the report acknowledges those challenges to some degree, but apparently i made that point ineffectively Steve Chan:So not just about inefficiency... ************************************************************************************************************************************************** Action Items/Discussion Notes 14 December 1. Hyderabad recap [slide 5 of the slide deck] -- Support for IDN 1-character was pictogram (Japanese or Korean), but opposition was not to Latin and Cyrillic, but use a more generic term. -- Probably would be good to use generic terms for all of them. -- Only those that represent 1 word. -- On support for IDN Variant TLDS -- Staff have had preliminary discussions with Sarmad Hussain on staff. He could provide background or a status update on the program.

From the Chat: avri doria: idoegraphic cs. non ideographic

2. Consensus call 1: Technical capability to be assessed at contract signing time [slide 7 in the slide deck] Possible language: "Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out, but will only be required to do so at contract-signing time, after passing other criteria and/or approvals and prevailing in contention set(s), [if any]." -- If we do a consensus call over email should have the full story documented and presented to be taken into account. -- Today's discussion is just a temperature taking, not a consensus call. -- Explaining why the change is being made is important. Good to lay out those conditions, which will help this make sense. -- The financial model and testing the technical model are two different things.

From the chat: avri doria: might want to consider adding ", if any" at the end of the stmt. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Avri avri doria: i think we need two reading, both on calls to close a consensus call. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes the rationale is important on this proposed recommendation Phil Buckingham: this is a catch 22 , since the technical costs/ so contractual relationship with the backend provider will need be incurred and the costs put in the financial model for evaluation. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thx Avri

3. Discussion: Technical evaluation of applications to be performed as aggregated as feasible [slide 9 from the slide deck] -- During the evaluation process there wasn't a realization of how the market would evolve with respect to backend providers . -- It was thought at the outset that individual applications needed to be evaluated in the absense of knowing that the backend marketplace would be established. Things didn't work out as predicted.

From the Chat:

Steve Chan: If I recall, part of why every application was considered indivudually overall was related to principles of fairness? Kurt would probably be able to fact check that statement. Phil Buckingham: Totally agree Kurt. and nobody knew who was going to apply , how many portfolio players would submit multiple applications using the same model 4. Discussion: Timing and method for Financial Evaluation [slide 10 from the slide deck] -- Could have speculative applications. The financial models are going to vary even more if the price goes down. -- Look at the program implementation report that staff produced. There were inefficiencies from treating every application individually.

From the chat:

Phil Buckingham: the financial model was templated / standardised . It wont work for Round 2 . Each applicant's financial model needs to treat separately , evaluated , due diligence accordingly Agreed Alan . Alot more . Steve Chan: @Rubens, I tried to note that the report acknowledges those challenges to some degree, but apparently i made that point ineffectively. So not just about inefficiency...