- Gnso-newgtld-wg - lists.icann.org

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 25 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 25, 2019

July 25, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 25 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-25+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: From 15 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work. From 18 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. From 25 July 2019: Application Submission Period: ACTION ITEM 1: New Ideas: BC Comment -- Clarify what they mean by “Consider providing “a way to keep non-contentious applications open if they need more time to complete.”” ACTION ITEM 2: Application Submission Period, possible new High-Level Agreement -- An application submission period or communication period should not be considered separately, but taken together. There should be a formal communication period of at least 6 months, but there is nothing to prevent efforts to provide awareness outside of that period. ACTION ITEM 3: New High-Level Agreements: -- All subsequent windows should be the same length as the initial application window. -- The communications period should commence at least 6 months prior to opening the application submission period. ACTION ITEM 4: If someone applies for a string that is unresolved from a prior round would there be a refund? Refunds haven’t been discussed, but need to be at a meeting and on the list. Applicant Support: ACTION ITEM AND NOTE: Consider adding to high-level agreement: Applicants that don’t meet the requirements should have the option to withdraw their application or pay the remaining application fee. NOTE: Need to consider the timing of the application being accepted, particularly if the applicant is receiving other types of assistance. Also, need to consider concerns about gaming (see ICANN Org’s comment). Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made. a. Application Submission Period, page 14 Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence: ACTION ITEM: BC Comment -- Clarify what they mean by “Consider providing “a way to keep non-contentious applications open if they need more time to complete.” Proposed initial application submission period of at least three months: -- Question: Confirm that translations occur outside of the 3- or 6-month application period. Does the window start with English or with all languages? Answer: In 2012 it may have been that applications could only be submitted in English and the WG has not discussed alternatives. -- Important to know that the time periods are not interdependent -- to understand when the preparation and communications period takes place, and then how long submission is, for a total. -- Possible High-Level Agreement [include a rationale]: An application submission period or communication period should not be considered separately, but taken together. Is it enough to have a 9-month communication period with a 3-month application period enough? Have a formal communication period of at least 6 month, but there is nothing to prevent efforts to provide awareness outside of that period. -- Need a clear window for budgetary purposes of applicants. -- More a function of how efficient/effective we are in the communications period. -- If awareness of and about pertinent aspects of the new round is "sufficient" then practically speaking the communications period can be limited to 6 months. -- There is nothing preventing ICANN from having awareness activities before the final AGB is out. Proposed overlap between Communications Period and application submission period: -- New High-Level Agreement: All application submission periods should be equal. -- Agreement that the application submission period should be no longer or shorter than 90 days. -- New High-Level Agreement: Application period could overlap with the application submission period. We are saying that the communications period should commence at least 6 months prior to opening the application submission period, but the communications period can overlap with the application submission period. Rounds following the next round: application processing/delegation occuring in parallel with new window: Concerns: INTA - windows must be clearly identified with controls are in place to ensure that a later application for a TLD (or one confusingly similar thereto) is not given priority to an earlier one. ACTION: Refer to the appropriate section. Refunds: -- ACTION ITEM: If someone applies for a string that is unresolved from a prior round would there be a refund? Refunds haven’t been discussed, but need to be at a meeting and on the list. b. Applicant Support, page 17 Policy Goals: Increase the [number of total applicants for the applicant support program?] [number of successful applicants to the applicant support program who are ultimately granted assistance through the program?] [potential applicants to the applicant support program who expressed interest in applying?] that meet all standard program requirements and [serve specific populations?] [applicant/application has specific characteristics?] by [x amount?][x percentage?][other goal?] -- Don’t get caught up in the language of the goal above -- it is just a possible template for questions to consider. -- Proposal for policy goal: Enable potential applicants to make an informed decision whether to apply for a TLD based on the applicant support program. Eligibility: -- Question: Does the Applicant Support applicant get priority in string contention resolution? If the applicant doesn’t get support that could affect the timing. ALAC comment suggests a new idea that the applicant should get priority. -- ACTION ITEM AND NOTE: Consider adding to high-level agreement: Applicants that don’t meet the requirements should have the option to withdraw their application or pay the remaining application fee. NOTE: Need to consider the timing of the application being accepted, particularly if the applicant is receiving other types of assistance. Also note ICANN Org’s concerns about gaming. -- Start with this topic at the next meeting on Monday, 29 July at 20:00 UTC.

1 0

Reminder: Applicant Support discussion on July 25th WG Call
by Jeff Neuman July 25, 2019

July 25, 2019

All, I just wanted to draw everyone’s attention to the fact that we will likely be starting our next discussion on Applicant Support on the July 25th Working Group call at 15:00 UTC. The reason we are specifically calling this out is because this has been one of the topics that has generated the most amount of interest from the community and the most amount of dissatisfaction from the community on how it was handled in the 2012 round. Although we have a few recommendations from the initial report and some back up for those, we really want to encourage discussion on developing more specific recommendations. Yes, we all know that there is wide dissatisfaction on the way it was handled before, but without concrete recommendations from the community, we will not be able to do better this next time around. Thanks! Reminder: Materials for tomorrow’s call can be found at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq…. Applicant Support starts at page 17. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive , Suite 600 Mclean , VA 22102 UNITED STATES T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS: Please note that we always confirm receipt of orders. To assist us in identifying orders, please use the word ORDER in the subject line of your email. If you have sent us an order and have not received confirmation on the same working day (PST) it is possible that your order has not been received or has been trapped by our spam filter. In this case, please contact your client manager or admin(a)comlaude.com for confirmation that the order has been received and is being processed. Thank you. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 2:13 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Application Submission Period, page 14 * Applicant Support, page 17 * Terms and Conditions, page 24 (time permitting) 3. AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

5 4

Leadership Presentation to GNSO Council and Convening of Small Teams on Predictability Framework and RSP Pre-Approval
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

Thank you Jim for the link to the Leadership presentation to GNSO Council on July 18. Attached for information are two slides which Jeff and Cheryl presented. Separately, I have been looking for the small group emails on Predictability Framework and RSP Pre-Approval but may have missed them. Is anything happening? As conveyed to the IPC on our monthly call today, two calls per week are proving too much given my current workload. I do believe other IPC members are stepping up at this time in terms of active call participation. Please advise re the above two small groups and include me on those. I note re Jeff’s presentation to Council the Principle that if Consensus is not reached on these small team items, there will be no change to the 2012 policy. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.622.3088 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D54174.10930520] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 12:16 AM To: Michelle DeSmyter <michelle.desmyter(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group / Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ One of the AOB items I asked for was a recap of the SubPro update to the GNSO Council, which Jeff succinctly provided. I just found a recording of that session for those who are interested – starts at 1:14 into the recording and runs for about 15 minutes. https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/Qr81olKVJKfzG2mpwOcYGSN659FwXIPfAa8VJ_… Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group jim(a)galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com> +1 202-285-3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 6:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group / Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/cIqjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Application Submission Period, page 14 * Applicant Support, page 17 * Terms and Conditions, page 24 (time permitting) 3. AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 23 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 23 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-23+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: From 15 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work. From 18 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates to statements of interests. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made. a. Application Fees, start with timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6: Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence Timing of Disbursement of Excess Funds: -- INTA Comment: Think if this is a good idea, we'd have to think about how this relates to the cost component. -- ACTION Re: These comments - link this topic to the entire discussion on what it means to close around and then just leave it at this point. Revenue shortfall: -- The whole idea of excess funds and shortfalls is kind of artificial. Seems like an accounting question and the idea of whether there's a shortfall or excess funds. Especially excess funds really seems to depend on kind of how you decide to think about the money that that comes from the fees. And the idea that you know that you would somehow refund. -- So you have to go back to the original premise right when we first started talking about fees, we agreed on the notion that this program should be self-funded. It should not draw on funds from other I can't programs and that it should be essentially a cost recovery. The fee should be selling a cost recovery basis, albeit potentially with a floor that we talked about on the last call. -- Essentially what we're saying on the front end is that this program should be self-funded and that it should be treated separate and apart and accounted for separate and apart from the rest of icons activities. So it does stand to reason that because it is a separate program there will, or could easily be access or funds or a shortfall. And the question is: What we do with those. And right now I can doesn't have any kind of guidance in terms of what to do. Well with the existing access. But putting that aside because we're not, this is not a policy that is able to be retroactive. But this is a policy that's got to look to future rounds. So I'm not sure why you think it's theoretical. -- The reason we're sticking to that original premise is because that's what we had in our initial report, and that's what the comments seem to support. The original premise is still in play. -- We've been told that there has been no cross subsidization. -- Not questioning the premise that the fees should be set, you know, essentially, in a, you know, cost recovery mode. But, in other words, that the fee should not be, you know, intentionally a cash cow. For ICANN to intentionally run a deficit. If there are refunds, then we have the whole question of who gets a refund. But that's meant to say is that money should go back to applicants. So at that point, actually probably be mostly registries. -- Understanding that ICANN will develop a business case at some point in the future. -- If the policy is that fees are set on a cost recovery. How is there any other conclusion than to return the access to the applicants. -- So it is cost recovery. But there's also a concept of if cost recovery turns out to be too low. There is this notion that seemed to get some level of support in the community about setting a floor. -- If we went purely on cost recovery then logic would dictate that it would be refunded. But if we set a floor. Then there's going to be some access that would need to be dispersed. Alternatively, there doesn't need to be any link between cost recovery based pricing and refunds. Warehousing/squatting and potential deterrents [related to notion of an application fee floor]: -- Some commenters said there is no evidence of warehousing/squatting. -- But that if we do want to turn a certain type of behavior that we would classify as one of these, we have to be very careful in defining or creating definitions so that we understand what behavior we're trying to discourage. And right now there are no definitions of what it means to warehouse or squat on a top level domain. -- There definitely were comments in support of setting a floor if the fees were too low, but a lack of agreement in the comments as to what behavior we're trying to deter. It doesn't mean that these aren't legitimate concerns. It's just that there is no agreement that what this actually means. -- Set a price, where the money for this isn't a money losing proposition for I can, nor is that a total cash cow is a perfectly valid concept, but at the same time that can't be the only concept on which we price and it can't be the only concept by which we account for the money. Anything that is just a blind obsession with cost recovery. -- The question is: what does speculation mean, where's the line between speculation and essentially a legitimate secondary market where the ones that weren't doing as well were selling out to the ones that could do something with it. -- But what is that behavior that we're trying to deter by setting that floor, what it means, what the behavior is that we're trying to guard against so that when we do a review after the fact, we could say, you know what it turns out that price was too low or that floor was too low, because we have this type of activity that's occurring and therefore we should increase or decrease the floor. What we're looking for a criteria for how you judge whether you've achieved your cost recovery. -- There's a certainly a fear that if the price is too low. It will encourage some less desirable behaviors. What we're being asked to do is to set out what we would think would be those less desirable behaviors such that when we do a subsequent review, we could say that price that was set the floor didn't work because of X, Y, and Z. So we're trying to establish some criteria. -- One thing obviously will have to be a formula to determine what the floor is. But another one is, what is the behavior we're trying to guard against so that when we do review after the fact, we can you know assess whether that floor achieved its goal. Considerations/implications of revenue neutral in continuous rounds: -- Really to make sure we think about this in a holistic approach where you have multiple rounds. Number two, you provide some sort of periodic review and three that you can make adjustments as needed in between, at least in between. ICANN being a so-called “registry of registries” (i.e., does the community envision ICANN approving a few thousand / hundreds of thousands / millions of gTLDs to be added to the root? Should there be a cap?) [Connection to 2.2.5 Application Submission Limits & 2.7.6.1 (Root Scaling)] [ACTION: MOVE THESE COMMENTS TO THOSE SECTIONS] -- These comments really refer to two other points. One is application submission limits and we already addressed that subject several weeks ago and the other is on root scaling, which we also addressed. -- Make sure that these items are moved from this section, which deals with fees to the sections that deal with either application submission limits or root scaling. Structuring fee to encourage competition and innovation: -- Comments support the notion of increasing competition by not artificially raising fees higher than the costs. -- Doesn’t make sense to couple the cost recovery question with a question whether pricing is so high that you freeze out all but the largest potential competitors, or so low that you have other unintended consequences. -- What the comments are saying is if you set a floor and that floor is higher than the cost recovery, then you need to make sure that whatever floor you are setting does not adversely impact competition. b. Variable Fees, page 10: High-Level Agreements -- none. Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence: -- Comments do still support recovering costs associated with the new gTLD program. And to make sure that whatever fee is set that it fully funds, the program being at being revenue neutral and that it's not subsidized by existing contribution. So that is the principle that no matter what we do with variable pricing, we need to keep in the back of our mind. -- Lots of varying comments. -- The most diverse group of comments supported the notion that no, we should just have the same price per application, no matter what they are applying for. -- Some commenters support the notion of same fee for no matter what type of application. -- Some commenters talked about potential different fees for different groups. -- ACTION: We'll put this out to the list as well. But do we think we should have further discussions. Is there a support for the notion of if someone wants to apply for multiple strings that there should be some kind of discount because in theory, you don't have to do the full evaluation every single time. -- Question to consider: if you have different legal entities, one for each application would those still have to be treated as individual applications and not the same, or as we talk about a registrar world with, you know, with families? Answer: Get agreement on the high-level concept first, then consider the details. -- If we are going to get into the game of variable pricing then we have to examine every plausible and probable argument for discounts, such as discounts for communities or discounts for brands or discounts, but on a policy basis. If we go down this road, it's, it's a complete rabbit hole. And ultimately just ends up making all kinds of value decisions and probably also power based decisions. -- Based on the comments and the discussion on this call there doesn’t seem to be support for going down this path. c. Application Submission Period, page 14: High-Level Agreements: -- We think there's high-level agreement that if the next application opportunity structured as a round commenters generally support a fixed application window of at least three months. -- Also, support for in the event that following the next round of new gTLDs, application opportunities are organized as a series of application windows, steps related to application processing and delegation should be able to occur in parallel with the opening of subsequent application windows. 3. AOB: Items from Jim Predergast a. String similarity: -- Kobe meeting -- ccNSO Council and GNSO Council met and ccNSO said they would be doing work on string similarity in their fast-track process. Potential to create a CCWG on this topic. -- Discussions came down to the fact that the processes in the fast track are very different. Common element of visual analysis there are elements that are different. -- GNSO has been discussing these issues so we are far down that path. -- Regardless of what happens, we still need to do a PDP, so not in favor of forming a new group. -- Council will have to decide what it wants to do, but our recommendation was that we keep moving with the process that we're going down now. b. Update to the GNSO Council: -- All PDP WG leadership teams were on the agenda at the GNSO Council meeting on 18 July. -- Cheryl and Jeff presented on where we could use the GNSO Council’s help and areas they should be paying attention to. -- GNSO and ccNSO Councils do meet regularly. See the recording of that session for those who are interested – starts at 1:14 into the recording and runs for about 15 minutes: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/Qr81olKVJKfzG2mpwOcYGSN659FwXIPfAa8VJ_…

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group / Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/cIqjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… * Application Fees, start with timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6 * Variable Fees, page 10 * Application Submission Period, page 14 (time permitting) 3. AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference. If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Hi Jim, Thanks very much for these helpful requests. They are noted. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim(a)GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Friday, July 19, 2019 at 2:54 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019 Thanks Julie I had put an AOB request into chat but there was no call for AOB as we were short on time and it appears the chat feed was only captured after the recording started. What you can see is my willingness to move it to the next call due to time constraints. My item for AOB was an update/explanation of some correspondence I saw between the co-chairs and members of the GNSO council on string similarity. Specifically with regards to an effort the ccNSO may undertake on string similarity for ccTLDs and how that may or may not include similar concerns for gTLDs. The email is here ( https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2019-July/022881.html) but since many in the PDP may have missed it, it may be worthwhile to touch on it and explain the decision taken by leadership. Especially as it has the potential for two standards on the same topic. If we could also get a readout from the leadership briefing to the GNSO council that too may be beneficial. If providing these via email is a better alternative, I’m open to that. The next call is in the timeslot that typically has the lowest participation so it may actually be more beneficial. Thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 11:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 18 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: From 15 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work. From 18 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made. Note that these are called out as actions below. a. Application Fees: Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence -- INTA comments seem to be contradictory: Maybe saying that the cost that ICANN is going to expend per TLD application should come from other sources thus driving the cost down and encouraging frivolous application. There are ways that the price could be below cost recovery. INTA doesn’t support it being unnecessarily expensive. So, not really divergence with the cost recovery summary. It is okay with cost recovery if it includes all of the costs. Comments on the scope of what should be included for cost-recovery: ACTION: Any support for the three new ideas? Application fee floor: -- Question: Thought the idea of the floor is that it is separate from the application fee -- it is used to determine what happens with any excess funds. Answer: It’s not a component of the fee (as we worded it in the Initial Report). Is that every application would cost a different amount. ICANN has to determine the total cost of the program but can’t divide it to figure out how much each application would be. -- Recommendations don’t address how to control warehousing. But this is not meant to define TLD warehousing as part of the rationale to not have it go to low. -- On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Disbursement of excess fees (with no price floor): ACTION: Any support for these new ideas? To the extent that they are inconsistent with the above recommendations in the high-level agreements no need to spend more time on them. Circumstances where revenue-cost neutral amount results in a refund that is greater than the application fee floor value: -- NOTE: for accounting reasons it might be better to have refunds (if any) in the form of discounts/NOTE Disbursement of excess fees (with an application fee floor): ACTION: Is there support for any of these new ideas? **Next call start with the timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6**

2 1

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 18 July 2019
by Julie Hedlund July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 18 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-18+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: From 15 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance. ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work. From 18 July 2019: ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wq… Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made. Note that these are called out as actions below. a. Application Fees: Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence -- INTA comments seem to be contradictory: Maybe saying that the cost that ICANN is going to expend per TLD application should come from other sources thus driving the cost down and encouraging frivolous application. There are ways that the price could be below cost recovery. INTA doesn’t support it being unnecessarily expensive. So, not really divergence with the cost recovery summary. It is okay with cost recovery if it includes all of the costs. Comments on the scope of what should be included for cost-recovery: ACTION: Any support for the three new ideas? Application fee floor: -- Question: Thought the idea of the floor is that it is separate from the application fee -- it is used to determine what happens with any excess funds. Answer: It’s not a component of the fee (as we worded it in the Initial Report). Is that every application would cost a different amount. ICANN has to determine the total cost of the program but can’t divide it to figure out how much each application would be. -- Recommendations don’t address how to control warehousing. But this is not meant to define TLD warehousing as part of the rationale to not have it go to low. -- On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify. Disbursement of excess fees (with no price floor): ACTION: Any support for these new ideas? To the extent that they are inconsistent with the above recommendations in the high-level agreements no need to spend more time on them. Circumstances where revenue-cost neutral amount results in a refund that is greater than the application fee floor value: -- NOTE: for accounting reasons it might be better to have refunds (if any) in the form of discounts/NOTE Disbursement of excess fees (with an application fee floor): ACTION: Is there support for any of these new ideas? **Next call start with the timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6**

3 2

Post Call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group | Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/kaijBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0