Dear Emily, colleagues.

I will be speaking in an event about Privacy Monday morning, so not be able to participate. My apologies!

However

Here some comments about the points to be debated

1. ( Section 1.5  item c.2 ) -  I am still not think that to implement  this recommendation ( refund applicants)  will be an easy and/or fair task- I believe keep the excess in a fund for destinations as described in item c.4, will cost less to ICANN’s administration, otherwise the administration cost may generate more fee cost to all.  
2. ( Section 1.5 item e) : What are the considerations/implications if we move to continuous rounds, especially as it relates to ensuring the program is run in a revenue neutral manner?

Refund solution will not work in this alternative. the Application administration for a continuous rounds will probably use the same “more accurate applicant fee” and will need to have a more reduced but permanent structure to face continuous application. Adjustment of the applicant fee will be a continuous task and shall be monitoring annually reporting to the community. Additionally the whole external support, as independent panels,  shall be registered as a list of persons open to join in a different panels, any time, for an specific task they are experts. For each application, when needed a  reduced panel of 3  will be selected for a working day to analyse the application. 

3. Under the circumstance where the application fee is set at the floor amount, do you have additional suggestions or strategy on the disbursement of excess funds?

I believe the best alterative will be in Fund to be disbursed as defined in isection1.5 c.4.

My 2 cents

 Have a successful meeting

Dear WG Members,

Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 21 May 2018 at 15:00 UTC, for 90 minutes.

1.      Agenda Review

2.      Roll Call/SOIs

3.      Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org) in advance of the meeting.

1.      Section 1.5: Application Submission (Application Fees; Variable Fees; Application Submission Period; Applicant Support; Terms & Conditions)

2.      Section 1.6: Application Processing (Application Queuing)

3.      Time Permitting, Section 1.10: Contracting (Base Registry Agreement, Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization)

4.      Time Permitting, Section 1.11: Pre-Delegation (Registry System Testing)

4.      AOB

For Item 3, the relevant documents are attached. As a reminder, please note that a resource page has been set up on the Wiki to track the distribution of Initial Report sections, which you can find here: https://community.icann.org/x/NwUhB. As you can see in the link, the following sections have been released:

1.2: Overarching Issues

1.4: Pre-Launch Activities

1.5: Application Submission

1.6: Application Processing

1.7: Application Evaluation/Criteria

1.10: Contracting

1.11: Pre-Delegation

1.12: Post-Delegation

Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs@icann.org).

Kind regards,

Emily