Hi Jim, Thanks very much for these helpful requests. They are noted. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Friday, July 19, 2019 at 2:54 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@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@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 11:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@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+Pro.... 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-MxVAb3wqE... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 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**