[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 13 December

[Steve Chan]

Dear Sub Team Members,

 

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 December.  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 recording.  Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings.

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

Notes and Action Items 13 December

 

 

4. Applicant Support

 

- Financial support by itself is inadequate (e.g., coaching, mentoring, partnering)

 

- Need perspectives of those in relevant areas

 

- Rubens - one idea is to lift a bit vertical integration restrictions for under-developed markets

 

 

5. Application Process & Cost

 

-  Clarity of Application Process

 

    - Clarifying Questions, Streamline Answer Submission, Contacts by Categories, Knowledge Database

 

- Streamline Answer Submissions

 

    - Re: RSP "tick a box" to note using RSP (already identified via RSP discussion, should be tied back here)

 

- What is the purpose of seeing the actual CQ and responses versus the themes, categories, etc. as identified in the PIRR?

 

- Trang - As Donna mentioned, CQs could be indicative of the nature of the question, which is not a process issue. They could also be an indication of the non-structured way that answers were collected, which is a process issue that can be fixed. 

 

 

6. Application Submission Period & Queuing 

 

- Is there a floor price that should be established to avoid TLDs becoming a commodity? Or ceiling?

 

- Invoices - allow for generation, but make it optional (since there may be tax implications)

 

- Should $185k have any bearing on future costing estimates/models?

 

- Cost recovery was basis for 2012 round - should that carry forward? It's very difficult to do without a true understanding of demand (e.g., 2012 round had far more than the estimated 500 applications)

 

- Is there support for cost recovery in future processes? What are the alternatives? 

 

    - Rubens - "market value" pricing

 

- Donna - Went with fixed fee because demand was unknown

 

- Cheryl - Support the concept of cost-recovery, thinks that first-movers assume some risks, higher costs. As such, uneven playing field is ok.

 

- Alan - Supports points of Cheryl. How/who puts forward a number?

 

- Rubens - Perhaps the policy and the implementation drifted apart, but the policy guidance was cost-recovery and this still seems to resonante with people. 

 

- Kurt - we won't know costs until the policy and implementation work is done, i.e., when we have a new question set. E.g., if categories are included, that would drive costs up; and the form of objection processes drive costs also. 

 

- Support from multiple commenters to stick with previous approach from 2012 round.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steven Chan


Sr. Policy Manager



 

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


steve.chan at icann.org

direct: +1.310.301.3886


mobile: +1.310.339.4410

tel: +1.310.301.5800

fax: +1.310.823.8649

 

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.

 

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ 

http://gnso.icann.org/en/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20161213/9f516d40/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20161213/9f516d40/smime.p7s>