[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue

Tue Jan 31 21:23:47 UTC 2017

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 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 31 January
2017 at 20:00 UTC.
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn
so-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsubsequent-2D16may16-2Den.mp3&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll
3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_
fjAZ8X8f1kW0l0GMcnTYAJub8JIzI-nbGkDB_FNy0s&s=Xc2HCgoInyY4sazVMVxejDycY3Vw2SB
D9TFBrxEGM60&e=> 

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

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Mailing list archives:  <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

Wiki page:  <https://community.icann.org/x/SbPDAw>
https://community.icann.org/x/SbPDAw

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri 

-------------------------------

Adobe Connect chat transcript for 31 January 2017

  Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track
1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue  call on Tuesday, 31 January 2017
at 20:00 UTC.

  Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_S
bPDAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
SbPDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC
IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=c_pDZyAeBhAPJgAZAcBoWpAtMU0PNiGObWx1b7l87H
8&s=j94kSGThskTNFTXyuO5LUAHU3fHhQRd36JDgoUykQBs&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=c_pDZyAeBhAPJgAZAcBoWpAtMU0PNiGObWx1b7l87H8&s=j9
4kSGThskTNFTXyuO5LUAHU3fHhQRd36JDgoUykQBs&e= 

  Emily Barabas:at the moment everyone can scroll for themselves

  Emily Barabas:but we can control the slides if you prefer

  Jeff Neuman:@Steve - We will come up with something to call it other than
"lottery"

  Jeff Neuman:We can call it "Randomization Process" for now

  Steve Chan:Thanks. I have an open request to ICANN legal for input on the
viability of the prioritization draw, or similar, in the future.

  Donna Austin, Neustar:Hi All, sorry for the delay in joining.

  Kurt Pritz:ICANN called it a "raffle" for important reasons. I thin we
should adopt that wording if we are indicating that we want to recommend the
same process

  Sara Bockey:Thank you, Kurt. We will note that.

  Jeff Neuman:it is a good question to ask the community, but it would be
helpful for this group to discuss as well

  Julie Hedlund:@Jeff has his hand up.

  Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jeff, that there is a distinction in
communication between the first v subsequent window application/

  Jim Prendergast:yes - agreed

  Jon Nevett:No weight?

  Jim Prendergast:When does cost recovery from previous round stop and cost
recovery for this next procedure/round start?

  Phil Buckingham:+1 Donna ,   so we have two application fee elements ? a
fixed price + variable cost plus   ?  

  Jeff Neuman:Correct, I dont think what groups paid in the first round
should have any weight

  Jeff Neuman:It didnt have any weight in the 2005 round or the 2012 round

  Jon Nevett:cause it went up

  Donna Austin, Neustar:I think the same applies with regard to what
financial information is required, ie. if there is no requirement for a COI.

  Jeff Neuman:Technically the first TLDs paid nothing.......but the 2000
round did not argue for parity

  Jim Prendergast:I think we need to ask ICANN why they insisted on
evaluating RSP over and over and see if those reasons still stand.  We can
make all the arguments we want but if ICANN legal says that we did it for
liablity prevention reasons, I don tthink our outcome whill change that

  Jeff Neuman:@Jim - if you read the implementation plan, they did not
indicate that they did that for any liability reasons

  Jon Nevett:Agree with Donna that the $185K should have some weight

  Jeff Neuman:In fact, I believe their input was the opposite.....

  Jeff Neuman:sorry I meant the ICANN Implementation review

  Kurt Pritz:One way to think about it: if the cost is $20K, do we agree
with cost recovery; if the cost is $50K do we agree with cost recovery; if
the cost is $100K do we agree with cost recovery?

  Jon Nevett:needs more explanation

  Jeff Neuman:you may need to repeat

  Donna Austin, Neustar:What invoicing are we reffering to?

  Jim Prendergast:application fee invoicing

  Jon Nevett:invoicing the $185K?

  Jeff Neuman:I think all we are saying is that we agree that there should
be an invoicing process when applying for TLDs

  Donna Austin, Neustar:Wasn't there an initial $5k fee to sign up and then
the remainder was due on completion?

  Jeff Neuman:As opposed to having to get in the money a few weeks before or
whatever the process was

  Jeff Neuman:Many big companies have rules that they can only pay after
receiving a valid invoice

  Steve Chan:Or make it available on request? I recall, maybe incorrectly,
someone saying that having an invoice is actually problematic?

  Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Applicants that needed a
statement/invoice (generally larger companies and governments) had to
request such from ICANN for the 185k and ICANN eventually provided something

  Jim Prendergast:Xavier has a few years to figure that out

  Jon Nevett:ahh -- ok -- seems like an implementation issue not a policy
one

  Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:perhaps refer to what ICANN
provided last time and make it available upon request

  Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree Jon

  Trang Nguyen:@Jon, agree. We can figure that out in implementation.

  Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:correct Jon, this is very much an
implementation issue

  Emily Barabas:staff is prepared to do a topic summary if you would like

  Emily Barabas:yes

  Phil Buckingham:Exactly Jim .  

  Jeff Neuman:all of these topics were referred to us by the GNSO whether
considered policy or implementation.  IF we want to provide guidance, we
should.....if not, that is fine too

  Jeff Neuman:The systems issue is not really policy either, but more
implementation...but it is part of the subsequent procedures

  Jon Nevett:if get into that level of detail on every issue, 2020 will be
optimistic

  Jeff Neuman:I am not sure we are getting too deep.  We are just
recommending that an invoicing process be made available.

  Jon Nevett:Systems should be safe and secure -- avoiding glitches and data
breaches that we have had in the past

  Jeff Neuman:For systems, we may recommend better usability........ability
to copy applications....ability to do non-ASCII

  Jon Nevett:ok and better user experience

  Emily
Barabas:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_e
n_system_files_files_program-2Dreview-2D29jan16-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJ
p6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4x
R2EBk&m=c_pDZyAeBhAPJgAZAcBoWpAtMU0PNiGObWx1b7l87H8&s=BOI2FGTt9aGdRTuJJNsOhL
CxZCcRW_s7eeBpgHVbciA&e=  

  Jeff Neuman:Perhaps for the next call, we can summarize the ICANN staff
recommendations...and if they make sense, just sign off on them

  Donna Austin, Neustar 2:The recommendations on this should be high level
and not in the weeds.

  Emily Barabas:@jeff, staff can do this

  Phil Buckingham:we require changes to the CZDS . For starters -  not to
have toreapply every 90 days to every single Registry  ! 

  Jeff Neuman:@Phil...I am not sure that CZDS falls within our mandate

  Jeff Neuman:The requirement to provide a zone file as a requirement would
be, but not sure that that system is for us

  Emily
Barabas:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__newgtlds.icann.o
rg_en_about_historical-2D&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4
I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=c_pDZyAeBhAPJgAZAcBoWpA
tMU0PNiGObWx1b7l87H8&s=kg_hwuKqbmoU3yiS69d62rxctgGzbDEnsWtEVayZlqQ&e=
documentation/matrix-plans 

  Emily Barabas:The program implementation review document discusses
Communications on pg 189

  Emily
Barabas:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_e
n_system_files_files_program-2Dreview-2D29jan16-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJ
p6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4x
R2EBk&m=c_pDZyAeBhAPJgAZAcBoWpAtMU0PNiGObWx1b7l87H8&s=BOI2FGTt9aGdRTuJJNsOhL
CxZCcRW_s7eeBpgHVbciA&e=  

  Jeff Neuman:Agree with Donna on communications after applications were
submitted.  But someone needs to go through the application knowledge
database and clean that up.

  Emily Barabas:staff can provide a summary of these recommendations as well
on the next call

  Christa Taylor:Perhaps we can pull some metrics out of there

  Jeff Neuman:Because communications during the application phase was not
the greatest

  Phil Buckingham:@ jeff , I agree CZDS is outside our mandate , but
Registry reporting  of  their zone file data is  ? 

  Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall
Process/Support/Outreach Issue  will take place on Tuesday, 14 February 2017
at 3:00 UTC. 

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now then 

  Donna Austin, Neustar 2:Thanks Sara and Christa

  Trang Nguyen:Thank you! Bye!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170131/7967385a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attenance TRACK 1 31 January 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 212059 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170131/7967385a/attenanceTRACK131January2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Track1- 31 January 2017.mp3
Type: audio/mpeg
Size: 6927569 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170131/7967385a/Track1-31January2017-0001.mp3>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170131/7967385a/smime-0001.p7s>