[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
Terri Agnew
terri.agnew at icann.org
Tue Jun 13 04:23:10 UTC 2017
Dear All,
Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email.
The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held
on Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC.
Adobe Connect recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p9scdni1ceb/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=fe4916c8d08a1d57
b6033c272f8baf21b82328e1f63d18ee81e3277664cd772f>
https://participate.icann.org/p9scdni1ceb/
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
Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/ERLfAw>
https://community.icann.org/x/ERLfAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
-------------------------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 June 2017
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team -
Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 13 June
2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes
Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_E
RLfAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
ERLfAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC
IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=0K10mBy4jHOg4U63DDMB9i2OJDzQPAjdwQ_XR_iXpo
0&s=TboFt15bK3-_i0YzzjTYnNIqYT3s-07POfSIxz1tnsk&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=0K10mBy4jHOg4U63DDMB9i2OJDzQPAjdwQ_XR_iXpo0&s=Tb
oFt15bK3-_i0YzzjTYnNIqYT3s-07POfSIxz1tnsk&e=
Sarah L:No different Sarah :-)
Terri Agnew:everyone can turn the slides themselves
Michael Flemming:We can all scroll.
Michael Flemming:Multiple logins!
Michael Flemming:or multiple users.
Michael Flemming:exactly
Michael Flemming:What are all the portals or systems that could
centralized?
Michael Flemming:Sorry that goes back to the previous topic.
Steve Chan:please go donna
Michael Flemming:So we will leave these at recommendations and allow it to
be decided in implementation. Well understood, thank you!
Steve Chan:@Michael, the WG can develop recommendations around systems or
communications. it can also develop implementation guidace as well. or, as
you said, some specifics can be determined during implementation.
Steve Chan:Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to cut off discussion in any
way.
Michael Flemming:Thank you, Steve.
Jeff Neuman:Adequate outreach can also mean language support as well?
Jeff Neuman:Those who want to file objections or public comments may need
to be communicated with as well
Jeff Neuman:could that be a distinction
Donna Austin, Neustar:I think we need more clarity around what this is
supposed to address
Jeff Neuman:In other words the "knowledge base" was not only for
applicants, but for the whole community of participants
Jeff Neuman:We should update this with the tie from the discussions
earlier in the full group on the model
Jeff Neuman:(FCFS vs. Rounds)
Jeff Neuman:@Donna - Agree. It is amount of fees vs process to make
payments
Donna Austin, Neustar:right
Jeff Neuman:Point a relates to the latter
Christa Taylor:Its annotated
Christa Taylor:#annotated
Michael Flemming:Legal contingency as in projected legal costs for
litigation?
Jeff Neuman:The $185,000 was based on 3 elements and assuming only 500
applications. (i) cost of evaluation/processing of applications, (ii)
Historical costs and (iii) legal contingency fees. Do we have agreement
these are the same types of fees we should be paying for going forward
Jeff Neuman:In otherwords, is that the formula we should apply moving
forward? Should we still reimburse "historical costs"? What does that
mean?
Jeff Neuman:Deposit of $1 Million was only in the case of an auction.
Michael Flemming:As long as that is clear.
Jeff Neuman:I am not sure where this comment came from though
Michael Flemming:Thank you.
Donna Austin, Neustar:@Christa, so this is just a sample of the comments
submitted?
Christa Taylor:yes it does not cover all of them but items that we may
have not considered or discussed to date. The link has all of the responses
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Surely the Historical costs were cost recovered
with the over subscription compared to the assummed 500 of applicant last
round
Jeff Neuman:It sounds like some want to add a 4th element (and that is a
floor)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I believe it needs to include eval and legal
contingency but the rest... hmmm
Jeff Neuman:eg., if the elements of (i) though (iii) is too low, then make
the price the floor.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree with cost neutral yes
Michael Flemming:yes
Donna Austin, Neustar:a
Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree on that it should be time bound.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Fair point Jeff I can support that
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes it did Jeff
Michael Flemming:My question is whether or not historical costs included
unexpected delays in the program. I am for time bound costs as Jeff
suggests, but I don't think there is a garuntee that a cost neutral would
allow for unexpected delays.
Michael Flemming:Registry level fees should pay for compliance.
Michael Flemming:yes
Terri Agnew:finding the line
Christa Taylor:we can hear it
Sarah L:It seems like there is an established mechanism within ICANN for
dealing with excess funds but I am not sure there are mechanisms in place
for dealing with scenarios or projects that are under-funded. Like Alan I
would rather see a transparent active and robust compliance department and
ensure there is funding in place for that.
Donna Austin, Neustar:My compartmentalisation is consistent with Jeff's
Alan Greenberg:I am still not sure how we reconcile the two opposite
positions of 1) ultimately a TLD should not be more expensive than a 2nd
level name; and 2) you are buying a core part of the Internet, a finite
resource, and this should not be be cheap.
Jeff Neuman:Sarah brings up a good comment that we have not
addressed....which is what if the program is underfunded?
Jeff Neuman:lets make sure we do not lose that question
Donna Austin, Neustar:I don't believe the first dot point is within the
purview of this group either.
Michael Flemming:Jeff, Sarah does bring up an important question, but we
did consider that didn't we? That was our entire base for considering
cost-recovery in the first place, no?
Steve Chan:@Jeff, there is a question in CC2 about excess or deficient
funding
Steve Chan:1.4.5 - Should the WG seek to establish more clarity in how the
excess or deficiency of funds are utilized/recovered? If so, do you have any
suggestions for establishing that clarity?
Jeff Neuman:@Steve - thanks.....but I just want to make sure we as a group
discuss it too
Jeff Neuman:I havent read all the comments yet, but I am curious to see if
anyone addressed the concept of underfunding. My guess is most people
assumed overfunding
Jeff Neuman:But I could be wrong
Michael Flemming:I think as Jeff suggested, that there is a tendency that
1) That either the program was overfunded so fees should be lower or 2) In
the event that expenses did not occur that, then those should be refunded.
The problem here is that the consideration of refunding of fees in the
current round have come to late in the game. I think what would satisfy many
people is that if the floor was set at a similar price/model to what we have
now with a promise for return of fees not occured once a contract is signed.
Michael Flemming:Tendency in how people are responding.
Michael Flemming:How do most registries feel about excess funds being used
for community outreach rather than being returned in some way to the
registry?
Sarah L:ICANN could channel funds into increasing trust of the industry
Donna Austin, Neustar:@Sarah L: that's a nice idea but how do you do that
and what would the metrics be?
Michael Flemming:If registries are happy to allow excess funds to be used
in some way other than being returned to them, I feel that it would be
important to perhaps have a separate PDP for determining excess funds? Or is
this a necessity to have something in writing before we finish our PDP?
Sarah L:@Donna I must admit I hadnt thought of it in that level of detail
- iI agree there are alot of divergent opinons on this
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):That would be helpful Christa
Michael Flemming:Thats a good question Donna, but I think that those fees
are different to those paid in auction.
Michael Flemming:I mean auction fees vs excess applicant fees.
Michael Flemming:The principle behind them, I mean.
Edmon:one thing useful to bring up is that the outreach and funds
supporting applicants and as donna said for universal acceptance, etc.
should not be confused or punted completely to the auction proceeds fund
Jeff Neuman:ICANN Bake Sale ;)
Alan Greenberg:Would be some mighty expensive brownies!
Michael Flemming:Further to the point, if we are going to have excess fees
for Universal Acceptance outreach, then there needs to be a clear cut plan
for outreach. An actual piece of marketing that works.
Jeff Neuman:The reality is that we can never de-risk any program
completely. Some level of risk has to be taken on by ICANN
Sara Bockey:thank you all
Alan Greenberg:Indeed Jeff!
Jeff Neuman:Thanks all!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thanks everyone... Lots to discuss still... but
for now ... bye...
Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Christa and Sara
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170613/1fa55580/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance track 1 13 June 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 326782 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170613/1fa55580/attendancetrack113June2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AC Chat track 1 13 June 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 218741 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170613/1fa55580/ACChattrack113June2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- 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/20170613/1fa55580/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1
mailing list