[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 13 June 2017

Tue Jun 13 12:48:28 UTC 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 13 June.  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.

Please note that for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below.  

Best,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Actions/Discussion Notes:

1. Topic review and progress on systems, communications, and applications fees:

See the Google Document at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw/edit#gid=1442059046

Question: How can the systems used to support the New gTLD Program, such as TAS, Centralized Zone Data Service, Portal, etc., be made more robust, user friendly, and better integrated?

-- Lobbying for multiple issues or logins; integrated to one.

-- Different levels of access.

Communication: Examine access to and content within knowledge base as well as communication methods between ICANN and the community.

-- It might be a future state that what they use in the past is not necessarily what they will use in the future.  That is likely an implementation element, as opposed to policy.

-- Note sure what communications we are talking about here.  Suggest that we are talking about communication more broadly -- communication about the program.

-- Subscription opt-in communications: The intent was the communication between ICANN and the applicant.

-- Adequate and timely outreach to developing countries -- what is the connection?  Answer:  On is applicant support and the other is to opt in.

-- Any new gTLD should be cost neutral in ICANN's budget.  That might be a better way of thinking about it than cost recovery.  We have no idea how many applications we'll get in the next round.  We don't know what the capacity issue is.

-- Like the term "cost neutral" and further refine between the time of the launch and the time in which applicants sign an agreement.

Application Fees:

Evaluate accuracy of cost estimates and/or review the methodology to develop the cost model, while still adhering to the principle of cost recovery.  Examine how payment processing can be improved.

-- Suggestion: For clarity it would be helpful if we took those two first sentences apart and put the sub-point under them.  There was leeway in determining historical costs.

-- It is quite clear that the comments we have received are all over the map.  Not sure how to include them since they are all over the map.  It is not clear that the fees will cover the cost to ICANN and I think we need to address that. There also is the cost of ramping up.  I think you need to look at what put this program in place.

-- Not sure it is within our scope what registries pay ICANN.  Don't see us deciding what smaller or larger registries should pay.  Seems beyond the scope.

-- How to create a policy around the access funds?

Application Fees: Feedback from the community

-- Question re: each applicant posting a deposit of $1,000,000 in order to qualify to bid to operate a new gTLD?  Answer: These are some of the highlights on the different angles we hadn't heard yet.  This comment is quite original and we haven't discussion it yet.

-- Jumping to slide 14 -- Application fees 14.4  - Use of Excess Funds

-- CCWG on Auction Proceeds is going to look at the proceeds from contention sets.

-- We need to look at the cost of the overall program.  Also will have to address the problem of what if things are underfunded?  Look at what we do if the program is underfunded -- where would we get the money from?

>From the chat:

Michael Flemming: What are all the portals or systems that could centralized?

Michael Flemming: Sorry that goes back to the previous topic.

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.

Michael Flemming: Thank you, Steve.

Michael Flemming: So we will leave these at recommendations and allow it to be decided in implementation. Well understood, thank you!

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 other words, 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 assumed 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: Agree on that it should be time bound. 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Fair point Jeff I can support that

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.

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 haven’t 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

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 ;)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170613/d88badab/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170613/d88badab/smime-0001.p7s>