[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team ­ Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 28 February 2017

[Michelle DeSmyter]

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, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC.
<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3>

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#nov>



** 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



Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/l7PDAw



Thank you.

Kind regards,

Michelle



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

Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 February 2017

 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall/Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC
  Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_l7PDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Pm1-pWotOuHYqTjqjyIygMc4aongmmbOhyyZdooF-fE&s=LAHKBIicA2RgD54ZhbPv2_a8cFRgrg9weMjp34zXSao&e=
  Sara Bockey:please mute if not speaking
  Ashley Roberts:I'm happy with the AGB as the correct methodology. There may be a case for small changes based on individual implementation changes, but in general the AGB does the job.
  Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late.
  Vanda Scartezini:sorry to be late, it is carnival here - very noise place - just listen.
  Vanda Scartezini:agree with jeff. not by the kind of application
  Christa Taylor:Thanks Vanda.
  Jeff Neuman:Part of the problem was that ICANN believed it had to develop cusomized systems at the beignning as opposed to looking at what was out there.  Rather than cusomizations, ICANN should look now at what is out there and not wait until the next round starts
  Jeff Neuman:On beta testing, this is something that we did propose for the last round, but ICANN was afraid that giving some of us access for beta testing purposes would be some kind of advantage in the application process
  Jeff Neuman:I didnt agree, but that was their view
  Trang Nguyen:Is the requirement for the system to be able to generate invoices, or to just send? invoices might need to be generated in a different system than the application system.
  Vanda Scartezini:yes. many studies ahve been done from underserved regions that can be used
  Jon Nevett:I am sure that we discussed this before, but systems need to be secure -- the data breach -- where highly confidential information was accessed -- was very problematic for many applicants
  Christa Taylor:Trang - idea is to be able to generate and send an invoice if they need it for their own internal purposes for payment systems
  Ashley Roberts:A possible solution to the issue I raised could be to have the systems automatically email a copy of any new added correspondence to applicants so that they have an email copy as well as in the portal.
  Alan Greenberg:Issue is not, I presume, whether invoice is delivered through portal, but that it can be requested.
  Jeff Neuman:Customer support was in the "Communications" section of the Implementation Review documnet from ICANN, so I assumed it belonged here
  Karen Day:+1 Jon
  Phil Buckingham:should not invoicing be done through ICANN's accounting system .., which  should  be  totally separate from the application  syatem ,.   The overriding requirement  must be  to absolutely elliminate any attempt (s)  of a breach  of the application  portal  , this time .
  Trang Nguyen:For background and context, phone support was provided during the application window for technical issues related to accessing TAS. To ensure equal access to information, ICANN developed knowledge articles when a question is received, and then point to it to respond.
  Jeff Neuman:Fear of communicating with applicants led to ICANN not being clear with applicants...this led to I believe an increase in having to issue Clarifying questions
  Jeff Neuman:@Trang, but it was impossible to really search the knowledge database and get the answers
  Jeff Neuman:On the TAS system, I am not sure why the submission of applications had to only be in ASCII, no links, no diagrams, etc.
  Trang Nguyen:Yes, the search capability of the knowledge base had room for improvement.
  Jeff Neuman:Lots of complaints about that
  Ashley Roberts:Tagging onto Jeff's point, any applicant information should be easy to locate and preferably stored in one place. In the first round information was stored in various locations - the AGB, the knowledge base, FAQs, etc, making it hard to fiind what you were looking for.
  Phil Buckingham:+ 1  Ashley
  Jeff Neuman:And if you had a question,customer support took days to answer because all answers needed to be approved by legal
  Jeff Neuman:and other parties
  Jeff Neuman:I think the use of excess funds needs further exploration.  From a policy level, we should just state that the AG should set forth the use of excess funds if any
  Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, to ensure equal access to information, we had to generalize questions received, draft responses, run the draft responses by subject matter experts to ensure accuracy, post and then answer the question, pointing the applicant to the knowledge article. This takes time and did impact response time. But, if the same question is asked again, response time is within 24 hours for those where existing content exists.
  Jeff Neuman:@Trang, the issue is that the questions are never asked the same way....so getting a quick response was rare.  I believe the equal access argument was overplayed.  Equal access would only apply to any NEW information.  Not answering questions about existing systems, processes, etc.
  Jeff Neuman:I believe that IF there is an RSP Program it should be self funded
  Jeff Neuman:meaninig that it should be paid for by those participating
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):... Safe travels to those going to ICANN 58thanks everyone... bye for now
  Jeff Neuman:thanks
  Trang Nguyen:customer service stats: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__archive.icann.org_en_meetings_costarica2012_bitcache_New-2520gTLD-2520Program-2520Update-2Dvid-3D33377-26disposition-3Dattachment-26op-3Ddownload.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Pm1-pWotOuHYqTjqjyIygMc4aongmmbOhyyZdooF-fE&s=0KNZHJF2XGzhYkup3F3qpu_MxV7GH9WCodhE8k86hdA&e= .  Average resolution tme is 1.6 days. 80% responded within 24 hours.
  Vanda Scartezini:safe traveks to all kisses

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170301/ac479669/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Track1- 28 February 2017[3].mp3
Type: audio/mpeg
Size: 5754149 bytes
Desc: Track1- 28 February 2017[3].mp3
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170301/ac479669/Track1-28February20173-0001.mp3>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attendance WT1 28 Feb 2017 Sheet1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29453 bytes
Desc: Attendance WT1 28 Feb 2017 Sheet1.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170301/ac479669/AttendanceWT128Feb2017Sheet1-0001.pdf>