[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 March 2017

[Terri Agnew]

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 March
2017 at 15:00 UTC.

 

Adobe Connect Recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p48f7ic8n8f/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=0c7bb89de470d93f
84a162222187b6d01d5528430967df8b53079b097215aeae>
https://participate.icann.org/p48f7ic8n8f/

 

The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:

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/9rDRAw

 

 Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri

 

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

Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 March 2017

 

  Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall
Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 15:00 UTC.

  Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_9
rDRAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
9rDRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC
IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=i_l-dP0VOvyrnTat__0NItdjqrWNaAEtw0MFMzJraX
s&s=wNsJoXLd-bo2PWTZdo31sLs0OOagjbkpxmtbiGTrGgY&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=i_l-dP0VOvyrnTat__0NItdjqrWNaAEtw0MFMzJraXs&s=wN
sJoXLd-bo2PWTZdo31sLs0OOagjbkpxmtbiGTrGgY&e= 

  Sara Bockey:Good day all.  I'm working from home today - having some work
done on the house.  I apologize in advance for background noise or dogs
barking.

  Emily Barabas 2:The slides are unsynced. Everyone can scroll for
themselves.

  Alexander Schubert:Why "cost recovery" in the first place? What if the
cost goes down to  5k USD? We face hundreds of thousands of gTLDs?

  Alexander Schubert:There must be a SUBSTENTIAL hurdle to overcome for
applying for a gTLD. The easiest hurdle is a monitary one. If there is no
entry barrier we will be FLOODED with applications by "hobby-gTLD-makers".

  Trang Nguyen:One big development cost for the next round is the system
development cost.

  Steve Chan:I would imagine the development cost would be dependent upon
the recommendations from this group.

  Trang Nguyen:TAS has been retired so we would need to do new system
development. Now much work depends on how many changes from the 2012 round
there will be.

  Jeff Neuman:@Steve - of course to some extent.

  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Alexander, we did have some discussion about the
challenges associates with setting a low application fee.

  Jeff Neuman:But to be honest some of that "development cost" was not
wisely spent....especially in trying to develop a home grown customized one
time solution

  Steve Chan:@Alexander, there is a question related to a pricing floor in
CC2

  Alexander Schubert:TNX

  Jeff Neuman:I would really like for us to set forth all of the reasons for
which we believe that a floor should be set (as that would be a change in
policy)

  Alexander Schubert:There is also a "cost" to "society", brands, the
Intellectual Property community! If 100,000 gTLDs are being applied for
because they "cost" only 10k USD - then the "cost" to the wider community is
BIG!

  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Greg, agree about getting the reserves back up, but
ICANN shouldn't be using excess fees from a future round to do that. I know
that's not what you were suggesting, but I just wanted to put that on the
record.

  Greg Shatan:Donna, I wouldn't consider those to be "excess fees." It's
simply revenue.  And I don't see why revenue should not be used to bolster
reserves.

  Greg Shatan:On this point, since the first round fees were so significant,
a floor was irrelevant.

  Greg Shatan:How far short is ICANN's reserves from best practices amounts
of 110-120% of annual revenue?  How does that compare to the $90 million of
"excess" fees?

  Samantha Demetriou:One argument in favor of keeping the cost high is that
it acts as a sort of gating mechanisms, where only businesses/organizations
of a certain size can apply. Being able to foot a high application cost
implies that these organizations are more financially stable. If this were
to be replaced, the evaluators would have to look much more closely at
financials and business plans included in the applications.

  Michael Flemming:I agree with keeping the cost higher. Cost recovery is
the right idea as long as that costs come back. My firm and I feel that for
our customers, the value of a gTLD can be seen in its price. Brands in the
first round paid a high price for a resource and that becomes minimized if
the price of that resource goes down too much for future application
windows.

  Jeff Neuman:@Alexander - To sum up your concerns:  (i) IF too low, we may
have unsophisticated Buyers of TLDs - threat to security/stability; (ii) If
too low, we may hae squatting activities, abuse

  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Greg, they wouldn't be excess fees if the
cost-recovery model was not applied, but my point was more that I don't
believe it is appropriate to raise funds to bolster the reserve fund by
opening up another round of TLDs.

  Alexander Schubert:I suggest to ask whether we RAISE the amount to US
$500,000

  Michael Flemming:Could we just see a list of hands to see who is for the
cost-recovery model and who is against?

  Jeff Neuman:@Michael - I think it is too soon for such a poll

  Michael Flemming:Just an idea

  Jeff Neuman:I think we should focus on the pros and cons of each method.

  Michael Flemming:To grab the storm, because I am curious about who we are
trying to convince to change it?

  Greg Shatan:ICANN does plenty of things that cost money -- that's where
the "excess"" of revenues from any income-producing activity goes, as a
generic point.  Non-profit does not mean non-revenue-generating....

  Greg Shatan:I am not suggesting ICANN turn gTLD applications into a "cash
cow" but there's a big range between the lowest non-money-losing price and a
massive cash cow.

  Trang Nguyen:Does the concept of floor mean a floor above the cost
recovery of processing applications, or some arbitrary floor? It's not clear
to me.

  Michael Flemming:Clarification to cost coming back: Meaning that the
excess is used for an agreed upon benefit or that it is returned to
applicants/registries.

  Jeff Neuman:@Michael - but those brands that bought now have a huge first
movers advantage (up to 7 years in theory).  That is worth a higher price

  Carlton Samuels:Given what we now know of the market situation, Is there a
sense that a new gTLD program should be demand-driven?  And, iff we agree
with that in principle, it would be a dead easy step to agree in principle
the administrative costs to ICANN - the corporation - should be on a cost
recovery basis

  Michael Flemming:Yes, but those same brands don't agree to loweing the
price.

  Jeff Neuman:Trang - the floor means that essentially we would look at cost
recovery, but if cost recovery is not as high as the arbitrary price floor,
then the price becomes the floor

  Trang Nguyen:Thanks, Jeff!

  Jeff Neuman:@Michael - is this really a decision that should be made by
existing registries (that may be viewed as a competition concern)

  Greg Shatan:Maybe we turn every new gTLD application into a potential
auction, i.e., applications are public and others can offer a higher price.
Not suggesting this is a good idea, but it is an alternative to the current
model.

  Michael Flemming:When those same registries consider applying in subpro,
yes it is a high concern.

  Michael Flemming:applying for more, I mean.

  Michael Flemming:I think we can move on.

  Carlton Samuels:@Greg: Hmmm.....maybe in conjunction with the idea of a
floor price, we would work that in as an alternative  

  Christa Taylor:It's Sara who is speaking

  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Trang, I think if we went forward with the current
AGB, ICANN could also provide some kind of 'how to' guide based on the
experiene from 2012.

  Trang Nguyen:@Donna, yes, absolutely

  Phil Buckingham:surely  the goal  for  Round 2 should be to minimise
clarifying questions as much as possible . A huge  number were re the Q50
question  to which a solution will be found for Round 2 

  Jeff Neuman:This subject will be a primary topic for the next WT 1 call in
2 weeks

  Donna Austin, Neustar:Christa, I think its an implementation issue.

  Terri Agnew:Next meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track
1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 11
April 2017 at 20:00 UTC.

  Michael Flemming:Great meeting!

  Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks, everybody - bye.

  Michael Flemming:thanks

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170328/15ade08c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance TRACK 1 28 March 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 332890 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170328/15ade08c/attendanceTRACK128March2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Track1-28 March 2017.mp3
Type: audio/mpeg
Size: 6270746 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170328/15ade08c/Track1-28March2017-0001.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/20170328/15ade08c/smime-0001.p7s>