[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Notes and Action Items Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 09 January 2018

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Work Track members,

 

Please see below the notes from the meeting today.  These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB.

 

See the referenced document at:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark84tmg/edit.   

 

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

 

Notes/Action Items from Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 09 January 2018:

 

Action Item: For Application Fees – Staff to help capture the remarks by Akram Atallah from ICANN on ICANN as a registry of registries and that WT1 Sub Team is addressing them.

 

Notes:

 

1. SOIs: No updates.

 

2. Review of Timeline:  Next meeting is on Tuesday, 16 January at 20:00 UTC.

 

3.  Review of potential recommendations for Clarity of Application (4.2.6)

 

The Google doc is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark84tmg/edit

 

Discussion:

-- Re: The Registry Agreement -- Is that encompassed here?

-- That is one of the items reflected here, and also in Work Track 2.

-- Call out some of the items so that people know what is covered or not.

-- How are we going to reflect these in our Final Report?  Not clear about how these would appear in a final report.

-- These will be recommendations.  

-- Need to delineate between a policy implementation and policy.

 

>From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: On the clarifying questions themselves, this is a topic that Work Track 4 is working on.  They are trying to find a way to create better questions in the application form so as to minimize the amount and type of clarifying questions that need to be asked

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): That is our aim, we are yet to breck through a couple of issues with access to the data we would like to base that work on as yet in WT4

Jeff Neuman: @Jim - Yes, that is one of the items included.....and also included in WT2 as a recommendation....

Jeff Neuman: Good idea to spell out the "associated docs"

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): indeed!

Justine Chew: How might possible categorization of application types be factored in 4.2.6 (if at all)?

Christa Taylor: The AGB section refers to audience driven sections

Justine Chew: Thanks, Jeff. Then it does not merit a need to be bookmarked for refinement post-discussion on categories then?

Jeff Neuman: @Justine - right.  it applies across the board

 

4.  Review of potential recommendations for Application Fees (4.2.10)

 

Aspects for Further Discussion:

-- When we start plugging real numbers into this it may not make sense. 

-- If there is some kind of floor it should reduce the perception of ICANN as a registry of registries.  What does that mean?  Are we okay with ICANN having so many registries out there that it becomes a registry of registries, so perceived as being conflicted.  Concern raised by Akram Atallah.  Can staff get more information about his concern?

-- Look at an appropriate amount.

-- Perhaps we should clarify what factors should be considered in setting the floor – like preventing ICANN being a registry of registries – recommendation that an economist or group be retained to take these factors and develop an appropriate floor amount?  Take the concerns, look at costing, and look at scenarios so that this WG doesn’t waste time coming up with the number.

-- Think we have acknowledged previously that this is a really difficult discussion.  Look back at the rationale for a price floor and these could become the principles for setting that floor. We know there are excess fees from the $185,000.  We don’t know what the demand is and whether $185,000 will be inhibiting or whether it’s reasonable.  This is the second time we’ve had this discussion with a smaller group (APAC participants, mainly).

-- Overarching issue of whether there should be a cap on applications – the point was that the WG was not interested in putting a cap on categories.

-- Re: research – this could be a recommendation for ICANN to do additional work.

 

>From the chat:

Justine Chew: "Excess funds resulting from the application costs versus the floor (item a) should be distributed back to applicants or used to benefit another category as follows:"

Trang Nguyen: I would not characterize Akram's point as a concern, but as a potential implication in the fees discussion.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Thanks Trang ... Point well noted

Donna Austin, Neustar: Is the point not to make the application fee so low as to allow for frivolous applicants, or perhaps those that are applying in the hope of a windfall from auctions.

Jeff Neuman:thanks Trang. Perhaps i mischaracterized it as a concern.....but I hope I am reflecting his thoughts on what we need to address

Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, yes, you reflected his thoughts well. I think his thoughts are merely to point out the implication of additional future gTLDs and role that application fees have.

Kurt Pritz:ICANN, I think, is the registrar of registries – and IANA is the registry. Notwithstanding that, is the policy question we are discussing is: should the number of new TLDs be capped? That seems like a difficult and perhaps-not-valuable discussion.

Donna Austin, Neustar:Yep, okay Jeff.

Trang Nguyen:ICANN org's finance team can assist with that work as well, Jeff.

Jeff Neuman:Thanks. LEts make it clear in our preliminary report that we are not setting the floor in this group and not seeking feedback on what that number should be.

Jeff Neuman:@Steve - Correct

Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, sure, we can do that. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20180109/0766a895/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/20180109/0766a895/smime-0001.p7s>