[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Notes and Action Items Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 16 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 16 January 2018:

 

1.  SOIs: No updates.

 

2.  Review of potential recommendations for Variable Fees (4.2.17)

 

Consensus Items:

-- Artificially increasing costs may discourage innovation and competition.

-- Different application fees for different types of applicants is only warranted if the difference is greater than 20%.

-- The excess of these fees could follow the same disbursement mechanism as detailed in the Application Fees section.

-- Sanctions for changing the ytpe of application should be higher than applying for the desired TLD type originally -- the additional fees should be at 125% of the difference between the different application types in terms of fees plus any other related processing fees.

-- Applicants who apply for multiple TLDs should not received any discounts on their application fees.

 

Discussion:

-- Discussed previously whether it should be  percentage, a set amount or something else.  

-- Discussed previously applications fees by type.

-- Still in agreement on consensus items?  Don't agree that there should be different fees for different types of applications.  Not sure how you would put a differential on the fees given there will be initial establishment costs for the next iteration of the progress everyone will have to be responsible for some of those costs.

-- The idea was that once ICANN goes through the application fees and determines the costs they would determine that for the different types of application.  Did not do a vote on this, just conversations in prior calls.

-- Discussed excess fees in the Application Fees  section.

-- In the 2012 found there was a basement and then additional fees for additional evaluations might be needed.  The WG could decide to tackle it in another way.  These variable fees existed in the 2012 round already.

-- CPE was one example.  Don't know of others unless you went through an objection process.  Geographic names had a different steps with scrutiny on letters of support.  Also, RSTEP.  So, could be a based with additional fees say for scrutiny of letters for geographic names, brands for trademarks, etc.

-- Another aspect to consider is that we didn't have brands, so there might be another category with different costs.

-- What might make the conversations around application types difficult is that we don't know the procedural differences between the types.

-- On the consensus items -- Don't know what we mean by "excess of these fees"?  Don't think we should talk about sanctions for changing the type.  The excess fees was based on the application fees.  How to distribute the excess over the actual costs.  Maybe move back to the discussion section. Will update the language instead of "sanctions".  

-- "...should not receive any discounts on their application fees based on their multiple applications" -- Shouldn't be penalized that they have multiple applications.

-- We talked about excess fees in Application Fees in general and once that's resolved if there are excess fees then those excess fees in Variable Fees these should be handled the exact same way in the previous section.

 

Aspects for further discussion:

-- Do we want to consider the speculation of TLDs? 

-- How would fixed assets that are used over multiple rounds be allocated?

-- Are we okay with ICANN being a registry of registries?

-- How do we manage compliance with a growing volume of registries?  Impact on variable costs?

-- How do we promote competition and encouraging innovation via pricing?

-- Would like insight from IANA re:  implications on the volume of TLDs and any stability issues.

-- Do we want to address excesses and the timely disbursement of excess funds?

Implications on the limit of delegations per year – scaling, planning, instability, compliance

 

Discussion:

-- Costs from when this program starts and until the TLD is evaluated.  Compliance is not involved there should not be costs relating to compliance.

-- On the question on registry of registries -- brought up by Akram Atallah.  Asked for clarfication from staff.

-- Need clarification in the text by what we mean by "registry of registries".

 

>From the chat:

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): how the difference is measured? in %of text?

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): when we talk aboout %s

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): we need to usderstand what formula is used

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Different application fees for different types of applications is only warranted if the difference is significant (for discussion purposes, 20% was used with the actual percentage to be determined).  

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): about this bit

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): quite small change of text can change application idea a lot

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): application = texts + PDFs

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I mean - we need to define how do we see if the change is significant

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): to prevent vague reading at the implementation phase

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): the issue is not the value of the threshold

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): but the way we evaluate the particular difference (for exaple 20%)

Kurt Pritz: How about, “the expense for handling changes to applications (when allowed) will be borne by the applicant.” (or am I missing the whole point?

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Kurt, do you mean that if that leads to additional evaluations - then they should be paid for again?

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): like additional community review adds the cost of the latter

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I think we need to clearly show in the text if we are talking about difference in costs or in the texts of the application - to avoid misunderstanding

Kurt Pritz: @ Maxim: I think so - I would keep the policy statement more general and not pre-suppose different types of applications

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I did not remember the voting about it

Jon Nevett: Not sure where we are going with this one either?  The excess of these fees could follow the same disbursement mechanism as detailed in the Application Fees section.

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so far all funds go to some accounts of ICANN , without any explanations of what is going to happen with it

Jon Nevett: Donna +1

Jon Nevett: what does that mean?

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I meant excess fees

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I have a question : do we see 5k USD amount (TMCH fee) as installation fee too?

Jon Nevett: extended evaluation fee too

Steve Chan: RSTEP, Objections (as you noted)

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): some cities demanded money for the letters ... but not to ICANN

Phil Buckingham: if  we are going to do a cost plus model for each  application type , then the initial application fee  will be different . Surely it will be more expensive to apply for a community application than say a brand application 

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): in reality only rich communities prevailed in the process

jeff neuman 2: I believe brands needed to have a TMCH token so they paid for that....which could count as their evaluation fee as a brand

Phil Buckingham: Steve +1 

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): excess fees looks like "leftovers after the process finished" - and the current reading of it by ICANN that the 2012 round is not finished yet, so we can not estimate it

Kurt Pritz: @ Jon (about excess fees - I think): The Application fee section states that, “Excess funds resulting from the application costs versus the floor (item a) should be distributed back to applicants or used to benefit and to another category?” Then a number of other categories are listed, e.g., outreach and so on. I would change that to: Excess funds resulting from the application costs versus the floor (item a) should be distributed back to applicants (period).

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): also some applicants went out of business .. who inherits their hypothetical share?

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): also some applicants went out of business .. who inherits their hypothetical share?

Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jon's comment and the general intent of that point.

Jon Nevett: @jeff thanks for the clarification

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): at least IANA (PTI ) is a registry of registries

Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we be more specific about what is meant by Registry of Registries. There was considerable discussion around this last week and I think it would be helpful to be more  descriptive about what this means.

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it sounds like fist comes pays less

Donna Austin, Neustar: I mean in the text, not for discussion now.

Kurt Pritz: How about, "How do we promote competition and ecourage innovation via pricing and the current ICANN fee structure?"

Phil Buckingham: i would have thought amortisation / depreciation of fixed assets would have to be in  sync with  ICANN  501 Californian corporation  status 

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): then 5k USD is not a part of costs (RO pays for TMCH after the execution of the RA)

Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree Jeff. It is for ICANN to manage the Compliance department within their current budget.

Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, yes, on my to-dos list.

jeff neuman: @Donna - Ah....yes, we need to be clear in the text....once we get Akram's response.  Agree

 

3.  Review of potential recommendations for Application Submission Period (4.2.13)

 

-- Considerable discussion how we wanted the next window or round to take place -- how to get to a continuous state (page 16 in Google doc).

 

Consensus Items:

The application submission window was too quick and too short.  

Due to uncertainty related to demand, the WG suggests a Hybrid approach where a single round is set (with a minimum 3 months notice) followed by an annual window, e.g., three months of application acceptance (potential publication/objection period??), remaining 9 months to complete evaluation, repeat on a yearly basis.  Evaluations are conducted on a rolling basis.  The set application window timeline provides predictability, with post application to delegation steps running in parallel with any subsequent window.  This process will lead into a “continuous” application process.  The Lead-up round should closely reflect end-goal of continuous/annual application process.  Round should be a means of refining the continuous application process. 

Applicants in the next round (regardless whether delegated or not) have priority over additional/ subsequent round applicants.

 

Discussion:

-- Potential publication or objection period.

-- Do we want to get things in a continuous motion?

-- What do we do with those who can make it through in the 9-month process and is the delegation completed in the original window too?  When a next window opens to you mention strings in a reconsideration process?  Just make them not eligible to be applied for in the next round.

 

>From the chat:

jeff neuman: [Personal Opinion]  When people claimed that the submission window was too short / too quick, I think they were more referring to the lack of effective communication announcing that the round was going to open as opposed to having 90 days to enter applicant information into the portal.

jeff neuman: I am not sure they were saying that 90 days is too short to enter your information.

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I suggest adding at least 1 month between rounds (to make cleaning / changes e.t.c)

jeff neuman: Plus, having predictable open windows should lessen the emphasis on the time period to enter information into the application portal

Jon Nevett: i have 10 applications filed just about 6 years ago that have been in various states of hell -- is 1 year enough?

jeff neuman: Jon - so long as no one can apply later for the strings that are in your personal hell, then does that matter

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): if no resolution for the leftover applications of the round is foreseen it might start looking like a Ponzi scheme

Phil Buckingham: + 1 Jeff  applicants should have  notification - say six months - that the application window  (for said  type)  opens on ...  They have (say) one month to enter all data / models on apllication

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co Chair): makes sense Jeff

Jon Nevett: Yes Jeff. I agree that my personal hell might not matter, but if we can save others from in in the future, let's try to help them.

 

4.  Next Meeting: Registry service provider pre-approval process.  Give notice of the next meeting: Feb 6 at 20:00 topics include Applicant Support and RSP/Accreditation Program.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20180116/ed90e9f2/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/20180116/ed90e9f2/smime-0001.p7s>