<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Title content=""><meta name=Keywords content=""><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Dear Sub Team Members,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 10 January. <i>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</i>. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings">https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Please note also that the slides referenced below are attached and for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Notes and Action Items 10 January</span></b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. Work Track Progress Status [reading from slide 3]<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Good progress on all of the topics<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Adjusting the work plan a bit<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Focus to see if we can close a few topics<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Accreditation -- had hoped to close by mid-December but still discussing<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Still on track for applicant support<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Need more discussion on clarity of application process, application fees, and variable fees<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- application queuing and submission period will fall under clarity of application process<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>2. Clarity of application process [reading from slide 4]<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Accreditation -- new working group and carving out policies for WT1 to focus on for the next meeting<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Clarify of application process [reading from slide 5]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Any additions to what is on the slide?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Will put forward what we have to the list for consideration<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Application Queuing [reading from slide 6]<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Need feedback on whether we still believe that first come, first served is relevant, or if another mechanism is more appropriate<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- If it is a round is first come, first served relevant? Could be some other method after that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- This just the order that the application is reviewed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Not sure how this would play out in an application period. Two options -- wait for the last one in the contention set or everyone gets the benefit of the first one selected -- all applications for the same TLD would be evaluated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- To be clear we are talking about the substantive processing, which could potentially go all the way through to delegation. Processing on contention sets has to be done on all of the applications.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- First what would happen is ICANN woudl time stamp the applications as received, wait until the end of the period, determine the contention sets, they would do the review application 1, 2, etc. Use the priority numbers to release the intial results, but that wouldn't be processing everything, just the priority number for initial processing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- The question we are trying to address is whether first come, first served is still relevant.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- First come, first served: Yes/No; lottery system: yes/no -- lottery system 9 approvals and no objections.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Went away from first come, first served to the lottery. We are seeing a preference for a lottery and not seeing why we should go back to first come, first served.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Could hold multiple lotteries within categories (as with IDNs).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Should not use the term "lottery". Cannot get a license for that process.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Action Items: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. Put forward lottery system to the list.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>2. Ask staff what they would need to do to keep their lottery license to continue to do lotteries<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: As long as we are doing rounds, it is not relevant. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Changes are required at least to reflect what has already been done. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alexander Schubert: 1stcome1stserve would only benefit the portfolio guys with their unlimited rescources!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alexander Schubert: In a gTLD round!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: So, is everyone comfortable with the randomization/lottery that ICANN held<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan: The current guidance should be viewed in contrast with the prioritization.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: (assuming ICANN can maintain the license to run lotteries)?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Firstly in rounds, then yes as long as we have objections of course :)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: If we do rounds, I would not be comfortable with first come first served. I think the lottery was the only fair way to go.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: once again are we talking about rounds?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: I think a question needs to go to staff (legal) to see whether they can maintain their license to run the lottery<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alexander Schubert: +1 Jeff - two scenarios: Round and ongoing application period<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: secondly, if a long term period, then first come first serve as long as we have objections of course :)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Ashley Roberts: Agree some kind of randomised assignment of priority numbers is preferable to FCFS<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Laura Watkins (Nominet): +1 Ashley<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alexander Schubert: How about prioritizing GEo's - as they are usually clear cut cases with no contention (as they usually require the OK of the Government)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: FCFS is an invitation to dropcatch-like practices where people will bomb the application system to hell so their TLDs go first in application processing. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: I'm with Jeff<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: In the current round, the priority numbers were used to release IE results.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alexander Schubert: Another idea: Have 10% of slots being prioritized by the Internet Community! So the 10% strings the Internet Users in the world value as potentially most impacting would be awarded the top 10% slots? Negative: Potential gaming.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: We can let every applicant point one other string as their main competitor, and the process would honor those requests so the results would be released in the same time. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan: The priority numbers were also used for contracting, PDT, and transition to delegation, if I'm not mistaken.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: So again, we need to ask ICANN legal whether they could maintain the license to run the "lotteries" and what they need to do to maintain that license.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: But if not in the policy, it should be written that processing would always favor and only be based on process efficiencies. Queueing would be only applied, if applied, to release of results. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alexander Schubert: +1 Rubens: We should NOT honor drop-catchers!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: Perhaps one question that the group could consider is what was the intent behing the GNSO policy recommendation of first come first served, and given objections/string contention, whether the intent could be achieved.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: @Steve - that was the theory, but not sure how much that was honored given all of the interruptions in the application processing<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: There is a negative aspect to using priority numbers... the ability to normalize priori to releasing IE results.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alexander Schubert: Lottery and some system whereby e.g. GEO applications (with no contention) get prioirity as they serve communities?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: I'd prefer the lottery<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Laura Watkins (Nominet): Agree Alexander. It makes sense that applications less likely to have contention gets priority<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Justine Chew: If FCFS caused issues, then keeping the lottery system makes sense<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>3. Application Submission Period [reading from slide 7]<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Assuming that the next round is for a fixed period of time, is three months sufficient?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Suggestion: 3 months is long enough for the first of the application windows as long as there is a long enough communication period prior to the start. Each subsequent window could be shorter, such as 30 or 60 days.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- In writing the Issue Report for this topic we didn't see that there was guidance for the exact length of time for the application period, but guidance of when to start after the request for proposal. This was not a policy issue identified in the Issue Report, but the WT could draft some language if it wishes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- In considering the example of applicant support in order to apply, would 3 months be relevant in considering those parties? Or do we want to address that in the applicant support area?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Think it would be in the applicant support area.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- For approval: Initial period is 3 months, subsequent period is 2 months -- 7 approvals.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Approved assuming we are talking about rounds and a delay before the next round, and in no other areas, such as applicant support.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: So again my proposal would be a three month submission period for the first application window, but to have a shorter 60 day application window for subsequent application windows<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Preparing can be done before application window. If the community needs time, postpone the begining of the application period<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Until we know how Applicant Support would play out, it's premature to determine something to support it. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan: Policy recommendations could potentially be less specific than an actual number of months.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Laura Watkins (Nominet): If applications are to be batched anyway should the submission period(s) relate to number of applications received rather tha running for a set time?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Justine Chew: I abstain. Not comfortable with questions surrounding the AGB.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: @Alan - Agree we need to sync with other recommendations<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>4. Application Fees [reading from slide 8]<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Methodology was cost recovery.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Are we requiring more substance to understand the methodology? "It may be useful to evaluate how well costing estimates compared to actual costs incurred by ICANN...consider providing implementation guidance to be taken into account when ICAN works with the community to develop the costing methodology for subsequent procedures."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Need to determine how we address overages.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Should we implement cost floors/ceilings? Seems like we might be more concerned about a floor. What are the implications if we choose a methodology other than cost recovery? Look at comments on the list.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alexander Schubert: The fees should NOT be lowered in the next round. We are inviting speculators otherwise. A good .com is much more expensive than the gTLD application fee.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: If we are arbitrating fees, than it's not cost-recovery. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Phil Buckingham: + 1 Alan . should Applicant support applications to go through a separate process channel <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alexander Schubert: Actually 500k USD would be more appropriate.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: I disagree. I think costs need to be lowered to a more realistic cost. More substance would help to determine a realistic fee.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: existing plicy is cost recovery at this point.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Phil Buckingham: Should be free . Fund it from auction funds and Round 1 "profit excess ",. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: I think you need to set a cost analysis per TLD category.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Arbitrating fees to market value could put ICANN non-profit status in jeopardy. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: One thing to note is that we have much more information based on this round than we did when we estimated the cost of the program (from a cost recovery perspective). The learnings from this round can be used to better estimate the actual cost for next round.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alexander Schubert: ICANN could do it at a cost of $US 15k probably - we would have 25,000 applications then......<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Some TLD types require much less check and the process can. e much more streamlined to be cost effective.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Justine Chew: Having a surplus is a good problem to have. For starters can use some of this to fund application support, no?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Phil Buckingham: Dont need a legal contingency fund (1/3 ) anymore for a Round 2 ?? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Phil, .africa and .merck are showing that legal contingencies could be needed... and we don't yet if .amazon will turn into another legal battle. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: I agree with Trang. I also believe that having such a large contingency fund (legal fund) for future rounds would be unnecessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Size of the fund can be argued, though. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Variable fees: Seemed to be consensus that there should be one fee. Is that still the case or do we want to revisit this? May need to revisit.<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Laura Watkins (Nominet): Agree fixed fee - except in the situation of applicant support - those fees could effectively be discounted in some way maybe<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed Alan good points <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: There was no difference in application processing costs for applications this round.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>