<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;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{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 14 February. <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'>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Tuesday, 14 February 2017 at 3:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></b></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'>Apologies: Laura Watkins, Susan Payne<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'>On audio only: <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'>Agenda:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. Welcome & SOIs<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>2. Update: Accreditation Program<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>3. Application Fees/Variable Fees – Consensus Vote<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>4. Application Guidebook, <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.5+Applicant+Guidebook?preview=/58735907/58737106/Section%204.2.5.pdf">https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.5+Applicant+Guidebook?preview=/58735907/58737106/Section%204.2.5.pdf</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>5. CC2 Questions, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit#<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'>Notes:<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. Update: Accreditation Program<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'>-- Update from Jeff Neuman on parallel GDD RSP Program: Need to determine policy work. Timing in relation to GDD RSP.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Discussed that there would be a number of similarities from one registry to another. ICANN process. Recognized that there would be a lot of similarities in the processes. Discussed in Hyderabad. In early January ICANN issued a call for volunteers for this group. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Note current CC2 questions (slide 4)<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. Applications & Variable Fees (slide 5)<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'>-- Asked for responses using the green checkmarks: Statement: Lack of Invoices were a challenge: Responses: 8 green checkmarks.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Different costs for different categories -- considering that? Trying to get some insight into that. May not be worth having different fees, but having a different cost structure.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Set out the policy principle -- that this is a valuable piece of real estate. May lower the cost recovery.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- We need to keep the bar raised. Explore that cost recovery is supposed to be for?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- ICANN may have overestimated evaluation costs. Policy construct should be based on this last round. There should be a floor in place.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Cost recovery is likely to stay in place without making things too cheap.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Get community feedback. Come up with a policy position. Don't say the cost, but how to determine it. Focus more on the policy issues. Extract principles from this call. Recognition that ICANN recover all of its costs and this is a valuable part of ICANN real estate.<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'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alan Greenberg: If some people need invoices, what would be the reason for not doing it?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Alan, tax regulations in some countries are more bizarre that the old English colonies habitants can think of... ;-)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Alan, the issue is that the invoices are not sent timely, have a lot of mistakes, and some invoices don't even make it to us.<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. Cost Recovery Fees (slide 5)<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'>-- Reword the question: Even if costs are much lower there should be a floor that is lower.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Agree with Jeff. Cost recovery is important. Why not change it do a deposit?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Take a closer look at the numbers.<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'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alan Greenberg: Apparently we need to not only ask for an invoicing system but a TIMELY one...<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jon Nevett: do we need to justify the difference?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: @Jeff: I'm happy to give my personal opinion if asked, but don't think it's appropriate for me to vote on consensus calls. I view my role here as providing information to help inform deliberations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: We could offset the fixed fees of all registries that come out of a procedure. If 1 million was raised, 900 thousand spent, 100 thousand divided by 1000 applicants, 100 dollars discount for everyone. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: I think my point was that the application fee needs to take into account that the applicant is acquiring a unique piece of internet real estate. In this context i don't think it's unreasonable to have the floor set at $185,000.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: But the problem comes back at two points.. 1. The cost recovery is too high; and 2. What do you do with the extra? That is from a Brand perspective, of course.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jon Nevett: unlike in the 2012 Round, we need to indicate what happens to excess application fees -- the 2012 AGB said what happens to auction proceeds, but not excess application fees<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jon<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: I agree with Jon there. I wasn't even aware of the cost recovery until they talked about offsetting the fees.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): that makes sense to me Jeff <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: I agree with Jon and Donna on that. I thikn we do ask that in CC2<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jon Nevett: depends on how long we take -- ICANN charges back for historical costs -- $185 might not be enough :-)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: $185k is not small cash for some world regions. So even for organisations that don't qualify for applicant support, and shouldn't, would be disinfranchised by such a large fee. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: So, how can we word this as a policy concept without indicating an exact figure?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: @Rubens, I accept that is the case but running a TLD is also not small cash.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Rubens <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: So let ICANN figure out what the figure should be, but indicate we really mean cost recovery this time, but having a floor to reflect this is a piece of Internet real estate, but that we do not necessarily need such a large contingency fund.....and perhaps the "pre-approval" of RSPs ccould cover their own costs<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, iwhat multiple of yearly recurring costs would you find applicable for the application fee ? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): as we explored in the old Applicant Support work though Donna, getting funding for ongoing costs is often easier in some communities and economies, than raising funds for a 'blue sky' project.... <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: @Rubens, I don't understand your question.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, let's say that running a registry costs USD 100k a year. So 2 times for application fee would be enough ? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Rubens <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: So let ICANN figure out what the figure should be, but indicate we really mean cost recovery this time, but having a floor to reflect this is a piece of Internet real estate, but that we do not necessarily need such a large contingency fund.....and perhaps the "pre-approval" of RSPs ccould cover their own costs<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, iwhat multiple of yearly recurring costs would you find applicable for the application fee ? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): as we explored in the old Applicant Support work though Donna, getting funding for ongoing costs is often easier in some communities and economies, than raising funds for a 'blue sky' project.... <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: @Rubens, I don't understand your question.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: @Donna, let's say that running a registry costs USD 100k a year. So 2 times for application fee would be enough ? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Justine Chew: I agree with Jeff's approach. Also can some portion of the excess application fees from 2012 be designated as financial support for the next round of applicants which fall under Ruben's group of "some world reigion" - based on some set criteria of course?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jon Nevett: so maybe the fee shouldn't be cost recovery -- it should be a fixed amount -- but any excess amounts collected should go to Y. i definitely don't agree that excess fees of one round should go to the next -- might be ok for auction proceeds, but not excess app fees<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: @CLO, perhaps the Applicant Support aspect should be expanded to cover Ruben's point.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jon Nevett: @Donna -- and that would be a good use of auction proceeds<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: Justine, I'm not advocating for lesser fees for all organisations from underserved regions... even in underserved there are some "large pockets". But a large pocket in those regions mean one thing, in others, another. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: There's some program cost in the FY17 CANN budget here (page 32) <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy17-25jun16-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy17-25jun16-en.pdf</a>. Page 33 of that budget has a break-down of eval cost per eval panel.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Justine Chew: @Rubens, sure, I don't mean in blanket. Any such an applicant ought to be deserving, based on some set criteria. @Jon, what is Y?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: The deserving applicants are of concern for applicant support... but by establishing a fee that is not based on cost recovery, but from economic power of usual orgs in large markets, this automatically cuts in a different level for underserved regions. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: But does everyone want to contribute to applicant support? Do our fees make up for applicant support?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Rubens Kuhl: And there is the warning that's usually repeated that defining fees per region leads to gaming by setting up shell corporations in those regions..<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: I think that goes back to a point that was made at the Hyderabad APAC space in regards to this subject that if the applicant fees are too low for underserved regions, then it undermines the actual costs of the variable fees that they need to undertake to run the TLD.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: And this is the new gTLD Program budget memo from 2010: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-new-gtld-program-budget-22oct10-en.pdf,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: The special pieceJon Nevett: review=withdrew<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, it's difficult to break down the eval cost of internet real estate is not just the application fee, but the cost that goes into running it, too.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Trang, its hard to read that slide 32 without knowing how many evaluations we conducted.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jon Nevett: Some review pre-eval, but not too many<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: CC2 asks some questions on this as well (namely, how should surpluses be spent), et.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Justine Chew: +1 Jeff.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jon Nevett: review=withdrew<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, it's difficult to break down the eval cost per app because some apps were withdrawn after initial eval, some required re-evaluation due to change requests. What the FY17 budget tells us is the total eval cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Christa Taylor: Will combine and come up with a high level questions to consider for the next call<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 Queuing: IDN prioritization (slides 6, 7, and 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'>-- See slides 5, 6, and 7.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Had to choose whether they were in the prioritization draw.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- There were IDN applications could purchase a ticket to be one of the 100 applications to purchase a ticket.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>