<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",sans-serif;}
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",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
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,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></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 13 June. <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>.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Please note that for ease of reference chat excerpts are included below. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Actions/Discussion Notes:</span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. Topic review and progress on systems, communications, and applications fees:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>See the Google Document at: <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw/edit#gid=1442059046">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw/edit#gid=1442059046</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'>Question: How can the systems used to support the New gTLD Program, such as TAS, Centralized Zone Data Service, Portal, etc., be made more robust, user friendly, and better integrated?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Lobbying for multiple issues or logins; integrated to one.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Different levels of access.<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'>Communication: Examine access to and content within knowledge base as well as communication methods between ICANN and the community.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- It might be a future state that what they use in the past is not necessarily what they will use in the future. That is likely an implementation element, as opposed to policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Note sure what communications we are talking about here. Suggest that we are talking about communication more broadly -- communication about the program.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Subscription opt-in communications: The intent was the communication between ICANN and the applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Adequate and timely outreach to developing countries -- what is the connection? Answer: On is applicant support and the other is to opt in.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Any new gTLD should be cost neutral in ICANN's budget. That might be a better way of thinking about it than cost recovery. We have no idea how many applications we'll get in the next round. We don't know what the capacity issue is.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Like the term "cost neutral" and further refine between the time of the launch and the time in which applicants sign an agreement.<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'>Application Fees:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Evaluate accuracy of cost estimates and/or review the methodology to develop the cost model, while still adhering to the principle of cost recovery. Examine how payment processing can be improved.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Suggestion: For clarity it would be helpful if we took those two first sentences apart and put the sub-point under them. There was leeway in determining historical costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- It is quite clear that the comments we have received are all over the map. Not sure how to include them since they are all over the map. It is not clear that the fees will cover the cost to ICANN and I think we need to address that. There also is the cost of ramping up. I think you need to look at what put this program in place.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Not sure it is within our scope what registries pay ICANN. Don't see us deciding what smaller or larger registries should pay. Seems beyond the scope.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- How to create a policy around the access funds?<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'>Application Fees: Feedback from the community<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Question re: each applicant posting a deposit of $1,000,000 in order to qualify to bid to operate a new gTLD? Answer: These are some of the highlights on the different angles we hadn't heard yet. This comment is quite original and we haven't discussion it yet.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Jumping to slide 14 -- Application fees 14.4 - Use of Excess Funds<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- CCWG on Auction Proceeds is going to look at the proceeds from contention sets.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- We need to look at the cost of the overall program. Also will have to address the problem of what if things are underfunded? Look at what we do if the program is underfunded -- where would we get the money from?<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'>Michael Flemming: What are all the portals or systems that could centralized?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Sorry that goes back to the previous topic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan: @Michael, the WG can develop recommendations around systems or communications. it can also develop implementation guidace as well. or, as you said, some specifics can be determined during implementation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Thank you, Steve.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: So we will leave these at recommendations and allow it to be decided in implementation. Well understood, thank you!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Adequate outreach can also mean language support as well?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Those who want to file objections or public comments may need to be communicated with as well<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: could that be a distinction<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: I think we need more clarity around what this is supposed to address<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: In other words the "knowledge base" was not only for applicants, but for the whole community of participants<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: We should update this with the tie from the discussions earlier in the full group on the model <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: (FCFS vs. Rounds)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: @Donna - Agree. It is amount of fees vs process to make payments<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: right<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Point a relates to the latter<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Christa Taylor: Its annotated <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Christa Taylor: #annotated<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Legal contingency as in projected legal costs for litigation?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: The $185,000 was based on 3 elements and assuming only 500 applications. (i) cost of evaluation/processing of applications, (ii) Historical costs and (iii) legal contingency fees. Do we have agreement these are the same types of fees we should be paying for going forward<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: In other words, is that the formula we should apply moving forward? Should we still reimburse "historical costs"? What does that mean?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Deposit of $1 Million was only in the case of an auction.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: As long as that is clear.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: I am not sure where this comment came from though<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: @Christa, so this is just a sample of the comments submitted?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Christa Taylor: yes it does not cover all of them but items that we may have not considered or discussed to date. The link has all of the responses<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Surely the Historical costs were cost recovered with the over subscription compared to the assumed 500 of applicant last round<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: It sounds like some want to add a 4th element (and that is a floor)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I believe it needs to include eval and legal contingency but the rest... hmmm<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: eg., if the elements of (i) though (iii) is too low, then make the price the floor.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree with cost neutral yes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: yes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree on that it should be time bound. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Fair point Jeff I can support that<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: My question is whether or not historical costs included unexpected delays in the program. I am for time bound costs as Jeff suggests, but I don't think there is a garuntee that a cost neutral would allow for unexpected delays.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Registry level fees should pay for compliance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sarah L: It seems like there is an established mechanism within ICANN for dealing with excess funds but I am not sure there are mechanisms in place for dealing with scenarios or projects that are under-funded. Like Alan I would rather see a transparent active and robust compliance department and ensure there is funding in place for that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: My compartmentalisation is consistent with Jeff's<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alan Greenberg: I am still not sure how we reconcile the two opposite positions of 1) ultimately a TLD should not be more expensive than a 2nd level name; and 2) you are buying a core part of the Internet, a finite resource, and this should not be be cheap.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Sarah brings up a good comment that we have not addressed....which is what if the program is underfunded?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: lets make sure we do not lose that question<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: I don't believe the first dot point is within the purview of this group either.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Jeff, Sarah does bring up an important question, but we did consider that didn't we? That was our entire base for considering cost-recovery in the first place, no?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan: @Jeff, there is a question in CC2 about excess or deficient funding<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan: 1.4.5 - Should the WG seek to establish more clarity in how the excess or deficiency of funds are utilized/recovered? If so, do you have any suggestions for establishing that clarity? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: @Steve - thanks...but I just want to make sure we as a group discuss it too<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: I haven’t read all the comments yet, but I am curious to see if anyone addressed the concept of underfunding. My guess is most people assumed overfunding<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: But I could be wrong<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: I think as Jeff suggested, that there is a tendency that 1) That either the program was overfunded so fees should be lower or 2) In the event that expenses did not occur that, then those should be refunded. The problem here is that the consideration of refunding of fees in the current round have come to late in the game. I think what would satisfy many people is that if the floor was set at a similar price/model to what we have now with a promise for return of fees not occured once a contract is signed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Tendency in how people are responding.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: How do most registries feel about excess funds being used for community outreach rather than being returned in some way to the registry?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sarah L: ICANN could channel funds into increasing trust of the industry <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Donna Austin, Neustar: @Sarah L: that's a nice idea but how do you do that and what would the metrics be?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: If registries are happy to allow excess funds to be used in some way other than being returned to them, I feel that it would be important to perhaps have a separate PDP for determining excess funds? Or is this a necessity to have something in writing before we finish our PDP?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sarah L: @Donna I must admit I hadnt thought of it in that level of detail - iI agree there are alot of divergent opinons on this<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Thats a good question Donna, but I think that those fees are different to those paid in auction.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: I mean auction fees vs excess applicant fees.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: The principle behind them, I mean.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Edmon: one thing useful to bring up is that the outreach and funds supporting applicants and as donna said for universal acceptance, etc. should not be confused or punted completely to the auction proceeds fund<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: ICANN Bake Sale ;)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>