<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 http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Work Track Members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please see below the action items and discussion notes from the meeting today. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for
the recording.</i> Please also see the recording at <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/JQEhB">
https://community.icann.org/x/JQEhB</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Slides are attached for reference. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Emily<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Notes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">2. SOIs</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- No updates<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Systems - overview of status of discussions to date in the WT. Recommendations:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Integrated login</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Different levels of access</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Review of CC2 responses</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- 1.8.1 - suggestions for areas of improvement in systems</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- 1.8.2 - regarding invoicing -- general support for invoicing among respondents.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Variable Fees</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- 1.5.1 - Should there be variable fees or "one fee fits all"?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- John Poole, CIRA, Nominet, BC, Afilias, RySG generally support a single fee model. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Clarification on ALAC comment – there are potential circumstances for lower fees, for example communities or underserved regions.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- BRG, Nominet, and Valideus pointed out that there may be circumstances in which variable fees are appropriate to consider.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- GAC and Demys supported a model with variable fees.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- The only number referenced in the comments is that a 10% variance could justify variable fees for different types.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Comment on community applications -- some comments suggest that there should be a reduced fee because of lower resources. Other comments suggest that some applications should have lower fees if processing the application might be less work and therefore less costly. If we have a discussion about fee reduction, we need to understand why we are doing that. There are two different potential reasons. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From the chat: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maybe not reducing fees - but offering financial "support" then?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Agree with Donna both on need for discussion and potential reasons.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- 1.5.2 - What are the implications of having different costs for different types of applications.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Nominet, Afilias, RySG, and ALAC did not generally support different costs for different application types.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Demys identified possible benefits and CIRA identified possible negative impacts.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- BRG suggested that additional research should be conducted, particularly with respect to costing for dotBrands.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">1.5.3 -- Should fees be variable based on number of applications per applicant?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- CIRA, Nominet, BC, BRG, John Poole, Afilias, RySG, and ALAC opposed this proposal</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Jannik Skou supported a volume discount.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Nobody discussed increasing fees for those with multiple applications to increase competition. This is an interesting proposition from a public policy standpoint. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Good idea!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Concept is interesting, but don't necessarily agree. We have had the conversation for a while about possible discounts, but not about going in the other direction.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- We have spent a lot of time talking about the mechanics of the application process, but have not talked about principles and public policy, goals we are trying to achieve with this program that could
impact decisions on fee structure. This is a conversation we need to have. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From the chat: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Problem: Volume based fee increase will be circumvented by the Donuts system: new entity for each app!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">For the record, I don't believe there would be any variation in the application fee. It should be the same across the types of applications and to Alexander's point earlier, we can look at reasons for providing financial support.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">@Alexander. Perhaps, but they would have to work a lot harder at masking their shared ownership and presumably penalties for trying.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alexander, that probably could be controlled for - after all, everyone knows that all of those came from are all Donuts from the same Donuts shop.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Donuts were not the only portfolio applicants.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Donna: But Donuts had unique legal entities for every app! That's what I am refering to.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">I think at least one other applicant used the multiple entity approach.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Some of those are corporations.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Is the WT open to variable fees and if so, what is the trigger?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- It is easy to identify where there is shared ownership of different TLDs. Relevant information is already collected about this.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- The WG needs to look at public policy and look at fees based on what we are trying to achieve with the program.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Each application should have the same set base fee, but additional items, reviews, or additional steps may incur additional costs. That's essentially how it worked in the AGB in 2012. What we could do is have a single base fee with add-ons.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- How did this work with communities in 2012 round?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Steve Chan: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">CPE was an additional fee that was paid back in the event the applicant met the criteria.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Even though there was a distinct category for geo names, every application still went through a screening to see if it was a geo name. Only those determined to be geo names went through an additional process.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Any review that every application has to go through should be included in the base fee. But if there are additional rights/privileges associated with a type of application, related applications would pay an extra fee for the associated evaluations. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Then we get into a discussion in which some of those types that require additional evaluation may also be those that are most likely to be eligible for financial assistance. Need to understand the consequences of going down this path.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- It is possible that the additional fee and the financial assistance could go hand-in-hand.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Also important to consider closed registries/dotBrands and business models that might not need the same evaluations as other applications. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">I think as a general principle, we should aim to have the application process as simple as possible for the applicants and for ICANN to administer. It seems that we may be over-engineering for any positive outcome.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- What if dotBrands pay more to save time and skip certain evaluations that might not be needed.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- We should aim for an application process that is easy for applicants and easy for ICANN to administer. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- We generally think the application fee should go down in the next round. Are we making it so complicated that the administration of the process will lead to delays and additional overhead? Is a $10,000 discount for some applicants really going to lead to a better outcome?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">It would only save time if no competing applications</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Christa: Then you need to have a "test" on wheher they are a "real brand"! Anybody can register a TM and claim they are a "brand" - and all important generic terms are branded in many places! </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Katrin Ohlmer: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">We also support the concept of simplicity - for applicants and ICANN</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">"branded" = "trademarked" rather .....</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">The "community" status was arguably "gamed" quite a bit....</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">If a word is a trademark it is not being used in its generic sense. So it is not correct to say that "generic terms are trademarked," But I digress.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- If the application fee drops substantially, this won't be such an issue, but we don't know yet if it will drop. Simple is better, but not if simple applications are subsidizing complex applications. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- ICANN will have to go through the costing evaluation process to determine that future base fee based on cost recovery.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Phil Buckingham: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Ffrom the financial model / evaluation perspective we cant have a "one size fits " all this time. A brand model would so easier to evaluate than a community model . </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Comment: not sure that we should settle on a cost recovery model. The direct costs are not necessarily the only costs that should be included. This is also a policy question about sources of income for ICANN. Cost recovery is one model but not the only model. There is also a cost plus option. There are things ICANN could be doing if it were better funded.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Greg - what are the indirect costs?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">that you think should be </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">covered</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Remember we have defined the costs as being of the application process itself</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alan Greenberg: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jeff, we also clearly included costs of developing the program.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alexander Schubert: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Christa: Define "brand" application! So I can register a TM "orange" apply for ".orange" and then "lease" domains (much like CentralNic's .de.com third level registrations) avoiding all the hassle with registrant rights! People buy third level domain from CentralNic at even HIGHER prices than .com - the model works well. But "registrants" (leasees) have ZERO "rights".</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alan - Yes we did previously. Doesnt mean we should going forward......</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">that is still an ongoing discussion</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">4. AOB </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Once we have momentum on a topic, can we roll it over into the next call? Might help us reach a point of closure on some of the topics.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From the chat:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Donna Austin, Neustar: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Agree with Ashley, it would be good if we could aim to wrap up discussions in a timely fashion rather than drawing them out.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Greg Shatan: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">At a minimum, I would think the costs of developing the program would be included in any cost analysis.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jeff Neuman: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">We also need to balance that with a complete rehashing of the same issues if new people join :)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>