<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:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
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="blue" vlink="purple">
<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 notes from the meeting today. <i>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.</i> See the chat transcript
and recording at: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB">https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB</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"><b> <o:p></o:p></b></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 class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Notes/Action Items:</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">1. Welcome & Agenda Overview</span><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">3. Review of Timeline</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Dec 2017: Work on completing deliberations and begin review of WT recommendations</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Jan-Feb 2018: Complete review of recommendations</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- March 2018: Take WT recommendations to the Full WG</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">4. Review of potential recommendations for Application Guide Book</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Overview and review of questions and concerns, rationale for policy development</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Proposed recommendations to date have focused on implementation guidance</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Remove background and rationale, move to Appendices. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Suggestions: AGB should be less historical, less of a policy approach, create a practical guide with improved table of contents and index, step-by-step guide possibly by type of application</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Feedback on subdividing the AGV by audience-driven sections</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- No harm in audience-driven sections</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- There should be an online and searchable version. There should be a complete document available. If directing people to specific audience driven sections, could get ICANN into hot water. </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">So, if you are a back end operator, here are the sections you need to pay attention to</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">kind of an enhanced index</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">This approach would require re-writing multiple parts of the document in case of similar changes </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">Thats a recommendation as well - have a non-pdf online searchable AGB</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Or consider inserting tags for different category of audience by type of applicant?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">and online version can be changed </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- There will be a lot of sections that are generic that apply to all types of applicants and other sections that will apply to certain specific audiences. We seem to be stuck in a print mentality. Ultimately, the omnibus should be the entirety for search purposes. All sections should be accessible to all people, but specific sections should be tagged so that people can find the parts that are most useful to them. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- You don't want to have totally different versions of the AGB for different audiences. Anywhere you replicate content you risk making errors in replicating. </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">PDFs can be changed as well</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">@Jeff, the offline copy will be the same (and the checksum of the file)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">and as I understand the AGB should be stable between releases</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alexander Schubert BackUp: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">As long as we have ONE version that simply bears some "labels": great! But we should avoid a balcanization of the AGB that results in hard forks....</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">One AGB with a readers guide perhaps. I agree with Greg this is fairly administrative. </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">There's no need to replicate the "generic" parts of the AGB.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">could we suggest tags : like <ALL>, <GEO>, <Community> e.t.c. for pages?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">We should not specifically discourage applicants' attention to the entire AGB -- applicants ought to read the entire AGB to determine for themselves what is relevant to them and what is not -- but tagging different sections to relevant categories of applicants would be useful to make the AGB more user-friendly.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">so it would be both understandable in printed version and would allow to filter by tag</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">Fully agree Justine</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">"choose your own adventure book" is a great analogy 😀<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Agree to have one complete version, but to encourage greater participation, we should encourage and support tools to improve accessibility of the AGB, especially for those who are not insiders. Part of this could be a guide for specific audiences.</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">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">to make an initial choice of the application type, one needs to see the whole book</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Trang Nguyen: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">@Jeff, that's a great recommendation that we can work with. The details can be figured out during implementation.</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 don't mind talking about it., and I think that navigability and UX (user experience) cannot be overestimated. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">last AGB would be better with "Read it at least 5 times" on the first page :)</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">To Jeff's point perhaps the recommendation is along the lines of "the AGB should be accessible to the non-insiders" with some examples of how that ocould be done</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">5. Review of potential recommendations for Application Support</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- review of history of the topic (slides 9-13)</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">Since we dont know what the fees will be for the next round, $47,000 represents just about 25% of the application fee of $185,000. I cant remember if that is how we got the $47k</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">If it was, and we agree that applicants should be able to support 1/4 of the application fee themselves, should it be reworded to reflect that?</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">So, for illustrative purposes only, would it mean that if the application fee were $100k, we would expect applicants to be able to fund $25k themselves?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">+1 for "1/4 of the usual app fee"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Policy recommendations: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Provide a process to transition to the "regular" application track (slide 14)</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">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">p14 -- what criteria would be applied to deem an applicant as "gaming the system"?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Implementation recommendation - improve promotional efforts (slide 15)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Find suitable partners with relevant global reach to deliver the message to the appropriate audiences, implement appropriate training programs for developing locally situalted registries/registrars (slide 16)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Compare volume of users of domain names registered in regional TLDs, identify the number of domain names registered in region new gTLDs (slide 16)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Implementation recommendation - utilize partnerships to maximize outreach (slide 17)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Recommendation - provide support beyond reduced application fees (slide 18)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">-- Recommendation - Understand obstacles and provide assistance accordingly (slide 19)</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">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">page 19. a. Which kind of tech support do we reffer to?</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">@Maxim - outsourced registry operations, consulting services to understand technical requirements, etc.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">I think it could be written as "technical expertise inhouse or outsourced is highly recommended"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Question: Who should Applicant Support be available to?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Some concern limiting to least developed economies without looking at the individual circumstances of the applicant. Fellowship program was once only available to applicants from specific countries. Now it is available to individuals in any country as long as personal circumstances match the objectives of the program. This disadvantages those are less advantaged individuals in more affluent countries, such as those from indigenous communities.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From the chat:</span></b><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 agree with Greg, eligibility should not be largely based on where you come from. </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">So Greg - To restate - qualification on who qualifies for Applicant Support should be focused on the needs of the applicant as opposed to being focused on where they reside?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Do not want to limit to least developed countries. Means needs to be considered. Location may be relevant, but shouldn't be the main factor. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Is reducing the application fee going to be sufficient? Is it just the applicant that is disadvantaged or potentially also those using the TLD?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Where did the 2 million dollars come from? If we reduce the fees, does someone else pay more than their share? </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">Jim Prendergast: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Who at ICANN makes the determination on the means test?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jim Prendergast: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">ICANN tries to avoid making decisions like that</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">@Jim - There was a panel that was formed to make those decisions and the panel was made up of members of community and "experts" I believe</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">Jeff -- In a word, yes. Although, I don't think it is "binary" (i.e., "as opposed to" is not the way I'd like to look at it -- it could be more nuanced than that).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jim Prendergast: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Thats my recollection as well - but it probably came out of the "historical development costs"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">what happens when supported applicant goes through the aquisition process (bought by some other company)?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jon Nevett: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Historical costs are being charged back to applicant fees</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">historical costs for the last round are still not stable (more and more added)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">for example IANA transition was added (according to the letter about Excess fees)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Justine Chew: </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">@Maxim, M&A are normal business transactions which we can neither foresee nor interfere with.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </span></b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#006600">I mean that the support should not be used for gaming (so the M&A is not the way to save 3/4 of the application fee)</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 would also note that the 'string' would be an important consideration and it would need to have some relevance to the region or whatever.</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 there is a limited fund available for support, how do we decide between candidates that meet the criteria if we don't use geography as a factor? We still need a mechanism to choose between applicants.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Important consideration is whether you are going to have a viable market in some of these areas. Could you approach it differently? Identify five projects to participate free and clear of fees, but they have to make a business case for why it would work, and they would work with partnerships initially, with the goal of building expertise and becoming self sufficient within a year.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Among things to consider - the CCT-RT report: </span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue"><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Drt-2Ddraft-2Dreport-2D07mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=c4xQCwX8cfS3WfQrtnHHcnVwKV0fuSaJPkoIo01_dTc&s=xG-g-8IeSEPcB3lwTkPZPY7sY5dLPaFRk1scJ-h5Aoo&e=" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.pdf[icann.org]</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- One of the things mentioned in this report is the global south and defining this term. This could be one of the factors used in selection criteria.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Location needs to be looked at in a more nuanced way. Remote area of Alaska or South Bronx are within the US, but are less resourced communities. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">- Consider incubator or accelerator model.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><br>
From the chat:</p>
<p><b>Donna Austin, Neustar: </b>TLDs will have varying ideas of success</p>
<p><b>Justine Chew: </b>@Greg, sure, understood, for that matter should we look at public national Internet accessibility / infrastructure (ala ITU) as a criteria?</p>
<p><b>Donna Austin, Neustar: </b>I think some of this is outside ICANN's remit.</p>
<p><b>Donna Austin, Neustar: </b>Unless tICANN becomes some kind of philanthropist organisation because of Auction Funds.</p>
<p><b>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): </b>@Justine, it should not be just national, but since requirements for Registry require good connectivity ... then international connectivity is a must (purely Antarctic TLD is not possible)</p>
<p><br>
<br>
</p>
<p>- Does the group want to introduce success criteria?</p>
<p>From the chat:</p>
<p><b>Greg Shatan: </b>@Jeff, I think a "scorecard" is needed, but geography (coarse and fine) should only be one aspect.</p>
<p>- This is an area where we can punt in the preliminary report. Once we have a better sense of what the program will look like, we will be better able to design metrics around the success of the program. </p>
<p><b>Trang Nguyen: </b>I might have missed this, but have the objectives of the Applicant Support Program been defined?</p>
<p>- In preliminary report, ask the community for suggestions for measuring the success of meeting those goals.</p>
<p>- Some suggestions for metrics: those who have considered applying, those who have applied, and number of successful applicants</p>
<p><b>Greg Shatan: </b>Business plan, financial sustainabiity, sources of funds, all need to be part of a scorecard.</p>
<p>AOB: None<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>