[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 14 December
Julie Hedlund
julie.hedlund at icann.org
Wed Dec 14 21:01:21 UTC 2016
Dear Sub Team Members,
Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 14 December. 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. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+4+Meetings.
Note also that the referenced slides for today’s meeting are attached.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Action Items/Discussion Notes 14 December
1. Hyderabad recap [slide 5 of the slide deck]
-- Support for IDN 1-character was pictogram (Japanese or Korean), but opposition was not to Latin and Cyrillic, but use a more generic term.
-- Probably would be good to use generic terms for all of them.
-- Only those that represent 1 word.
-- On support for IDN Variant TLDS -- Staff have had preliminary discussions with Sarmad Hussain on staff. He could provide background or a status update on the program.
>From the Chat:
avri doria: idoegraphic cs. non ideographic
2. Consensus call 1: Technical capability to be assessed at contract signing time [slide 7 in the slide deck]
Possible language: "Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out, but will only be required to do so at contract-signing time, after passing other criteria and/or approvals and prevailing in contention set(s), [if any]."
-- If we do a consensus call over email should have the full story documented and presented to be taken into account.
-- Today's discussion is just a temperature taking, not a consensus call.
-- Explaining why the change is being made is important. Good to lay out those conditions, which will help this make sense.
-- The financial model and testing the technical model are two different things.
>From the chat:
avri doria: might want to consider adding ", if any" at the end of the stmt.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Avri
avri doria: i think we need two reading, both on calls to close a consensus call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes the rationale is important on this proposed recommendation
Phil Buckingham: this is a catch 22 , since the technical costs/ so contractual relationship with the backend provider will need be incurred and the costs put in the financial model for evaluation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): thx Avri
3. Discussion: Technical evaluation of applications to be performed as aggregated as feasible [slide 9 from the slide deck]
-- During the evaluation process there wasn't a realization of how the market would evolve with respect to backend providers .
-- It was thought at the outset that individual applications needed to be evaluated in the absense of knowing that the backend marketplace would be established. Things didn't work out as predicted.
>From the Chat:
Steve Chan: If I recall, part of why every application was considered indivudually overall was related to principles of fairness? Kurt would probably be able to fact check that statement.
Phil Buckingham: Totally agree Kurt. and nobody knew who was going to apply , how many portfolio players would submit multiple applications using the same model
4. Discussion: Timing and method for Financial Evaluation [slide 10 from the slide deck]
-- Could have speculative applications. The financial models are going to vary even more if the price goes down.
-- Look at the program implementation report that staff produced. There were inefficiencies from treating every application individually.
>From the chat:
Phil Buckingham: the financial model was templated / standardised . It wont work for Round 2 . Each applicant's financial model needs to treat separately , evaluated , due diligence accordingly Agreed Alan . Alot more .
Steve Chan: @Rubens, I tried to note that the report acknowledges those challenges to some degree, but apparently i made that point ineffectively. So not just about inefficiency...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20161214/546ce117/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SubPro WT4 Meeting #5.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 669378 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20161214/546ce117/SubProWT4Meeting5-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20161214/546ce117/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4
mailing list