[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team ­ Track 4 ­ IDNs/Technical & Operations call

[Michelle DeSmyter]

Dear All,



Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC.



The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>



** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **



Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4



Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/K6HDAw





Thank you.

Kind regards,

Michelle



-------------------------------

Adobe Connect chat transcript for 14 December 2016

Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC.
  Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_K6HDAw&d=DgIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Z7ZdJdfTNTbKBimj7GiYirpbRPS0Qh0PHnnZC6_Er4Y&s=UqSuRYcLDSXb4JISXkuzPZUcXhscxT-rdg7qvYNpilU&e=
  Julie Hedlund:That sounds fine -- thanks!
  Phil Buckingham:rubens - you are very faint .  Could you speak up
  avri doria:idoegraphic cs. non ideographic
  avri doria:?
  Phil Buckingham:me too - re  headphones . but still faint
  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
  Phil Buckingham:no audio
  Phil Buckingham:thanks Cheryl
  avri doria:wee have to learn to speak again on AC.  hard to do i know, i almost forgot how.
  Steve Chan:@Phil, we are happy to provide a dial out if you'd care to join!
  Phil Buckingham:point taken , Avri
  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.
  Kurt Pritz:I have a bad connection. and did not hear the question
  Kurt Pritz:can you repeat. ? or skip me?
  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
  Rubens Kuhl:Kurt, that was Steve question from the chat above.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):chat  above from Steve
  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
  Phil Buckingham: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
  Steve Chan:So not just about inefficiency...
**************************************************************************************************************************************************

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/20161215/288099f3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Track4 14 December 2016.mp3
Type: audio/mpeg
Size: 8058358 bytes
Desc: Track4 14 December 2016.mp3
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20161215/288099f3/Track414December2016-0001.mp3>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attendance New gTLD Sub Pro Track 4 14 Dec.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 19733 bytes
Desc: Attendance New gTLD Sub Pro Track 4 14 Dec.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20161215/288099f3/AttendanceNewgTLDSubProTrack414Dec-0001.pdf>