[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 4 SubTeam Meeting 14 December

[Julie Hedlund]

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>