[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 28 May 2000 UTC

Thu May 28 21:45:53 UTC 2020

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting on 28 May at 2000 UTC. 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, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-05-28+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.

Kind regards,
Julie

Notes and Action Items:

Actions:

Types of New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG outputs

Implementation Guidance:
-- Re: “However, the party to whom the action is directed must make all efforts to achieve the purpose behind the recommended action even if done through a different course.”
ACTION ITEM: With respect to “purpose” -- add language about rationale and potentially, the high-level recommendation that the IG is applicable to.

2.4.2 Communications:

Implementation Guidance xx:
ACTION ITEM: WG reviewed and determined that the correct terminology is “should” rather than changing this to a recommendation (must).
Add a bullet: “The impact of comments [made on applications] collected through the comment forums referred to in Implementation Guideline C is addressed separately (see xx Role of Application Comment).”
ACTION ITEM: WG agrees with the addition and inserted “made on applications” after “comments”.

2.4.3 Systems:

Re: It should not be possible to auto-fill responses to questions corresponding to the following questions in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook: [16], 18(a), 18(b), 19, 20, 21, [22], and 23 (but only if additional services are specified). It should not be possible to auto-fill Registry Voluntary Commitments (formerly called voluntary PICs).
ACTION ITEM: Remove the brackets from 16 and 22 and clarify that the text “(but only if additional services are specified)” applies only to 23.  Also, re: Question 23, draft a better definition of "additional services", ie "other than basic pre-approved services"

2.5.1 Application Fees & 2.5.2 Variable Fees

Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 1):
ACTION ITEM: WG agrees to keep the language as it was.

Affirmation xx with modification (rationale 2):
ACTION ITEM: The WG agrees to leave the language as it was.

Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 3):
ACTION ITEM: WG agrees to add the new Implementation Guidance.

Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4): In the event that an application fee floor is used to determine the application fee, excess fees received by ICANN should [must] be used to benefit one or more of the following elements of the New gTLD Program:
ACTION ITEM: The WG agrees to change the text from Implementation Guidance to a Recommendation.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. Types of New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG outputs -- See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CYOruGqewTsu5ejL_zoom0ol6VA1xMLX2FXW2VAy4eI/edit?usp=sharing

-- Question: Definition of the status quo -- any issue other than the case of Closed Generics?  Does “status quo” have a clear meaning for other issues?  Answer: One is Closed Generics and the other is priority of IDN applications.
-- What about Brands/Spec 13?

Implementation Guidance:
-- Re: “However, the party to whom the action is directed must make all efforts to achieve the purpose behind the recommended action even if done through a different course.”

ACTION ITEM: With respect to “purpose” -- add language about rationale and potentially, the high-level recommendation that the IG is applicable to.

No Agreement:
-- Question: Is this meant to be “no consensus”? Answer: Not at this time, but it could be for the final recommendations.  There is no consensus call for the Draft Final Report.

3. Discussion of Final Report Topics:

a. Review "Can't Live With" comments on packages 1-3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing

2.4.2 Communications:

“Implementation Guidance xx: For timeliness, the Working Group believes that for the next subsequent round, the Communications Period should [must] begin at least six (6) months prior to the beginning of the application submission period.”

C1.3 - Justine Chew proposed changing the word "should" to "must" in this sentence. Rationale: "1. Since insufficient awareness of the Program prior to the last round is well acknowledged, this Implementation Guidance ought to prescribe – not merely suggest – a minimum time period for the next round’s Communications Period. 2. Prior WG discussion on the distinction between the terms “must” and “should” and when either ought to be used, applies."

ACTION ITEM: WG reviewed and determined that the correct terminology is “should” rather than changing this to a recommendation (must).

d. Dependencies/relationships with other areas of this report or external efforts

Add a bullet: “The impact of comments [made on applications] collected through the comment forums referred to in Implementation Guideline C is addressed separately (see xx Role of Application Comment).”

JC1.2 - Justine Chew proposed adding new text. Rationale: "Proposed change does not impact rationale but instead adds necessary clarity by addressing omission of a dependency to theRole of Application Comment section."

ACTION ITEM: WG agrees with the addition and inserted “made on applications” after “comments”.

2.4.3 Systems:

Allow applicants to auto-fill information/documentation in multiple fields across applications. This functionality should only be enabled in a limited number of fields where it would be appropriate for responses to be identical. It should not be possible to auto-fill responses to questions corresponding to the following questions in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook: [16], 18(a), 18(b), 19, 20, 21, [22], and 23 (but only if additional services are specified). It should not be possible to auto-fill Registry Voluntary Commitments (formerly called voluntary PICs).

ACTION ITEM: Remove the brackets from 16 and 22 and clarify that the text “(but only if additional services are specified)” applies only to 23.  Also, re: Question 23, draft a better definition of "additional services", ie "other than basic pre-approved services"

2.5.1 Application Fees & 2.5.2 Variable Fees

Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 1):

 [For example, if the Technical Evaluation Fee portion of the overall Application Fee is $US25,000, that portion of the Application Fee should only be charged to those applicants that do not  select a pre-evaluated registry service provider (which has not been removed from the pre-evaluated registry acceptance list and does not have major incident reports pending against it).]
KK1.2 - Kathy Kleiman proposed adding the text in bold to this sentence. No rationale was provided.

ACTION ITEM: WG agrees to keep the language as it was.

Affirmation xx with modification (rationale 2):
[The Working Group believes, however, that for subsequent procedures the only historical costs that should be part of the cost structure in determining application fees are those actual and anticipated costs of implementation and subsequent administration of the New gTLD Program, including but not limited to costs arising from new legal compliance and/or policy development  processes that may be required.]

AAS1.2 - Anne Aikman-Scalese proposed alternate text for the second half of the sentence (in bold). Rationale: "The 2012 round demonstrates that significant costs can arise subsequent to applications being delegated. For the 2012 round, this included funding procedures for further policy development, interacting with regulatory authorities, launching an EPDP, and running the Sub Pro PDP. It’s not realistic to believe that ICANN can adequately determine and budget application fees without considering the ongoing indirect costs of the nature described above."

ACTION ITEM: The WG agrees to leave the language as it was.

Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 3): A reassessment should take place prior to each application round to estimate the application fee that would be necessary to achieve cost recovery. In the event that the estimated application fee, based on the revenue neutral principle, falls below a predetermined threshold amount (i.e., the application fee floor), the actual application fee should be set at that higher application fee floor instead.

Neustar1.2 - Donna Austin comment: "It’s not a cannot live with issue, but rather one of clarity: In reading the whole section it is unclear to me whether the ‘application fee floor’ can be used in the next Subsequent Procedure or only in rounds that follow. I don’t recall the intent so have not suggested any language, but I do believe this is something that should be an explicit recommendation particularly if the intent is that an application fee floor not be used in the initial Subsequent Procedure."

New text:
Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 3): The development of the Application Fee should be fully transparent with all cost assumptions explained and documented.

Neustar1.3 - Donna Austin/Neustar proposed adding new Implementation Guidance. Rationale: "This section would benefit from Implementation Guidance that requires ICANN to be transparent in how they arrived at the Application Fee amount for the Subsequent Procedure and all rounds that follow. Particularly when a value has been determined for an application fee floor.  One of the challenges we experienced in discussion the application fee for 2012 was the lack of information available on how the fee was determined."

ACTION ITEM: WG agrees to add the new Implementation Guidance.

Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4): In the event that an application fee floor is used to determine the application fee, excess fees received by ICANN should [must] be used to benefit one or more of the following elements of the New gTLD Program:

Neustar 1.1 - Neustar proposed changing "should" to "must" in this sentence. Rationale: "ICANN should not have any discretion regarding excess fees."

JC1.4 - Justine Chew proposed changing "should" to "must." Rationale: "1. The word “should” used here suggests that there is an option to use excess fees to benefit one or more of the 4 stated elements (a) to (d). There should be no such option in event there is excess fees. 2. Unlike the Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4) relating to application fee floor not being implemented where returning of any excess fee to applicants may not be possible, no such limitation is envisaged in respect of excess fees – collected in the event of application fee floor being used – being applied towards the 4 stated elements of the Program."

ACTION ITEM: The WG agrees to change the text from Implementation Guidance to a Recommendation.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200528/64c1d9a0/attachment-0001.html>