Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
27:41
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 03:00 UTC.
Steve Chan
31:13
Red-line is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing
Steve Chan
31:55
And the clean PDF is here
Steve Chan
32:07
Don’t worry, just sharing both for completeness Jeff!
Jim Prendergast
33:45
its too late now but id suggest that if we're to discuss scheduling and other working methods for the WG, those should be at the beginning of a call as opposed to being in AOB. especially if proposed by one of the co-chairs. Probably should be included as part of the agenda when circulated. thx
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:28
WHy @Jim? it is informational for next meetings o=panning But I am easy either way
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:44
planing
Justine Chew
41:15
Could staff pull up the rationale for Kristine's / RySG's opposition?
Jim Prendergast
41:53
@clo co-chairs set the agenda and determine the pace of the meetings and how they run. Not something that occurs on the fly. So those issues that Jeff mentioned are known ahead of time. I usually look at AOB as something on the fly or from the members of the WG.
Elaine Pruis
42:42
+1
Jim Prendergast
43:08
does sound better
Paul McGrady
43:24
+1 Donna - having financially dependent registries puts registrants at risk.
Steve Chan
43:52
FYI, the language in the Initial Report was: 2.5.4.c.7: Additionally, financial support should go beyond the application fee, such as including application writing fees, related attorney fees, and ICANN registry-level fees.
Elaine Pruis
44:13
i
Elaine Pruis
44:28
agree with Donna and Paul
Justine Chew
44:54
But this support also gives such a registry a warranted, better chance in succeeding.
Justine Chew
45:28
I sort of recall this being discussed at the subteam level too and agree with what Cheryl is saying.
Donna Austin, Neustar
45:49
How so Justine?
Steve Chan
46:01
@Justine, here is the RySG comment about support beyond financial: The RySG believes that ICANN's support should be limited to financial support for the application fee. Further involvement in the operational, technical and business aspects of a registry/registrar will only serve to unnecessarily involve ICANN in the operations of a registry/registrar and will serve as a de facto endorsement of certain registries/registrars and set a negative precedent for future entities that want to enter the registry/registrar business.
Paul McGrady
46:08
I think there is a huge conceptual difference between Applicant support and this new proposed category of Registry support.
Jim Prendergast
48:09
has ICANN ever agreed to fee reductions?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:13
It was in thos consider adding it'conversations as a possible startup period issue as well, but did not emolliate the sustainability issues
Justine Chew
49:00
In fairness we should go back and have a look the level of "support" and "opposition" to this question from the public comments.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:05
it is stability and sustainability that counts ans YES @Jeff we did also ocinsider probono or inkind services here in earlier discussion
Justine Chew
49:22
I absolutely agree with Jeff.
Greg Shatan
50:50
“Applicant Support” should not be confused with “Registry Support.”
Steve Chan
53:39
Link referenced by Jeff: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/non-financial-support
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:44
The matters of sustainability and security *is * of course a concern @Paul The In-Kind Support is a key factor here
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
55:14
3rd parties @Paul
Justine Chew
56:04
But ICANN should also have an interest in ASP registries succeeding beyond the application process.
Paul McGrady
57:00
My concern here is for registrants who may invest in second level domain names and then get EBERO'd and eventually lose their SLDs.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:56
That is (Ihope) well understood @Paul, and certainly *was* considered even right back in the original JAS-WG report
Justine Chew
59:32
But ASP registries should be an exceptional group. I understand the concerns against. In a spirit of compromise would folks in opposition find the suggestion of limiting this support to a SPECIFIED period amenable?
Jim Prendergast
01:01:06
NTAG could be viewed as a source of non financial support. (new gTLD applicant Group) I don't belive there was a fee to join
Greg Shatan
01:02:32
The revenue doesn’t start until the TLD is delegated + x months
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:02:41
noted @Jim
Elaine Pruis
01:03:18
Greg not always—“pioneer programs “ can happen after contract signing
Elaine Pruis
01:03:47
Applicant support should end at contracting.
Jim Prendergast
01:04:02
ICANN is in the business of providing opportunity not guaranteeing success....
Jeffrey Neuman
01:04:09
@Elaine - many pioneer programs were non-fee based
Justine Chew
01:04:47
@jim, I don't believe anyone can guarantee success, including ICANN.
Greg Shatan
01:05:57
No one can guarantee success, but hopefully quite a number of people can forecast a reasonable probability of success or failure.
Justine Chew
01:07:29
Thank you @Jeff, exactly my point about going back to the public comments received.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:07:47
In light of the public comment on the Initial Report and prior work of the Subgroup, you are right Jeff - we have to ask the question and summarize prior comments and prior subgroup work.
Greg Shatan
01:09:15
We can get the EIU to decide which registries get ongoing support. That’ll work....
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:41
Call it out one way or the other
Justine Chew
01:10:45
The opposite could also be true @greg
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:11:18
i think my real concern is the 'ongoing' . Maybe i could live with a waiver of fees for the first year of operation, but that's a personal rather than RySG perspective.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:11:35
that may trigger the data points of support or otherwise that we would need to then consider
Steve Chan
01:11:41
c.6 and c.7 are both related I believe.
Greg Shatan
01:12:42
It would help to hear (persuasive) justifications for ongoing support as a concept.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:07
understood @Greg
Greg Shatan
01:13:17
Rather than justifications based on the process of staying in or out.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:18
that I believe is where we are now tring to head
Steve Chan
01:13:34
Comment analysis here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133WbhWYB4M4kT6DqSfiCR2-ij7jxNkLj5EWZL-NA95M/edit#gid=1627799531
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:51
Thx @STve I was hoping you would find that link
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:29
This says to e we need to call this out
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:19:23
I support the language as is
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:43
so perhaps we can remove the brackets?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:19:44
yes - support it
Justine Chew
01:19:56
Yes, I support keeping the bracketed language.
Justine Chew
01:20:31
@Jeff, @Steve, @Emily, could you remind us when is the start of the Communication Period?
Justine Chew
01:21:19
Thanks
Steve Chan
01:21:33
It’s something to the effect of at least 4 months, or as commensurate with the requirements of the program…based on my poor memory at least.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:46
perhaps we need to have a flow chart diagram for communications and outreach and link to it here as well
Paul McGrady
01:23:06
What's a middle applicant?
Paul McGrady
01:23:27
Are there any boundaries on that? Or is it self-identified?
Paul McGrady
01:23:49
@Jeff, thanks. I look at the deliberations section.
Paul McGrady
01:23:54
I'll
Justine Chew
01:23:56
@Steve, please (re-)confirm through notes of this call.+1 Cheryl, for a flowchart.
Paul McGrady
01:29:13
Does that encourage inflated application fees?
Jim Prendergast
01:29:39
Doesn't ICANN dictate the fee?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:29:55
PAul, can you elaborate?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:59
That is my personal assumption as well @Jeff
Justine Chew
01:32:13
@Paul, my thought, no.
Justine Chew
01:32:38
We should all monitor this.
Justine Chew
01:33:01
Exactly, @Jeff
Paul McGrady
01:33:20
Thanks Jeff. Not trying to cause trouble, but want to make sure we do create all kinds of pots of discretionary money (we already have that as a result of auctions).
Paul McGrady
01:33:29
we do not create
Justine Chew
01:35:01
@Paul, I call asking for a safeguard regarding fee excess -- that it must not be used for anything outside the program.
Justine Chew
01:37:50
@jeff, on the issue of thinking about a mechanism to handle "over demand" on ASP funds, even if we do not come up with a recommendation, could we suggest that IRT consider this somehow?
Justine Chew
01:39:00
I'd rather have us say something rather than be silent. Yes, IG would be good if no one objects.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:58
Time for our AOB
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:41:55
But were also not trying to help people plan better (especially with time zone rotation)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:14
Yes NOT *all of them!*
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:22
this shows us less need for that
Heather Forrest
01:42:36
Thanks for considering the time zones, Cheryl
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:38
so just a couple of 2 hrs ones as @Jeff is outlining
Jim Prendergast
01:43:10
Jeff - where in the work plan do you anticipate consensus calls?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:59
Dec at this stage
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:26
but YOU can all see the space avaioable that we 8Can* use
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:42
in a perfect world (don't jinx things @Jeff!*
Justine Chew
01:44:54
Looking forward to receiving this updated workplan through the mail list.
Jim Prendergast
01:45:06
and it will be more than the 5 days currently in the plan?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:13
aspirational only !
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:53
but yes we should pitch to that pre ICANN 69 :-)
Paul McGrady
01:46:39
@Staff, could you scroll up so that I can see the rest of March please?
Steve Chan
01:47:01
@Paul, sure, and here’s the link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit#gid=839727774
Paul McGrady
01:47:02
Thanks!!
Paul McGrady
01:48:34
Will finalizing GAC Consensus Advice be put back on the calendar? My small drafting team on that is getting underway soon.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:49:02
exactly!
Paul McGrady
01:51:03
Thanks!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:21
:ots done indeed!
Julie Bisland
01:51:39
Next call: Monday, 30 March 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Jim Prendergast
01:52:33
can you circulate some background fr people o the ccTLD process ahead of the call?
Jim Prendergast
01:52:56
thx
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:59
Thanks everyone Bye for now...
avri doria
01:53:10
thanks, bye, be well.
Heather Forrest
01:53:13
Good work, Jeff, keeping us all on schedule
Greg Shatan
01:53:15
Bye all