
25:40
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 30 January 2020 at 20:00 UTC.

26:31
Lunar New Year

26:56
I get plenty of practice :-)

27:18
Here’s the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

28:39
Hello, I cannot hear anything

29:09
There I got the sound

29:38
Thank you, Annebeth, welcome :)

31:19
@Jeff - will those two distinct categories be identified throughout the report?

32:56
Thanks Jeff!

33:39
I like Must /should

34:51
apologies for being late

35:29
Welcome @Elaine

35:51
With the should class, will there also be an example or type of a case that shows why it isn't a must?

37:59
Examples (clear and effective ones) are a useful tool IMO

40:39
thanks

45:23
ok

49:33
@Donna - it may work out worthwhile for them to go thru the pre-app process

50:22
I would think 1 time was in keeping with the original discussions we held in WT4

50:25
I agree Martin, but some may be late to the game and not have time for pre-approval.

52:46
@Jeff, we may want to create a third category: Must/should/might. ICANN ?might" want to grant price breaks for multiple applicants for the financial and background checks.

54:38
The timing of when various evaluations are conducted also matter. As a side point, there was a suggestion that evaluation (background screening?) be conducted twice - once during application and second, prior contracting.

56:26
Sure, just on timing of evaluations - financials change over time, perhaps technical may not.

56:54
+1 Justine, esp. on financials

58:19
hello all, sorry for being late, calendar got borked

01:00:41
Freud!

01:00:50
I agree

01:00:51
I hope to pass the sanity check this time :)

01:03:06
+1 Jeff, on your point re "Application fees may differ for applicants" - it is somewhat confusing.

01:04:09
hand up

01:04:12
from time to time?

01:06:08
Ah, thanks for pointing that out Donna

01:06:11
that was not the intention

01:06:38
+1 Donna

01:06:59
+1 Donna

01:08:18
what ? so when is it adjusted ?

01:08:32
exactly Paul

01:08:51
last time TMCH 5k usd were added on the top

01:09:26
Seems like this has to happen before applications submitted

01:09:33
The 5k TMCH added on top was later given back, exactly because it was part of the scope that based the original 185k.

01:09:48
+1 Paul

01:10:16
yes, but they were given back

01:10:19
later

01:10:22
5k

01:10:55
and they wew given back to registries, not necessary applicants :)

01:11:30
Maxim, that's true, but giving back to registries was what we could get from ICANN Org. We suggested going further.

01:11:51
It was only given back because ICANN org. agree it was double accounting.

01:12:05
cost recovery for the organization able to consume any amount... is troubled

01:15:33
+1 Donna, or a diagram of some sort. Text is convoluted.

01:15:43
@Maxim - thankfully there are responsible folk that will monitor and provide their feedback in the process :-)

01:15:56
Yes again clear examples are useful to prsent

01:18:30
hand up

01:18:48
Is this plan intended to be the administrative arrangements for where ICANN keeps the money?

01:18:53
Comment from Donna

01:20:51
yes there is meant to be a separate extra segregated fund set up

01:20:55
Exactly @Emily

01:21:14
'communicated in advance' is an important inclusion.

01:21:37
clarity and predicabliity again is key along with transparency and Accountability of course!

01:22:50
Thanks Jeff and Emily

01:25:09
This is where the example using figures or diagram would be super useful!

01:25:37
Wholeheartedly agree Justine

01:26:28
+1 Justine

01:26:40
+1 Justine

01:29:09
it is a minefield ( from an accounting point of view ) ! . suggestion ICANN finance figure out the cost recalibration recovery !

01:29:57
Perhaps tack "where possible" in respect of refunding excess fees?

01:31:13
We can park it but it will have future implications, particularly on a global basis

01:33:02
+1 Justine

01:34:36
I like Donna’s suggestion re: global communication

01:34:47
Agreed

01:36:06
Good idea from Donna on global communication. That might make it easier.

01:36:15
I would like to think that the segregated fund is off limits to "loans to ICANN".

01:38:40
I would like a "must" here.

01:39:50
So a recommendation instead of IG?

01:39:56
+1 Justine

01:40:00
@Paul?

01:41:01
Yes

01:41:15
Agree 'must'

01:41:22
We could also add an additional item

01:41:25
that is a recommendation

01:41:28
Agreed

01:41:30
+1 for recommendation

01:41:31
yes agree

01:41:32
on top of the Implementation Guidance

01:42:06
Sorry, moved which item?

01:43:28
Forget my comment about %, I know it's near impossible to do.

01:44:33
Perhaps a value like USD 50k ?

01:44:51
The one variable that will remain unknown is number of applications.'

01:45:07
(Not that I'm fond for having a floor, but it seems that people like having that)

01:45:25
I'm not fond of it either Rubens.

01:47:34
A nominal value would be sensible, I think

01:48:13
personally I agree @Martin

01:48:56
So do I

01:50:03
And for applicants, this is an asset, without even using it

01:50:03
time check

01:50:04
ok

01:50:04
Yes, I support inclusion of para c.

01:50:25
NEXT CALL: Monday, 03 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

01:50:36
Good progress today.

01:50:45
Thanks Jeff!

01:50:46
Thanks everyone Bye for now

01:50:47
Bye all, happy weekend

01:50:52
thanks, bye

01:50:58
thanks, bye