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

Lunar New Year

I get plenty of practice :-)

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

Hello, I cannot hear anything

There I got the sound

Thank you, Annebeth, welcome :)

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

Thanks Jeff!

I like Must /should

apologies for being late

Welcome @Elaine

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

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

thanks

ok

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

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

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

@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.

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.

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

+1 Justine, esp. on financials

hello all, sorry for being late, calendar got borked

Freud!

I agree

I hope to pass the sanity check this time :)

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

hand up

from time to time?

Ah, thanks for pointing that out Donna

that was not the intention

+1 Donna

+1 Donna

what ? so when is it adjusted ?

exactly Paul

last time TMCH 5k usd were added on the top

Seems like this has to happen before applications submitted

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

+1 Paul

yes, but they were given back

later

5k

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

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

It was only given back because ICANN org. agree it was double accounting.

cost recovery for the organization able to consume any amount... is troubled

+1 Donna, or a diagram of some sort. Text is convoluted.

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

Yes again clear examples are useful to prsent

hand up

Is this plan intended to be the administrative arrangements for where ICANN keeps the money?

Comment from Donna

yes there is meant to be a separate extra segregated fund set up

Exactly @Emily

'communicated in advance' is an important inclusion.

clarity and predicabliity again is key along with transparency and Accountability of course!

Thanks Jeff and Emily

This is where the example using figures or diagram would be super useful!

Wholeheartedly agree Justine

+1 Justine

+1 Justine

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

Perhaps tack "where possible" in respect of refunding excess fees?

We can park it but it will have future implications, particularly on a global basis

+1 Justine

I like Donna’s suggestion re: global communication

Agreed

Good idea from Donna on global communication. That might make it easier.

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

I would like a "must" here.

So a recommendation instead of IG?

+1 Justine

@Paul?

Yes

Agree 'must'

We could also add an additional item

that is a recommendation

Agreed

+1 for recommendation

yes agree

on top of the Implementation Guidance

Sorry, moved which item?

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

Perhaps a value like USD 50k ?

The one variable that will remain unknown is number of applications.'

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

I'm not fond of it either Rubens.

A nominal value would be sensible, I think

personally I agree @Martin

So do I

And for applicants, this is an asset, without even using it

time check

ok

Yes, I support inclusion of para c.

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

Good progress today.

Thanks Jeff!

Thanks everyone Bye for now

Bye all, happy weekend

thanks, bye

thanks, bye