Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
27:15
1300
Heather Forrest
27:18
woohoo! Business hours here in Australia!
Michael Flemming
27:30
Lunch time here
Michael Flemming
27:53
If you hear chewing, it is not me. I am waiting to eat today.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
27:54
all very APAC friendly (well SE APAC anyway ;-)
Jim Prendergast
28:16
Jeff - just want to make sur eyou have my 2 AOB items
Jim Prendergast
28:39
thanks
Julie Hedlund
29:12
Hey all, help keep me awake ;-)
Julie Hedlund
30:02
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wqEYsk/edit?usp=sharing
Michael Flemming
34:43
I hope not. Do you hear English or something else in the background?
Julie Hedlund
36:14
Greg we see your hand
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
36:53
glad someone d oes
Julie Hedlund
37:02
;-)
Maxim Alzoba
38:42
IANA transition was not a part of new gTLD, and it was a reason for large part of spendings
Maxim Alzoba
39:10
I hope we are not saying there is a need of reverse IANA transition
Julie Hedlund
39:39
@Jeff: I will watch for hands.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:27
But I think @Greg is saying why now stick to *all* of the original premise
Donna Austin, Neustar
42:29
I think the original premise remains valid
Jim Prendergast
42:43
do we know for sure that there were no cross subsdization of funds from the last round (even if they were reimbursed?)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:08
I was parphrasing Greg I hope, not stating a view
Kurt Pritz
43:33
I think if ICANN estimates the cost as x, then ICANN sets the fee at 1.25x or 1.5x (something dependent on the expected cost standard deviation). Then there is a 90% cane of overrun and that overrun is refunded because there is an intentional cushion built into the fee.
Jim Prendergast
43:51
ok
Kurt Pritz
43:52
“90% chance"
Julie Hedlund
45:11
Hand up from Greg Shatan
Jim Prendergast
46:27
low case/High case - thats a big question Jeff - from Cyrus's comments on assumptions - he said they just picked a number with no real rationale so what ever low case/high case - they are just currently guesses
Kurt Pritz
49:33
If the policy is that fess are set on a “cost recovery” basis, how is there any other conclusion than to return the excess to the applicants. Ifthis is not the case, then we must change the “cost recovery” part of the policy
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:42
of course there are 'guesses'and *good guesses* based on experience
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
51:42
there doesn’t need to be any link between cost recovery based pricing and refunds.
Julie Hedlund
52:46
Greg is that a new hand?
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
56:03
Sorry I missed Thursday’s call. But that doesn’t make it a fait accompli.
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
57:46
.org is a different scenario— refunds went to losing applicants, if I understand correctly. which is more like refunds for withdrawing.
Edmon Chung
01:01:49
without a clear report on how this "cost recovery" approach worked in the last round... how do we decide if it is acceptable? I think we need a report from ICANN documenting whether the exercise last time and the determination of the cost did indeed achieve the "cost recovery" goal
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:14
I think the ‘cost recovery’ report can not be done until all applicants fully pass into either failed or passed states
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:03:22
@Greg, speaking personally, I've completely lost track of any point that you're trying to make against the principle of 'cost recovery'.
Jim Prendergast
01:04:14
@Edmund - there may have been one but I cant recall for sure. Christa Taylor would know for sure. Definitely would help inform if it hadnt been done.
Edmon Chung
01:05:23
@maxim, even if it is not complete, i think a report of all the ones done to date should provide a good estimate at least?
Justine Chew
01:05:41
@Edmund, @Jim, I'm pretty sure we have asked this of ICANN Org before but I don't recall seeing anything back from ICANN Org.
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
01:06:18
Donna, I’m not sure what you don’t get.
Jeff Neuman
01:06:19
@Edmon and all - Every financial annual report when they are doing their budget, they do that analysis. Its not the greatest amount of detail, but they have done it
Jeff Neuman
01:06:31
showing that there is approx $80 million excess.
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:33
@Edmon, I think it depends on now much money spend on the last ones (given the complexity)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:07:22
@Edmon. We had a lot of discussion about this in Work Track 1 that was lead by Christa Taylor. The basis of what we roughly agreed to was reflected in the Initial Report.
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:34
To do that, they will have to obtain hundreds of letters of approval from local governments
Justine Chew
01:08:26
@Jeff, and how much of that $80 mil is "held as a legal defence fund"?
Justine Chew
01:09:26
That's what i thought. thanks @jeff
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:09:50
@Justine, you would need to ask ICANN that, but based on replies the RySG has received from ICANN when it has asked for the excess to be returned the response is basically all of it is being kept just in case until the completion of the 2012 round.
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
01:10:11
To be clear, I have no issue with a company operating a large number of TLDs.
Justine Chew
01:10:12
Just as I thought, @Donna
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
01:10:39
Operating being the operative word.
Justine Chew
01:10:39
Thanks!
Edmon Chung
01:10:52
@donna understood
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:52
makes sense to shift these comments @jeff... yes
Julie Hedlund
01:19:18
Hand up from Greg
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:08
I suspect ALAC is more cocerned with not disadvantaging opportunity for disadvantaged or underserved community gTLDs as oppssed to 'competition'per se
Michael Flemming
01:21:14
I need to drop at the top of the hour. Until next time.
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
01:23:45
I support the ALAC view.
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
01:25:17
Competition is harmed if the floor is set above the perceived value of the TLD, regardless of any purported relationship to cost recovery.
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:42
for the promotion of the local TLDs IDNs are important
Justine Chew
01:33:20
I think ALAC would likely support discounted fees for IDN variants tied to a principal new gTLD.
Justine Chew
01:34:11
@Jim, I'd say look at applications not applicants.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:34:23
The strings may still require additional consideration in the evaluation process, ie. similarity and potentially objection that may incur additional processing and evaluation cost.
Maxim Alzoba
01:35:45
I meant IDNs, not necessary variants
Julie Hedlund
01:35:53
Hands up from Greg
Jim Prendergast
01:35:54
i think trying to provide bulk discounts get real tricky real fast. best to state at the outset - an application costs X your costs will be X times your number of applications. full stop
Justine Chew
01:36:09
IDNs not variants
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
01:36:31
Agree with Jim.
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:33
it could also be ASCII and translation to local language (IDN)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:36:55
Restating here as my comment was missed: The strings may still require additional consideration in the evaluation process, ie. similarity and potentially objection that may incur additional processing and evaluation cost.
Edmon Chung
01:38:01
IDN Variant TLDs is not and should not be considered a separate application from the primary IDN gTLD, an IDN version of an ASCII gTLD is i think what is being discussed?
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
01:38:44
It Definitely makes Sense for a Cost Structure to have accommodation for Multiple applications, by the Same Entity. And the Variant (in the form of IDN) but the Price Structure is also like that because We will need to keep the entire String Formation to a decent number as if there is Discounting, then we open the Flood Gates. Which In my opinion, will not be making commercial sense for the other providers who have spent Millions in already getting the strings & in the renewal fees.
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
01:39:11
Discounting will make it non-competitive which will not make sense.
Edmon Chung
01:39:53
it is possible to consider a "Financial Support/Discount program" which could operate kinda like the Applicant Support program but through a different process to apply for such discounts...
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:40:14
I think Vaibhav makes some good points in his comments.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:46
indeed @Donna good point re evaluations in general
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
01:40:55
Sure
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:35
not seeing overwhelming support from this set of meeting participants
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
01:42:55
The Idea for NGOs to get financial support - ha floated for several years, provided they carry some kind of Certification from some International (Multi-Country) authority (its)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:50
yup
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:48:09
idn
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:10
study group 1st from ccNSO methodologies of work inti a Policy Dev process
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:31
so there is also a timing issue as wll
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:53
as I understand CCWG is not a good idea for policy development
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:35
ccNSO PDP's are often inclusive of other AC SO's any way
Maxim Alzoba
01:51:16
@Cheryl, we have different basis for the policy development
Jim Prendergast
01:52:14
so is there the possiblty of two different stadards? and is that a problem? Im not as upto speed on ccNSO as others.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:26
Maxin I have been an ingegral part (including as leadership) of PDP's in both SO's
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:56
I meant we can not just copy paste
Jim Prendergast
01:53:34
ok - thanks - good for everyone to hear how those go.
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:47
@Jim, ccNSO members can , for example use emojies in DNS
Jeff Neuman
01:54:03
@jim - Yes, thanks for the reminder and the AoB. We should have put those on the agenda.
Jim Prendergast
01:54:13
:o
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:53
formal policy development is different from social interactions and just participation
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:55:13
worth noting that ccNSO PDP recommendations or policies are not binding on ccTLD registry operators
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:19
very much so @maxim
Maxim Alzoba
01:55:35
and formally nothing prevents ccNSO from changing it’s views later
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:52
and also not a CCWG
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:04
also ccNSO policies are for ccNSO members (for example IDN ccTLDs are not there yet)
Michelle DeSmyter
01:56:15
Next meeting scheduled: Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:17
yup
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:32
bye all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:35
Thanks everyone... good progress again today
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:40
bye for now
Edmon Chung
01:56:44
thx bye