2018-11-27 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Sub Group B

Notes/ Action Items

1.  Update SOI’s: No Updates

2.  Discussion of Public Comment on:

Google Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133WbhWYB4M4kT6DqSfiCR2-ij7jxNkLj5EWZL-NA95M/edit?usp=sharing

a.  2.5.1 – Application Fees (continuation from the last call)

2.5.1.c.1:

-- Overall the respondents agree with the self-funding aspect.

-- ALAC comment (#6): New idea -- should include contingent programs such as the expansion of contract compliance capability.  Bring to the full WG for consideration.

-- Neustar: Agree, but not aligned -- refer the new idea to the full WG.

-- RySG: New idea and a concern -- address in the full WG.

-- MarkMonitor: New Idea (or more precisely, a comment more appropriate for 2.7.7: Applicant Reviews?)  Or could be a defense of an application fee floor.

Discussion:

-- Comments such as RySG comment of shifting of staff/headcount -- not in scope of the WG.  But it does need to be captured.  Could have a parking lot that lists additional issues that were raised in the public comment to forward to the full WG.

-- Re: the Google Doc -- leadership team and staff have tried to do more of the pre-work to help facilitate the discussion.  Color code the relevant section of the comments and suggest a WG response.  Not final, just facilitation.

-- Question: What do we know about actual costs (see Neustar comments).  Answer: In the WG we did have a discussion on costs, but couldn't get the actual costs.  We would have to do a costing exercise for the next round to be revenue neutral.  This is the high-level approach for the Initial Report.

-- Review of public comments in Sub Group: Not to talk about the SG's opinions about the comments, but what we think needs to be referred to the full WG.  This is a triage exercise of the inputs, given the huge volume of comments, and try to identify themes -- agreement, same concerns or ideas.

-- Can we say when referring to the WG what the Sub Group thinks is out of scope.  Such as the ALAC comment on expansion of the contract compliance capability.

-- Important to note that there is a new idea from ALAC, and the new idea should be reported to the full WG.

2.5.1.c.2:

-- Brand Registry Group -- agrees.

-- XYZ -- New idea CANN must take into consideration the future revenue that ICANN will take in from auctions and increased registration volumes when setting initial application pricing -- refer to full WG.

-- Neustar -- Agrees, and new idea for full WG.

-- RySG -- Agree, new ideas, and request for clarification.

-- Valideau -- Agree and new idea.

-- INTA -- divergence and maybe more appropriate to 2.5.2 Variable Fees.

-- RrSG -- Divergence and agreement.  Doesn't appear to be a single RySG position.

-- ALAC -- Divergence and new idea, refer to full WG.

-- Comments from Vanda -- divergence; refer to full WG.

2.5.1.c.3:

-- MARQUES -- Agree.

-- Brand Registry Group -- Agree.

-- RySG -- Agree.

-- ALAC -- Agree and New Idea for full WG.

-- INTA -- Agree and new idea perhaps related to 2.5.2 Variable Fees.

-- Valideus -- agree and new idea for full WG.

-- ICANN Org -- Concerns, request for clarity.

-- XYZ -- Divergence; refer to full WG.

-- Neustar -- doesn't appear related to this recommendation.