The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group will take place on Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 22:00 Paris CEST, (Friday) 01:00 Karachi PKT, (Friday) 05:00 Tokyo JST, (Friday)06:00 Melbourne AEST
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/y6zgjkax
PROPOSED AGENDA
Draft Agenda:
- Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest
- Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wqEYsk/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
- Application Fees, page 3
- Variable Fees, page 4 (time permitting)
- AOB
Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). A PDF snapshot also is attached for reference.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
RECORDINGS
PARTICIPATION
Notes/ Action Items
Action Items:
From 15 July 2019:
ACTION ITEM 1: Applicant Freedom of Expression - Input on Implementation Guidelines - LRO: Work on language for the high-level agreement to reflect fairness and balance.
ACTION ITEM 2: Universal Acceptance: Rewrite the high-level agreement text. Include a link to the USAG work.
From 18 July 2019:
ACTION ITEM 3: On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify.
Notes:
- Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.
2. Review of summary document: (continued) – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wqEYsk/edit?usp=sharing
Overarching process comment: Call out when decisions on whether or not to accept/support new ideas will be taken well ahead of the meeting where decisions will be made. Note that these are called out as actions below.
a. Application Fees:
Outstanding Items - New Ideas/Concerns/Divergence
-- INTA comments seem to be contradictory: Maybe saying that the cost that ICANN is going to expend per TLD application should come from other sources thus driving the cost down and encouraging frivolous application. There are ways that the price could be below cost recovery. INTA doesn’t support it being unnecessarily expensive. So, not really divergence with the cost recovery summary. It is okay with cost recovery if it includes all of the costs.
Comments on the scope of what should be included for cost-recovery:
ACTION: Any support for the three new ideas?
Application fee floor:
-- Question: Thought the idea of the floor is that it is separate from the application fee -- it is used to determine what happens with any excess funds. Answer: It’s not a component of the fee (as we worded it in the Initial Report). Is that every application would cost a different amount. ICANN has to determine the total cost of the program but can’t divide it to figure out how much each application would be.
-- Recommendations don’t address how to control warehousing. But this is not meant to define TLD warehousing as part of the rationale to not have it go to low.
-- On this comment: Concerns: ICANN org - ICANN org is not aware of any “75 steps” document and is unclear about what “documentation related to the process used in setting fee in the 2012 round is being referenced in this section. It would be helpful if the PDP Working Group could clarify. ACTION: To the WG to clarify.
Disbursement of excess fees (with no price floor):
ACTION: Any support for these new ideas? To the extent that they are inconsistent with the above recommendations in the high-level agreements no need to spend more time on them.
Circumstances where revenue-cost neutral amount results in a refund that is greater than the application fee floor value:
-- NOTE: for accounting reasons it might be better to have refunds (if any) in the form of discounts/NOTE
Disbursement of excess fees (with an application fee floor):
ACTION: Is there support for any of these new ideas?
**Next call start with the timing of disbursement of excess funds, page 6**
