Page History

Notes/ Action Items

Actions: 

ACTION ITEM: 2.5.4.e.2: Line 81, CCT-RT -- Recommendation 29: Metrics for applications from the Global South -- Review against the action plan to see if there are any implications. 

Notes: 

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided 

2.  Discussion of Public Comment on:

a.  2.5.4 – Applicant Support: 

General Comments: 

Line 4, Government of India -- Agreement/New Idea:

-- In agreement with the new Applicant Support Program.

-- Provides some new ideas.

Line 5, GAC -- take account of CCT-RT recommendations.

Line 6, CCT-RT Report -- Recommendation 32, revisit Applicant Financial Support Program.

Line 7, Government of India -- Support for a lower application fee.

Line 8, ALAC -- Various suggestions to be addressed in specific sections. 

Line 9, RrSG -- Question about funding for ASP.

Line 10, ICANN Org -- Request for guidance concerning overall goals and objective of the ASP.  Bring to full WG.

-- We might want to table this for the WG, because there is another section where we talk about various things the registries have to implement to avoid failing.  Might be helpful to discuss together -- specifically if registries have to rely on applicant support might be more likely to fail.

Line 11, NCSG -- Agreement/New Idea: address in specified sections. 

2.5.4.c.1: 

Line 13, RySG -- Agreement. 

Line 14, Brand Registry Group -- Agreement.

Line 15, ALAC -- Agreement/New Idea.

Line 16, Neustar -- Agreement/New Idea: Part seems to relate to 2.7.7, another to 2.5.4.e.3.

Line 17, ICANN Org -- New Idea/Concerns: Relates to 2.5.4.e.7 -- gaming.

Line 18, BC -- General comment on metrics. 

2.5.4.c.2: 

Lines 20-22 -- ALAC, BRG, RySG all agree.

Line 23, Business Constituency -- Agreement/New Idea: added the definition from Work Track 1 as to what are "middle applicants"

Line 24, Neustar -- Agreement/New Idea. 

Line 25, ICANN Org -- Agreement/Concerns: Relates to 2.5.4.e.1 

2.5.4.c.3: 

Line 27, ALAC -- Agreement/New Idea.

Line 28, RySG -- Agreement/New Idea.

Line 29, Neustar -- Agreement/New Idea. 

Line 30, ICANN Org - New Idea/Concerns: Relate to 2.5.4.e.7 and 2.5.4.e.10 -- Implications of potential increase in volume of AS; bring to full WG. 

2.5.4.c.4: 

Lines 32 and 33 -- ALAC and Business Constituency agreement.

Line 34, Neustar -- Agreement/New Idea.

Line 35, RySG -- Agreement/Divergence.

Line 36, ICAN Org -- New Idea. 

2.5.4.c.5: 

Lines 38-40, ALAC, Business Constituency, and Neustar -- Agreement/New Idea 

Line 41, ICANN Org -- New Idea.

Line 42, RySG -- Agreement/Concerns.

2.5.4.c.6:

LInes 44-47, ALAC, Council of Europe, Business Constituency, Neustar -- Agreement

Line 48, ICANN Org -- New Idea: Shouldn't be held responsible for failure of registry provider. 

Line 49, RySG -- Divergence: Opposed to applicant support; Could set a negative precedent.

Line 50, XYZ -- Divergence: Opposed to applicant support.

Line 51, Neustar -- Concerns: About ASP registry's ability to operate.

2.5.4.c.7: 

Lines 53-55, ALAC, Council of Europe, Business Constituency -- Agreement. 

Line 56, Neustar -- Agreement/New Idea. 

Line 57, ICANN Org -- New Idea.

Line 58, RySG -- Divergence: Same as 2.5.4.c.6 -- ICANN support shouldn't exceed simple financial support.

2.5.4.c.8: 

Lines 60-61, ALAC, Business Constituency -- Agreement. 

Line 62, RySG -- Agreement/New Idea. 

Line 63, Neustar -- Divergence: Doesn't think this should be ICANN's responsiblilty.

Line 64, RrSG -- From 2.5.4.#6

2.5.4.c.9:

Lines 66-67, ALAC and Business Constituency -- Agreement. 

Line 68, Neustar -- Agreement/New Idea. 

Line 69, RySG -- New Idea: Quanfity any additional financial commitments to the ASP. 

2.5.4.e.1:

Line 71, ALAC -- New Idea.

Line 72, Business Constituency - New Idea. 

Line 73, RySG -- Concerns: Anticipated volume of ASP; bring to full WG. 

Line 74, ICANN Org -- New Idea/Concerns: Added from 2.5.4.c.1 and 2.5.4.e7 -- gaming. 

2.5.4.e.2:

Line 76, RySG -- Agreement: that number that considered applying and ultimately applied are important measures.

Line 77, Government of India -- Agreement.

Line 78, ALAC -- Agreement: Confused on "but not many" reference, insight/interpretation? 

From the chat:

Justine Chew 2: 2.5.4.e.2 -- ALAC's comment specific to 2.5.4.e.2.1 should be moved or replicated under 2.5.4.e.2.1

Steve Chan: @Justine, i copied it over already

Justine Chew: Line 78 - ALAC comment - our realistic expectation for ASP is for at least some but not many successful applicants 

Line 79, Business Constituency -- New Idea. 

Line 80, Neustar -- Concerns about ASP registry's ability to operate.

Line 81, CCT-RT -- Recommendation 29: Metrics for applications from the Global South.

ACTION ITEM: Review against the action plan to see if there are any implications. 

Line 82, Business Constituency -- New Idea: See 2.5.4.e.2.1. Bring to full WG: Idea of raising awareness and side benefits of increasing awareness of new gTLDs. 

2.5.4.e.2.1: 

Line 84, Business Constituency -- New Idea: Added to 2.5.4.e.2.

Line 85, RySG -- Comments don't seem to be related to the question; related to 2.7.7 Applicant Reviews.

Line 86, ALAC -- Agreement: number of applications should be measured; New Idea.

2.5.4.e.3: 

Lines 88-90 , ALAC, Business Constituency, RySG -- New Idea. 

2.5.4.e.4: 

Lines 92-93, ALAC and RySG -- Concerns, RySG -- also new idea.

2.5.4.e.5:

Lines 95-97, ALAC, Business Constituency, RySG -- New Ideas; RySG also concerns: Can't assume the availability of consulting services.