Page History
...
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Attendance & AC chat Apologies: Katrin Ohlmer, Kristine Dorrain |
Note |
---|
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.
|