Page History

PROPOSED AGENDA

Agenda

1.  Welcome and Review of Agenda

2.  Update SOI’s

3.  Discussion of Public Comment on:

      a.  2

.5.1

– Application Fees (

continuation from the last call)

      b.  2.5.2 – Variable Fees (time permitting)

4.  AOB

 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

The Google document can be found at: 

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

 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

[docs.google.com]

Mp3

Adobe Connect Recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Attendance & AC chat

Apologies: Katrin Ohlmer, Annebeth Lange, Susan Payne, Justine ChewKristine Dorrain

Notes/ Action Items

Notes:

1.   Agenda review/SOIs

- No updates

  Update SOI’s: No Updates

2.  Discussion of Public Comment on:

Google Document: 2.   Public Comment Review - Section 2.5.1: Application Fees (See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133WbhWYB4M4kT6DqSfiCR2-ij7jxNkLj5EWZL-NA95M/edit?usp=sharing)- Purpose of this exercise is to review comments that came in on the Initial Report

a. The goal is to make a recommendation to the Full Group about next steps  2. We should 1. Make sure we understand what the comments say 2. Make sure we seek clarification on any items we don't understand and C. 

Try to determine whether the comments are in agreement with the Initial Report, whether they disagree (diverge), is the comment presenting a new idea, and/or do they raise concerns? See if a pattern emerges, and if so, this may warrant a recommendation to the Full WG

- This color-coding format follows the structure in the template found on the GNSO Operating Procedures page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures [gnso.icann.org]

- Initial analysis has been conducted by the leadership team. SubGroup should identify if they disagree with this initial analysis/designation and can modify, as appropriate. 

- Any concerns about the initial categorization/analysis conducted prior to the call?

- The analysis focuses on whether there is Agreement, Divergence, New Ideas, or Concerns. There are some comments that request feedback. This is something we can add to the comment categorization: Request for Data. 

- There seems to be a lot of agreement with reducing fees or operating on cost recovery basis, but there do not seem to be many comments focused on gTLDs that are very small and specialized and may not have a lot of income. 

- Clarification - the cost recovery is for ICANN to recover its costs for having to evaluate applications and do any necessary tests. It is possible that the costs for some categories would be less than other categories. This is being considered by Sub Group A which is looking at the topic of categories of gTLDs.

- The program being cost recovery - this goes well beyond the cost of the application. For example, some responses state that funds should go to compliance, work related to name collisions, etc. It's not just costs associated with application evaluation.

- Question: There may be other comments about costs associated with application fees and that some applicants may not be able to cover these fees. Are there other comments that should be considered with this comments?

- There was discussion in Barcelona that some responses might be "umbrella" comments. There might be other comments on the same topic. How will this be addressed to make sure that comments are considered in conjunction with similar comments.

- For the specific comment #1 (under general comments) on this sheet, if the commenter is focused specifically on lower fees for applicants from developing countries, it may make sense to consider it in the context of applicant support. Note that this comment is also included in the tab focused on Applicant Support. 

from the chat: 

Emily Barabas: There are some comments that seemed to fall under more than one topic. In those cases, staff has placed the comment in multiple places so it can be considered in context.

Kristine Dorrain: +1 Emily

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): I had assumed so @Emily thank you for confirming

Jeff Neuman: I think this comment is in both places correctly.  It is saying both that it is too high in general and that for applicant support making them still pay $47k is too much as well

Jeff Neuman: But we can ask them for clarification

Jeff Neuman: That is the purpose of this.

Kathy Kleiman: OK, I'll go back through. I think we may be missing some comments that should apply in multiple sections.

Kristine Dorrain: Jeff, that's what I thought.

Kathy Kleiman: If I remember one of the comments correctly, it had to do with more than applicant support --

Kathy Kleiman: --- more like a level playing field for applicants.

Kathy Kleiman: I'll check!

- Question: On the comment from ALAC (line 3 comment on 2.5.1.c.1), there is a new idea to expand contractual compliance. What do we think about this suggestion?

- We defined cost recovery to include costs from the time the application process begins to the completion of evaluation of the applications.

- Line 3 (ALAC comment on 2.5.1.c.1): Seems to agree that the program is self funding, but seem to diverge in the notion of the definition of self-funding (they propose a different time period to consider). The new idea is to direct additional funds to contractual compliance. Suggestions to have 3 designations for this comment: Agreement, Divergence, and New Idea

- As a WG, we need to decide if we should stick with the definition of a self-funding program. 

From the chat: 

Kristine Dorrain: I think one commonality of a lot of these comments is not agreeing on what "self-funding" covers.

Kristine Dorrain: w/r/t the ALAC comment -  note that ICANN just expands to fill more than it's alloted. So if ICANN can't operate within its budget, the answer isn't to give it more money in the guise of "self funding."

Kristine Dorrain: ^Not trying to argue a point, as I realize that's not what we're here to do, but it's critical to define self-funding.

Jeff Neuman: Divergence with the concept of when cost recovery begins and ends

Kristine Dorrain: Yes

Jeff Neuman: Agreement on the concept of "Self funding"

Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: How do we measure cost recovery where there are Requests for Reconsideration and  Independent Review Panels  dealing with particular applications?  How does ICANN deal with cost recovery in those situations AFTER delegation?  QUESTION

Jeff Neuman: And a new idea to include additional compliance funding with either the application process or oeprational costs

Jeff Neuman: @Anne - that is in the contengency fee aspect of the cost recovery component

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thanks Jeff - I guess that means contingency covers post-delegation issues?  How is the contingency amount calculated?

nne Aikman-Scalese: Thanks Jeff - I guess that means contingency covers post-delegation issues?  How is the contingency amount calculated?

Jeff Neuman: @Anne - I still think all reconsiderations and IRPs are generally prior to delegation

Jeff Neuman: If there is a Reconsideration / IRP after delegation, then that is just a cost of ICANN doing business

Kristine Dorrain: It looks to me like Marquest comment fits within the "agree on the concept" but "disagree on what that amount is."

- It may be helpful to do most of the work on the mailing list rather than on the calls.

- There was discussion about defining about what self-funding is, there is another question about what should be included in the New gTLD Program. For example, Universal Acceptance became a more prominent issue with the New gTLD Program, and we should consider to what extent related efforts should be funded through the Program.

- What other considerations need to be taken into account when defining a self funding program if there is a continuous application process.

- Line 6 - comment from Neustar (2.5.1.c.1)- New idea presented is within our remit. This is something for us to discuss, classify, and then potential send out the full WG.

- Kristine made a comment on the Marques comment (2.5.1.c.1) - They are agreeing with the concept but disagreeing on the appropriate amonunt

- Neustar (2.5.1.c.1) has this listed as a new idea and and RySG (2.5.1.c.1) also have this marked as a new idea. How do we tag the two as being similiar so we can keep track of the fact that they are linked?

- There are questions about what to do with excess fees, both in terms of the program in general, but also in the context of an application floor. The Neustar suggestion of how to divide the excess fees was the part of the comment designated as a new idea. 

- Is there a seperate place where we pull out the new ideas and look at them all together? Should we have a "parking lot" for these ideas?

- Suggestion to add a parking lot tab to the spreadsheet to gather new ideas.

- The scope of these public comments is far larger than what is usually received. There is a learning curve to this process.

- Sub Group A is highlighting the relevant section of the comment that is a new idea in blue, so that it is placed in context without generating additional content. This is alternative to the "parking lot" approach and could be adopted by this Sub Group, too.

From the chat: 

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Does anyone know how much ICANN is holding in the legal defense fund for the new gTLD program at the present time?

Jim Prendergast: north of $75 million

Jim Prendergast: but its all considered "risk"

Anne Aikman-Scalese: And are those funds available to cover ICANN staff time on these issues in additin to outside legal fees?

Jim Prendergast: I believe so.  Xavier addressed either in BCN or on the FY20 budget call

3.   AOB

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.- None