Page History
...
6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes
7. AOB
Apologies: Sarmad Hussain
...
On audio only: none
Notes/Actions:
Action Items:
ACTION ITEM: Rubens will send revised schedule to the WT
Notes:
2. SOIs
- No updates
3. Full WG update
- Our next meeting is on Monday 30 January at 15:00 UTC
- Full group is creating drafting teams, calls will go out at the end of the week
- Drafting teams will focus on categorization, rounds vs. other models for subsequent rounds, discussions coming out of WT2
- WTs are working on questions for CC2
- The plan is for CC2 to go out mid- to late- February
4. CC2 questions
- Working document for CC2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit#
- Regarding IDNs, we may want to consider adding a CC2 question about IDN variants
- Jeff Neuman suggested asking about experiences from those that have launched IDN TLDs and challenges they experienced
- Rubens was not sure if CC2 was the right place to ask for this input, but agreed it would be useful to have input on this issue
From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: For technical evaluation: Should the number of TLDs applied for, plus ones they currently run, be taken into consideration in the evaluation. If so, how
Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, you are correct. Applications were evaluated on a standalone basis in the 2012 round
- Where can we factor in possible limitations in infrastructure? Rubens will propose text for a question on the list
- Should other factors be taken into account when someone applies for multiple vs. one TLD (evaluations, launch schedule, architecture, business continuity issues, etc)?
- The exact metrics and methods are not yet known, but the volume should be factored in
- Evaluation panel did raise this issue to ICANN
- There was a reference in the AGB that applications needed to be evaluated on a standalone basis, which is why evaluations occurred this way
From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: Question for ICANN/Evaluators: Did the evaluators/panelists submit performance improvement reports or other comments on what improvements could be made for subsequent procedures?
Jeff Neuman: Was there any post mortem process?
Jeff Neuman: If so, can we see those?
Trang Nguyen: We had debriefs with the evaluation panels and they provided comments and suggestions, which we took into account when drafting the PIRR.
Jeff Neuman: PIRR?
Trang Nguyen: Program Implementation Review Report
Jeff Neuman: Is it possible to see the original comments?
Trang Nguyen: They were provided to ICANN as confidential documents, not for external consumption.
Jeff Neuman: Why confidential?
Trang Nguyen: We could check with them to see if they would have any issues with releasing them.
Jeff Neuman: I can understand redacted portions related to individual applications......but it would be great to see their comments. It may help us to revise questions that were asked of applicants
Trang Nguyen: Their comments/suggestions were largely consistent with ICANN's observations as reflected in the PIRR, but we could take an action to ask them whether we can share their reports.
5. WT4 schedule and planning until ICANN 58
- Current plan: focus next call on IDN and UA
- Target: produce CC2 questions in WTs by the end of January, full WG will consider all CC2 questions and send out for public comment in mid-February
- No objections expressed regarding this timeline
6. List of ongoing consensus calls and discussion themes
- "Financial Evaluation must be performed in aggregation of a registry family"
- Question to consider: should the financial evaluation be different for certain types of applications?
- Trang Nguyen (staff): The financial panel recognized two types of financial models 1. closed model (self supporting)
2. open model (meant to generate revenue). They looked at the applications differently and different thresholds were applied.
From the chat:
Phil Buckingham: Q should there be a separate financial template for each "type" of business model
Jeff Neuman: @Trang. That makes total sense.....We should document that formally and put it into the guidebook
Martin Sutton: That would be helpful to have more detail Trang - can that be shared?
- If the group can get additional information about the existing models of evaluation, this could be put out for comment as part of CC2.
- We are not in the business of evaluating business models. We need to be flexible about the questions we ask in order to ensure sustainability.
- Trang: We can't assume that model of the applicant will be the business model forever. Therefore we need to look at the broader picture of the application.
From the chat:
Martin Sutton: @Trang - good point, but that could be built in to a transition process where checks have to be completed before they switch over
- Some of these issues are discussed in the Program Implementation Review Report
- One model discussed including a second level in a yearly membership, example of different ways of looking at business model
- For future consideration: change of features post-contract - what are the change processes? Do the processes we have now address all the possible changes that could occur?
From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: @Avri - Changes are right now through RSEP process and that is currently beyond the scope of this PDP
Jeff Neuman: Other than accounting for changes in the contracting process, I am not sure we should be delving into how future changes are done. We can recommend a separate PDP for that, but if we go down that path now, we will never finish.
Steve Chan: I think it has been discussed in the context of other topics (e.g., different TLD types), but there is not a dedicated topic related to the subject.
Jeff Neuman: Plus, that has applicability to existing registries as well as for those for future ones
- This WG may want to go deeper into the types of issues that should be considered in evaluations
- In the last round, change in business model sometimes occurred during application process or after signing registry agreement. This caused challenges for ICANN staff. Maybe it would be less of an issue if the rounds were shorter.
- Jeff: We should probably deal with changes in the application process but not after the contracting phase. We could recommend a separate PDP to address changes later in the process.
-If application processing is faster in future rounds, there may be fewer changes to the model during the application process.
From the chat:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): re change of mode
Phil Buckingham: Agree Jeff- cant backtrack .
Martin Sutton: Agree with Jeff - recommendation for separate PDP to progress this, as it is a post-application change
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): mode=model yes Jeff agree
