2018-05-07 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items: 

1. Preamble/Introduction: WG Co-Chairs will suggest some language to make it clear that a consensus call was not held, and put it out to the list for review examples of how we got to a general type of agreement.
2. General Note from the Co-Chairs to the WG list re: the issue of substantive comment vs report review and clarifications should be circulated in writing.
3. 1.5.1: Add a definition of “speculation” and “warehousing”.
4. 1.5.2:
1. Add a question in the Feedback section: “If we established variable fees how can we be sure there is no gaming?”
2. Add a question in the Feedback section: “How do we ensure there is predictability for the application?”
5. 1.5.3:
1. Re: dependencies – Note that whether or not there is only one window is a dependency.
2. Add a question in the Feedback section: “Is 6 months enough time to complete a community application?”

Notes:

1. Initial Report Excerpts:

-- Sent to the list:  1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.12; will send 1.10 soon.

1.5: Application Submission

1.5.1: Application Fees

-- ICANN should continue to justify how the $185,000 was determined – couldn’t get an exact breakdown of how the fees were spent.  Important that 30 percent of the application fee was for contingencies, which is the excess.  Not released until the program is complete.

-- $80 million left in the excess application fees, but this WG does not have jurisdiction to make recommendations on what is done with excess fees from the last round.

-- The WG should contemplate the methodologies used to determine fees in the future.

-- Did the WG discuss the use of these funds for ICANN’s legal defense?  WG didn’t have the specific conversation about whether this should not be allowed in future application fees.  We couldn’t dig into the methodologies without have the breakdown of the activities that related to the costs.  Important that ICANN can have a contingency – shouldn’t have to dig into the reserve fund as a result of a legal challenge arising from the program.

-- If there are no limits on the number of applications or no way to feasibly limit, then the WG is seeking feedback on this issue relating to speculation or warehousing. The discussions were relating to the correlation between price and demand of applications.  A floor price was assumed to increase the number of applications.  Noting the request for a definition of “speculation” and “warehousing”.

1.5.2: Variable Fees

-- Did the Work Track consider whether different application fees should be applied to different categories of applications? Shouldn't the WG be asking for public comment on this?  Yes, in the Variable Fees section, 1.5.2.

-- If we established variable fees how can we be sure there is no gaming?  ACTION: Add as a question.

-- How do we ensure there is predictability for the application?  ACTION:  Add as a question.

1.5.3: Application Submission Period

-- Time in which the application system is open to accept applications.

-- I'm not sure if a period of 1 month between end of communication period and end of application period is sufficient to propose. Even in Europe many applicants made the decision on the last minute.  Could be good to respond to the questions in the public comment period.

-- Re: dependencies – Whether or not there is only one window.  Some chapters of the report assume that there will be a single window.

-- Was there a thorough discussion about the nature and logistics of a community application – is 6 months enough time to complete a community application?