2018-12-04 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Sub Group B

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items: 2.5.1.e.2:

#3 IPC comment: Unclear on use on "public interest" in this case - universal awareness, applicant support, etc. not contrary to the question proposed.

-- Add to parking lot for this comment.  Pretty broad if they are not defining what is the public interest.   ACTION ITEM: See if "public interest" is defined in their responses.

Notes:

1.  Update SOI’s: No Updates

2.  Discussion of Public Comment on:

a.  2.5.1 -- Application Fees (continuation from the last call - 2.5.1.c.4)

2.5.1.c.4

-- #7 -- Valideus – Doesn’t strictly agree.  Added suggested action: Note prior comment on transparency.

-- #8 -- INTA -- Agrees, but comment on how to use the funds -- added parking lot item: 2.12.3 - compliance  **not SG-B**

-- A lot of comments around transparency.

-- Added a suggestion in cell -- improved accuracy, transparency, accountability on funds before applicant start.  Put it in the parking lot.

-- Added two columns: Parking lot and suggested actions.

2.5.1.c.5:

-- #3 ALAC – Agree; new idea; refer to WG.

-- #4 RySG – Concerns; new idea; refer to WG.

-- #5 Neustar -- doesn't seem to be related to the recommendation.

-- Cell 48: lists divergent, but should have been agreement -- this has been corrected.

2.5.1.e.1:

-- #1 RrSG -- new idea (response to question); refer to full WG.

-- #2 Brand Registry Group – Concerns; refer to full WG; Added comment: Define TLD squatting.

-- #3 RySG -- Concerns, divergence, potentially off topic; refer to full WG.

-- #4 INTA -- Objection Fees Section; bring up to the full WG; Added parking lot item: objection fees section.

2.5.1.e.2:

-- #1 INTA -- disagree (with the concept that the refund should be anything above the cost floor); refer to full WG.

-- #2 ALAC -- Concerns (request for clarity); WG will seek to provide clarity; added comment: Interpretation is correct - overlap on sections "excess fees from fee floor support other items.  Otherewise funds returned to applicants"

-- #3 IPC -- New idea; refer to full WG; added comment: Unclear on use on "public interest" in this case - universal awareness, applicant support, etc. not contrary to the question proposed.

From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT:  WG needs to consider how the "Auction Proceeds" solution may address the IPC comment re "advance the public interest"  if those funds could be used there. Add to parking lot for this comment.  Pretty broad if they are not defining what is the public interest.   ACTION: See if "public interest" is defined in their responses.

-- #4 RySG -- Does not appear to be directly related to this recommendation; added comment: seems to be agreeing - inferring a) fees be returned b) where to apply excess fees; added suggest action: Comment re: transparency.

2.5.1.e.3:

-- #1 INTA -- new idea; refer to full WG; added suggested action: increased efficiency.

-- #2 RySG -- new idea; refer to full WG; added suggested action: comment re: transparency.

-- #3 Vanda Scartezini -- new idea; refer to full WG, but potentially off topic; added to parking lot: 2.7.7 "annual reporting...", added suggest action: Comment re: transparency.

2.5.1.e.4:

-- #1 RySG -- New Idea; refer to full WG.

-- #2 Alexander Schubert -- new idea; refer to full WG; added comment: not related to fee floor; added parking lot: Stack comment 2.7.6.c.2, $500k application fee - 2.5.1.c.1 - Added to section and reviewed in initial review Nov 27, 2018; added suggest action: Set fee of $500k that would result in 100 applications - not aligned with revenue neutral principle; Supply/Demand idea -- take to larger group for further discussion.

-- #3 INTA -- Divergence (basing the floor amount on processing costs is the same as revenue neutral); refer to full WG.

2.5.1.e.5:

-- #1 ALAC -- new idea; refer to full WG.

-- #2 RySG -- new idea; refer to full WG; added comment: if excess of fees exceeds the amounts in 2.5.1.e.2 then use excess in future rounds; added parking lot: 2.5.2.

-- #3 Vanda Scartezini -- new idea; refer to full WG.

-- #4 INTA -- Divergence (giving money back to applicants appears inconsistent with the concept of a floor); refer to full WG.

2.5.1.e.6:

-- #1 ALAC -- new idea; refer to full WG; added comment: No Cap = agree; added parking lot: 2.6.6 Security and Stability.

-- #2 SSAC -- Concerns and New Idea (comments better suited to 2.7.6); refer to full;  WG; added comment: No Cap = agree. Entire comment better suited in related sections; Added to parking lot: 2.5.2.e.1 & 2.7.6

-- #3 INTA -- Concerns; refer to full WG; added comment: No Cap = agree; added parking lot: 2.7.6.

-- #4 RySG -- Concerns; refer to full WG; added comment: No Cap = Agree.

2.5.1.e.7:

-- #1 ALAC -- new idea (response to the question); refer to full WG; added comment: No new ideas related to question - support for revenue neutral; added suggest action: None- support of 2.5.1.c.1.

-- #2 INTA -- new idea (response to the question); refer to full WG; added comment: No new ideas related to question - support for revenue neutral; added suggest action: none - support of 2.5.1.c.1.

-- #3 RySG -- new idea (response to the question); refer to full WG; added comment: No new ideas related to question - support for revenue neutral; added suggest action: none - support of 2.5.1.c.1.

2.5.1.e.8:

--#1 INTA -- New idea (response to question); refer to full WG.

-- #2 RySG -- New idea (response to question); refer to full WG; Added suggest action: Comment re: transparency.

b.  2.5.2 – Variable Fees (time permitting)

2.5.2.c.1:

-- #1 BC; agreement.

-- #2 MARQUES -- Agreement; new idea (where the baseline is established); refer to full WG; added parking lot: 2.7.7; added suggest action: implications of reviewing business plan & variable costing.

-- #3 :Public Interest Community -- Concerns (a suggested correction0; agreement -- refer the concern to full WG.

-- #4 RySG -- Concerns (suggested correction) and agreement; refer the concern to full WG.

-- #5 ALAC -- New idea (may be useful to clarify if the CPE criteria would be utilized here as well; refer new idea to full WG.

-- #6 ICANN Org -- Concerns (request for clarity); WG will seek to provide the requested clarity.

-- #7 Government of India -- Divergence; refer to full WG.

-- #8 Brand Registry Group -- Divergence (seems to support option 2.5.2.d.1; WG will consider this comment in the context of 2.5.2.d.1

-- #2 XYZ -- Agreement, New Idea; refer new idea to full WG; added parking lot: (From 2.5.1) Auctions to be addressed in ____: difference in registration fees in 2.5.2; added suggest action: On-going fees are part of yearly fees and outside the scope - no further action required.

-- #7 INTA -- Divergence (part of the response is perhpas more appropriate to 2.5.2: Variable fees?)  Refer to full WG.  Added comment: Application fees shouldn't be too high to dissuade applicants from applying; added parking lot item: (from 2.5.1) - 2.7.7 Applicant reviews; 2.5.2 Variable Fees; added suggest action: "...application fee amount s/b relatively high to dissuade frivolous applications' is an opinion - policy on deciding frivolous will be difficult to judge and not sure if its valid.  Outside the scope of the WG to determine.

-- #5 INTA; agreement and new idea; refer new idea to full WG; added parking lot: (from 2.5.1) - 2.5.2.c.1

-- #6 Valideus; agreement, new idea; refer new idea to full WG; added parking lot: (from 2.5.1) - 2.5.2.c.1; added suggest action: keep with revenue neutral; add different costs for brands @$50k in 2.5.2.c.1

-- #2 RySG -- New idea (response to question): added comment: if excess of fees exceeds the amounts in 2.5.1.e.2 then use excess in future rounds; added parking lot: (From 2.5.1) - 2.5.2.

2.5.2.d.1:

-- #6 NCSG -- Concerns (however, one that does not seem to apply to this option); refer to full WG.

-- #5 RySG -- Divergence  Concerns (however, one that does not seem to apply to this option); WG Response: The WG will refer the Divergence and Concerns to the full WG.

-- #2 BC – Divergence; refer to full WG; added comment: refer to 2.5.2.c.1 'same for all applications'

-- #3 ALAC – Divergence; refer to full WG.

2.5.2.d.2:

-- #4 NCSG: Agree; added parking lot: 2.5.2.d.1; accreditation Program 2.2.6 - Separate Sub Group.

-- #2 Neustar: Concerns and divergence (seems to also not support 2.5.d.1, which 2.5.d.2 is dependent on); refer to WG; Added parking lot: 2.5.1.c.3; added suggest action: 'layer of admin...' disagreement shouldn't be an issue if determined ahead of time in a transparent methodical way  - see 2.5.1 comment on transparency .

-- #3 RySG -- Divergence; refer to full WG -- there shouldn't be any additional fee.

-- #4 NCSG -- Agree; added parking lot: (From 2.5.2d.2) Accreditation Program 2.2.6 - Separate Sub Group.

-- #1 INTA -- New idea (response to question, seems related to both 2.5.2.d.1 and 2); refer to Full WG; added to parking lot: (From 2.5.2.e.3) - 2.5.2.d.2

-- Re: comments on AGB changes relating to application change request -- capture these in the parking lot.

2.5.2.e.1: - start for next time.