PROPOSED AGENDA

Proposed Agenda:

1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest

2. Discussion of Final Report Topics

   1. 2.5.4 Applicant Support – see attached PDF for clean version and redline at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing

   2. 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression – see:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

3. AOB

   1. Workplan / Extended meetings

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

RECORDINGS

Audio Recording

Zoom Recording

Chat Transcript 

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

PARTICIPATION

Apologies:  Katrin Ohlmer, Susan Payne, Maxim Alzoba, Annebeth Lange

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

2.5.4 Applicant Support

Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4):

ACTION ITEM: Remove the brackets.

ACTION ITEM: Confirm the timing of the Communication Period and create a flow chart diagram for communications and outreach.

Recommendation xx (rationale 3):

ACTION ITEM: For review by the WG on the list: Leadership & staff to change from a recommendation to a question for public comment, but removing the bracketed text, and develop a question for WG review to ask whether ongoing registry level fees should be included in financial assistance.

Re: Whether there should be any changes to the 2012 approach of establishing priority between applications if there are more qualified applicants than funds available.

ACTION ITEM: Add this as an Implementation Guideline for the IRT to consider.

Work Plan:

ACTION ITEM: Leadership Team to consider how to address the additional drafting proposed for community applications and panels doing outside research and the redlines in GAC Consensus Advice; add these items back on the calendar and consider whether they make sense to add to the 6 April meeting.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. Discussion of Final Report Topics

a. 2.5.4 Applicant Support – see attached PDF for clean version and redline at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing

Recommendation xx (rationale 3): The Working Group recommends expanding the scope of financial support provided to Applicant Support Program beneficiaries beyond the application fee to also cover costs such as application writing fees, attorney fees related to the application process, and [ongoing ICANN registry-level fees].

Discussion:

-- Not supported by the RySG: RySG comment about support beyond financial: “The RySG believes that ICANN's support should be limited to financial support for the application fee. Further involvement in the operational, technical and business aspects of a registry/registrar will only serve to unnecessarily involve ICANN in the operations of a registry/registrar and will serve as a de facto endorsement of certain registries/registrars and set a negative precedent for future entities that want to enter the registry/registrar business.”

-- Look at level of support and opposition to this question from the public comments.

-- Not sure how this ended up as a recommendation.

-- Having financially dependent registries puts registrants at risk.

-- The text is bracketed to indicate that it is for WG discussion/consideration.

-- We did discuss this in the Work Track – a lot of community interaction on this topic.  Originally we carefully noted that the applicant support itself wasn’t a problem but the sustainability was something that should be considered.

-- The language in the Initial Report was: 2.5.4.c.7: Additionally, financial support should go beyond the application fee, such as including application writing fees, related attorney fees, and ICANN registry-level fees. [emphasis added]

-- This support also gives such a registry a warranted, better chance in succeeding.

-- Just because a registry is getting pro-bono assistance doesn’t mean it’s not sustainable and secure.

-- Re: Paul’s comment that there is a huge conceptual difference between applicant support and new proposed category of registry support.  Can we discuss this?

-- Part of the conceptual leap is that the initial idea behind this would be to open the door to applicants who can’t raise the very high application fee, and you need to hire lawyers, etc.  To help people who have innovative ideas to open a brand new registry.  But now we are talking about what happens after delegation and whether there should be an ongoing subsidy for registries that aren’t financially viable.  That seems to be something we don’t agree on.  That’s why we do a financial background check to make sure that registries can operate and be viable after delegation.

-- How is it different to offer these non-financial pro-bono services in subsidizing these registry fees?  If it’s third parties and not ICANN that is terrific and that drives down the cost of running a registry.  No problem with third parties doing good, but that is not the same thing as saying that ICANN should subsidize registries that don’t have a viable business model.

-- ICANN should have an interest in registry succeeding beyond the application process.

-- The registries have had conversations with ICANN in the past to request some of the excess fees being applied to a fee reduction.  ICANN has consistently pushed back that it isn’t their job to prop up a registry that is failing.  Don’t agree with the argument that this is ICANN’s responsibility.

-- Agree that financial sustainability is not something that ICANN should be contributing to.

-- In favor of other support, such as in-kind support, joining the RySG, etc.  Applicant support should be a one-shot process and shouldn’t be registry support.

-- But ASP registries should be an exceptional group. I understand the concerns against. In a spirit of compromise would folks in opposition find the suggestion of limiting this support to a SPECIFIED period amenable?

-- Needs to be a minimum sustainable financial model.

-- Applicant support should end at contracting.

-- ICANN is in the business of providing opportunity not guaranteeing success.

-- If you go back to 2012 there were a lot of unknowns – this time around we would hope that applicants would be more attuned and inform their decisions.

-- Propose: Because this language was in the Initial Report: 1) remove the bracketed language and ask a very specific question on this, yes/no should ongoing registry level fees be included; 2) keep the language bracketed and ask the same question.  At a minimum we should ask a question about this, but WG should decide whether to keep the text in brackets or remove it.

-- We are hearing more voices than just the RySG reps that don’t support this.  Seems like it wouldn’t support a consensus call.

-- We should disclose the fact that we’ve taken it out and ask a question about it.  It was only one group that had an issue with it.  We still should ask a question.

-- It does make sense to respect the comments on the Initial Report and the Work Track.

-- Looking at the comments – other than the RySG who opposed it and Council of Europe who endorsed it, the rest of the comments don’t seem to specifically support or oppose.

ACTION ITEM: For review by the WG on the list: Leadership & staff to change from a recommendation to a question for public comment, but removing the bracketed text, and develop a question for WG review to ask whether ongoing registry level fees should be included in financial assistance.

Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4): Outreach and awareness-raising activities should be delivered well in advance of the application window opening, as longer lead times help to promote more widespread knowledge about the program.  [Such Outreach and education should commence no later than the start of the Communication Period.]

Discussion:

-- Not sure why we bracketed the language, but perhaps to agree on the time period.

-- Communication Period is  at least 4 months, or as commensurate with the requirements of the program.

-- Support for the bracketed language.

ACTION ITEM: Remove the brackets.

ACTION ITEM: Confirm the timing of the Communication Period and create a flow chart diagram for communications and outreach.

Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4): Outreach efforts should not only target the Global South, but also “middle applicants,” which are located in struggling regions that are further along in their development compared to underserved or underdeveloped regions.  In addition, the evaluation criteria for Applicant Support must treat “middle applicants” similar to those currently set forth in Criteria #1, Section 4 (Operation in a developing economy) of the Financial Assistance Handbook.  

Discussion:

-- It’s not just outreach to target “middle applicants” but in 2012 it gave extra points/prioritized those that were in developing regions so we wanted to make sure that because we are changing that to “middle applicants” we should be consistent in our evaluation criteria.

-- Seemed to be supported in the ICANN67 discussion.

Recommendation xx (rationale 6): ICANN Org must develop a plan for funding the Applicant Support Program, as proposed in the Implementation Guidelines below.

Implementation Guideline xx (rationale 6): ICANN Org should evaluate whether it can provide funds (as they did in 2012) or whether additional funding is needed for the Applicant Support Program in subsequent rounds.

Implementation Guideline xx (rationale 6): ICANN Org should seek funding partners to help financially support the Applicant Support Program, as appropriate. 

Discussion:

-- During ICANN67 there was discussion to add a reference – that if we had a fee floor established because the costs were below that floor that one of the purposes for the excess fees would be that they would go to applicant support – added a footnote.

-- Question: Does that encourage inflated application fees?  Answer: ICANN dictates the fees, but from a cost-recovery basis if the fees are below what we would consider a floor then one of the purposes of the excess could be to go to the applicant support program.

-- Question: Could this open up to ICANN saying that the application fee will be x-plus, meaning the fee would be higher than it would otherwise be to take into account that some of the excess fees will go to the application support program? Answer: ICANN would probably consider the fees as part of the cost in the cost-recovery to run the gTLD program.  We have specific criteria as to how a floor should be set.  Rationale for the fee will also be published.

Re: Whether there should be any changes to the 2012 approach of establishing priority between applications if there are more qualified applicants than funds available.

-- On the issue of thinking about a mechanism to handle "over demand" on ASP funds, even if we do not come up with a recommendation, could we suggest that IRT consider this somehow?

ACTION ITEM: Add this as an Implementation Guideline for the IRT to consider.

3. AOB: Future Scheduling and the Work Plan

-- Because we have covered sections more quickly than we expected we are able to move topics up in the Work Plan.  WG members should review the Work Plan at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit#gid=839727774

-- Looking much more likely that we can get the report out before ICANN68.

-- Sections of the Report will look very much like the material the WG has been reviewing.

-- We will use the time after discussing the sections to come up with questions for public comment.

-- We will have a couple longer meetings in April and May – extending two calls in each month for an additional half hour for more focused conversations on topics that will take longer.  April 6 and 16, and May 4 and 14.

-- Consensus calls will not occur until we analyze public comments on the draft Final Report.

-- Would like to get the Final Report to the Council before the ICANN69 meeting.

-- Staff will update the rest of the Work Plan now that topics have been moved up.

-- Question: What happened to the topics where additional drafting was proposed, such as community applications and what constitutes the “necessary” when a panels is doing outside research; and the discussion on GAC Consensus Advice and redlines from Paul McGrady?  We need to jump on those things.  How can we expedite those drafting proposals? Answer: Leadership Team will discuss and get back to the WG.

ACTION ITEM: Leadership Team to consider how to address the additional drafting proposed for community applications and panels doing outside research and the redlines in GAC Consensus Advice; add these items back on the calendar and consider whether they make sense to add to the 6 April meeting.