Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback on the privacy and proxy service provider accreditation fees-related documentation, both on the list and during the meetings we have recently had on this topic.  

ICANN org has carefully considered the feedback of all IRT members in developing the proposed fee structure. Despite recommendations from some IRT members to reduce the proposed fees, ICANN org continues to believe that the fees proposed are reasonable and appropriate, for the reasons identified in the fees proposal documentation (attached).

As noted in the fees proposal, ICANN org analyzed three relevant factors in reaching the fee structure that was proposed: relevant benchmarks; fees transparency, simplicity, stability and predictability; and anticipated program management costs. ICANN org understands that some IRT members disagree with this assessment, but did not find any of the arguments or suggestions raised by IRT members persuasive.

If persuasive reasons are raised for revisiting the proposed fee structure during the public comment period, ICANN org commits to revisit the proposed fees. Please know that ICANN org sincerely appreciates the time and effort you committed to this exercise and the broader work of the IRT.

Best,

Amy

-----Original Message-----
From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 10:04 AM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Cc: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP fees proposal document attached

Thanks Amy,

Am I reading this correctly? The program startup and application processing is going to cost; 1,117,390???
That is a huge amount of money for a program startup if only a few providers signup for this and the majority decides that the temporary spec or it's successor is enough privacy for registrants. But maybe I am reading it incorrectly.

When I look at the Activity Relevant Department(s) Accredited Provider Account Management Services, it seems many of these activities already exist for Registrars. Can those activities not be handled by the same folks?
I mean does it matter if a Registrar changes its name or a Privacy Provider? It's the same type of processing is it not?

Also, a question about the PP Data Retention Waiver activity. What is this activity?

Thanks,

Theo

Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-05-22 10:20 PM: