Jeff, all
Some suggested changes to a. below. I think it would be best if we provided guidance on what the funds could be used for and ensure transparency.
Leadership Recommendation -
Proposed Implementation Guidance:
-
Although ICANN must operate the new gTLD Program on a Cost Recovery basis (subject to any floors as set forth in this report)
ICANN org
may set aside a certain small percentage of excess fees (to the extent there are excess fees) to apply towards
coveringthe costsof maintaining the capability to spin up future subsequent rounds of new gTLDs with minimum delay and to ensure that the new gTLD Program is able to continue into the future. For example, retaining staff with program expertise and maintaining requisite systems. Any excess fees set aside by ICANN for this purpose must be explicitly recorded and justified. - In addition, with the remainder of any excess fees, ICANN may establish a schedule for the
disbursement of refunds upon the achievement of specified milestones. For illustrative purposes only, such a schedule could establish that once 50% of the applications have been fully processed (eg., delegated, withdrawn, or not approved), ICANN would issue
a payment of 25% of the excess fees back to the applicants.
- ICANN should further explore these with the Implementation Review Team and ensure that the
resulting implementation is clearly documented in the Applicant Guidebook.
Donna
Donna Austin
Head of Registry Policy
GoDaddy Registry
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 6:05 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees
Notice:
This email is from an external sender.
All,
This is the
Fifth Topical E-mail on outstanding questions being “put to the list.” This covers Applicant Fees (Topic 15)
Remember: We are down to the wire on this, so unless you have a VERY strong objection to these, we will put these into the document. If you do have a big issue with the responses
to these (all of which were previously discussed and in emails over the past 1.5 months), please let us know ASAP. Only comments that provide the rationale for the objection with proposed replacement text to address the specific outstanding questions will
now be considered.
Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Working Group Draft Report:
- Recommendation 15.7: In managing funds for
the New gTLD Program, ICANN must have a plan in place for managing any excess fees collected or budget shortfalls experienced. The plan for the management and disbursement of excess fees, if applicable, must be communicated in advance of accepting applications
and collecting fees for subsequent procedures. The implementation guidance below describes in more detail how this should be accomplished.
- Implementation Guidance 15.8: If excess
fees are collected in subsequent procedures and the cost recovery model is followed (i.e., the application fee floor is not implemented) any excess fees should be returned to applicants where possible. The disbursement mechanism must be communicated before
applicants submit applications and fees to ICANN.
ICANN Board Comment: The Board notes the PDP’s Recommendation 15.7: “In managing funds for the New
gTLD Program, ICANN must have a plan in place for managing any excess fees collected or budget shortfalls experienced. The plan for the management and disbursement of excess fees, if applicable, must be communicated in advance of accepting applications and
collecting fees for subsequent procedures.” The Board asks the PDP to more carefully examine the concept of “excess” or shortage of fees, especially in the light of the likely need for ICANN org, a not-for- profit organization, to increase resources for the
application process and the continued support of the new gTLD program. The proposed principle of cost recovery of the next round, as for the 2012 round is understood as a clear mechanism to state to the public that the fee to be paid by applicants is designed
to only cover for the cost of the program and not to support non-program operations of ICANN org. the proposed principle does not require a dollar-to-dollar return of any potential excess. The lack of a clear definition of “closure” and “round” for any new
gTLD subsequent procedures future ‘round’ is also problematic in this context and the Board encourages the PDP WG to contemplate including such definition in its Final Report. (Pg. 63)
Working Group Discussion: There are several
main points in this comment. First is that there should be some money set aside to continue to fund the ongoing new gTLD Program for subsequent rounds. Second, there is an issue as to the timing of when refunds are issued.
Leadership Recommendation -
Proposed Implementation Guidance:
- Although ICANN must operate the new gTLD Program on a Cost Recovery basis (subject to any floors as set forth
in this report) may set aside a certain small percentage of excess fees (to the extent there are excess fees) to apply towards covering the costs of future subsequent rounds of new gTLDs to ensure that the new gTLD Program is able to continue into the future.
- In addition, with the remainder of any excess fees, ICANN may establish a schedule for the disbursement of
refunds upon the achievement of specified milestones. For illustrative purposes only, such a schedule could establish that once 50% of the applications have been fully processed (eg., delegated, withdrawn, or not approved), ICANN would issue a payment of
25% of the excess fees back to the applicants.
- ICANN should further explore these with the Implementation Review Team and ensure that the resulting implementation
is clearly documented in the Applicant Guidebook.
Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Tuesday, December 8, 2020.
Sincerely,
Jeff & Cheryl
SubPro Co-Chairs
|
|
Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 |
