5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees
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: 1. 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. 2. 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 [cid:image001.png@01D6CA1C.7886E610] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com
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 covering the costs of 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: 1. 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. 2. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 [cid:image002.png@01D6CA2F.4590CEC0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com
Thanks Donna. I think these additions make a lot of sense and strengthen the proposal. Anyone else have thoughts on this modified version? [cid:image003.png@01D6CA53.2E599F10] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Donna@registry.godaddy <Donna@registry.godaddy> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 2:39 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees 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 covering the costs of 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<mailto: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<mailto: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: 1. 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. 2. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 [cid:image002.png@01D6CA53.2E4C58A0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com
Is there a better term than "spin up"? Justine On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 04:36, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Thanks Donna. I think these additions make a lot of sense and strengthen the proposal.
Anyone else have thoughts on this modified version?
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com
*From:* Donna@registry.godaddy <Donna@registry.godaddy> *Sent:* Friday, December 4, 2020 2:39 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees
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:*
1. 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 covering the costs of 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. 2. 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. 3. 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:*
1. *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. 2. *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:*
1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Good morning: <Spin> in this context is basically pejorative, implying arguments that endeavour to hide unwelcome truths. Whence, <spin doctors>. <Spin up …> I do not know. Perhaps one meant <sign up to>, I which case I would disagree. In view of the wide range of issues that have been fudged by the PDP in deference to a consensus of incumbents, personally, I have no expectation that the eventual 2021 AGB could be re-used in the future without significant changes. Regards CW
El 9 de diciembre de 2020 a las 11:40 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> escribió:
Is there a better term than "spin up"?
Justine
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 04:36, Jeff Neuman < jeff@jjnsolutions.com mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com > wrote:
> >
Thanks Donna. I think these additions make a lot of sense and strengthen the proposal.
Anyone else have thoughts on this modified version?
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com
From: Donna@registry.godaddy <Donna@registry.godaddy> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 2:39 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees
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:
1. 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 covering the costs of 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 mailto: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 mailto: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:
1. 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. 2. 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:
1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
> _______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hola amigos, Spin up: Launch; create; assemble. Saludos, Nick Shorey From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> Reply to: "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Wednesday, 9 December 2020 at 13:21 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>, "Donna@registry.godaddy" <Donna@registry.godaddy> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Good morning: <Spin> in this context is basically pejorative, implying arguments that endeavour to hide unwelcome truths. Whence, <spin doctors>. <Spin up …> I do not know. Perhaps one meant <sign up to>, I which case I would disagree. In view of the wide range of issues that have been fudged by the PDP in deference to a consensus of incumbents, personally, I have no expectation that the eventual 2021 AGB could be re-used in the future without significant changes. Regards CW El 9 de diciembre de 2020 a las 11:40 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> escribió: Is there a better term than "spin up"? Justine On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 04:36, Jeff Neuman < jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: Thanks Donna. I think these additions make a lot of sense and strengthen the proposal. Anyone else have thoughts on this modified version? [cid:image001.png@01D6CE30.98421CF0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Donna@registry.godaddy <Donna@registry.godaddy> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 2:39 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees 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 covering the costs of 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<mailto: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<mailto: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: a. 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. b. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 [cid:image002.png@01D6CE30.98421CF0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Nick and Justine. We will choose a less informal term like launch. Keep the comments coming! Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image003.png@01D6CE33.5C6CDAA0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Nick Shorey <lists@nickshorey.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:39 AM To: mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Donna@registry.godaddy Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Hola amigos, Spin up: Launch; create; assemble. Saludos, Nick Shorey From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu%20CW>" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Reply to: "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu%20CW>" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Wednesday, 9 December 2020 at 13:21 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>, "Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>" <Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Good morning: <Spin> in this context is basically pejorative, implying arguments that endeavour to hide unwelcome truths. Whence, <spin doctors>. <Spin up ...> I do not know. Perhaps one meant <sign up to>, I which case I would disagree. In view of the wide range of issues that have been fudged by the PDP in deference to a consensus of incumbents, personally, I have no expectation that the eventual 2021 AGB could be re-used in the future without significant changes. Regards CW El 9 de diciembre de 2020 a las 11:40 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> escribió: Is there a better term than "spin up"? Justine On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 04:36, Jeff Neuman < jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: Thanks Donna. I think these additions make a lot of sense and strengthen the proposal. Anyone else have thoughts on this modified version? [cid:image004.png@01D6CE33.5C6CDAA0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy> <Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 2:39 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees 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 covering the costs of 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<mailto: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<mailto: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: a. 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. b. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 [cid:image005.png@01D6CE33.5C6CDAA0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Jeff Our emails crossed. I've suggested 'assemble' as my preferred alternative as it best represents the meaning of what I was trying to convey. I think there is a valid distinction between the terms and my concern is that ICANN will interpret 'launch' in a more holistic way and the 'small percentage' of excess fees could be justified at 10% rather than perhaps 2%. Thanks Donna From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:58 AM To: Nick Shorey <lists@nickshorey.com>; mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>; Donna Austin <Donna@registry.godaddy> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Notice: This email is from an external sender. Thanks Nick and Justine. We will choose a less informal term like launch. Keep the comments coming! Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image002.png@01D6CE1B.858BD160] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Nick Shorey <lists@nickshorey.com<mailto:lists@nickshorey.com>> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:39 AM To: mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Hola amigos, Spin up: Launch; create; assemble. Saludos, Nick Shorey From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu%20CW>" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Reply to: "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu%20CW>" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Wednesday, 9 December 2020 at 13:21 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>, "Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>" <Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Good morning: <Spin> in this context is basically pejorative, implying arguments that endeavour to hide unwelcome truths. Whence, <spin doctors>. <Spin up ...> I do not know. Perhaps one meant <sign up to>, I which case I would disagree. In view of the wide range of issues that have been fudged by the PDP in deference to a consensus of incumbents, personally, I have no expectation that the eventual 2021 AGB could be re-used in the future without significant changes. Regards CW El 9 de diciembre de 2020 a las 11:40 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> escribió: Is there a better term than "spin up"? Justine On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 04:36, Jeff Neuman < jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: Thanks Donna. I think these additions make a lot of sense and strengthen the proposal. Anyone else have thoughts on this modified version? [cid:image004.png@01D6CE1B.858BD160] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy> <Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 2:39 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees 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 covering the costs of 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<mailto: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<mailto: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: a. 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. b. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 [cid:image005.png@01D6CE1B.858BD160] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear All ,Why people use colloquial terms such as spin up or spin in or pèopuo or popèin Why we do do not use clear and plain English I do not understand the revision made by Donna Regards Kavouss On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 8:14 PM Donna@registry.godaddy <Donna@registry.godaddy> wrote:
Hi Jeff
Our emails crossed. I’ve suggested ‘assemble’ as my preferred alternative as it best represents the meaning of what I was trying to convey. I think there is a valid distinction between the terms and my concern is that ICANN will interpret ‘launch’ in a more holistic way and the ‘small percentage’ of excess fees could be justified at 10% rather than perhaps 2%.
Thanks
Donna
*From:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:58 AM *To:* Nick Shorey <lists@nickshorey.com>; mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>; Donna Austin <Donna@registry.godaddy> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees
Notice: This email is from an external sender.
Thanks Nick and Justine. We will choose a less informal term like launch. Keep the comments coming!
Sincerely,
Jeff
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com
*From:* Nick Shorey <lists@nickshorey.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:39 AM *To:* mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Donna@registry.godaddy *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees
Hola amigos,
Spin up: Launch; create; assemble.
Saludos,
Nick Shorey
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu%20CW>" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Reply to: *"mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW" < mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Date: *Wednesday, 9 December 2020 at 13:21 *To: *Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman < jeff@jjnsolutions.com>, "Donna@registry.godaddy" <Donna@registry.godaddy> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees
Good morning:
<Spin> in this context is basically pejorative, implying arguments that endeavour to hide unwelcome truths. Whence, <spin doctors>.
<Spin up …> I do not know. Perhaps one meant <sign up to>, I which case I would disagree.
In view of the wide range of issues that have been fudged by the PDP in deference to a consensus of incumbents, personally, I have no expectation that the eventual 2021 AGB could be re-used in the future without significant changes.
Regards
CW
El 9 de diciembre de 2020 a las 11:40 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> escribió:
Is there a better term than "spin up"?
Justine
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 04:36, Jeff Neuman < jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Thanks Donna. I think these additions make a lot of sense and strengthen the proposal.
Anyone else have thoughts on this modified version?
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com
*From:* Donna@registry.godaddy <Donna@registry.godaddy> *Sent:* Friday, December 4, 2020 2:39 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees
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:*
1. 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 covering the costs of 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. 2. 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. 3. 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:*
a. *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.
b. *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:*
1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Kavouss It was the plainest English I could come up with at the time. Donna From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 12:10 PM To: Donna Austin <Donna@registry.godaddy> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Nick Shorey <lists@nickshorey.com>; mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Notice: This email is from an external sender. Dear All ,Why people use colloquial terms such as spin up or spin in or pèopuo or popèin Why we do do not use clear and plain English I do not understand the revision made by Donna Regards Kavouss On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 8:14 PM Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy> <Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>> wrote: Hi Jeff Our emails crossed. I’ve suggested ‘assemble’ as my preferred alternative as it best represents the meaning of what I was trying to convey. I think there is a valid distinction between the terms and my concern is that ICANN will interpret ‘launch’ in a more holistic way and the ‘small percentage’ of excess fees could be justified at 10% rather than perhaps 2%. Thanks Donna From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:58 AM To: Nick Shorey <lists@nickshorey.com<mailto:lists@nickshorey.com>>; mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>; Donna Austin <Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Notice: This email is from an external sender. Thanks Nick and Justine. We will choose a less informal term like launch. Keep the comments coming! Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image001.png@01D6CE2B.F122BEB0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Nick Shorey <lists@nickshorey.com<mailto:lists@nickshorey.com>> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:39 AM To: mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Hola amigos, Spin up: Launch; create; assemble. Saludos, Nick Shorey From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu%20CW>" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Reply to: "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu%20CW>" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Date: Wednesday, 9 December 2020 at 13:21 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>, "Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>" <Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Good morning: <Spin> in this context is basically pejorative, implying arguments that endeavour to hide unwelcome truths. Whence, <spin doctors>. <Spin up …> I do not know. Perhaps one meant <sign up to>, I which case I would disagree. In view of the wide range of issues that have been fudged by the PDP in deference to a consensus of incumbents, personally, I have no expectation that the eventual 2021 AGB could be re-used in the future without significant changes. Regards CW El 9 de diciembre de 2020 a las 11:40 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> escribió: Is there a better term than "spin up"? Justine On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 04:36, Jeff Neuman < jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: Thanks Donna. I think these additions make a lot of sense and strengthen the proposal. Anyone else have thoughts on this modified version? [cid:image002.png@01D6CE2B.F122BEB0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy> <Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 2:39 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees 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 covering the costs of 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<mailto: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<mailto: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: a. 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. b. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 [cid:image003.png@01D6CE2B.F122BEB0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi, Added a few suggestions in green. Leadership Recommendation - Proposed Implementation Guidance: a. Although ICANN must operate the new gTLD Program on a Cost Recovery basis (subject to any application fee floors as set forth in this report) ICANN org may set aside a certain small percentage of any excess fees (to the extent there are excess fees) to apply towards covering the costs of maintaining the capability to administer spin up future subsequent rounds of new gTLDs with minimum delay and to ensure that the new gTLD Program is able to effectively 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 transparent and explicitly disclosed, recorded and justified. b. In addition, with the remainder of any excess fees, ICANN may should 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 will would issue a partial payment of 25% of the excess fees back to the applicants. c. ICANN should further explore these recommendations with the Implementation Review Team and to ensure that the resulting implementation is clearly documented in the Applicant Guidebook. Cheers, Christa From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Nick Shorey Sent: December 9, 2020 4:39 AM To: mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Donna@registry.godaddy Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Hola amigos, Spin up: Launch; create; assemble. Saludos, Nick Shorey From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu%20CW> " <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> > Reply to: "mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu%20CW> " <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> > Date: Wednesday, 9 December 2020 at 13:21 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> >, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> >, "Donna@registry.godaddy <mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy> " <Donna@registry.godaddy <mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy> > Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Good morning: <Spin> in this context is basically pejorative, implying arguments that endeavour to hide unwelcome truths. Whence, <spin doctors>. <Spin up > I do not know. Perhaps one meant <sign up to>, I which case I would disagree. In view of the wide range of issues that have been fudged by the PDP in deference to a consensus of incumbents, personally, I have no expectation that the eventual 2021 AGB could be re-used in the future without significant changes. Regards CW El 9 de diciembre de 2020 a las 11:40 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> > escribió: Is there a better term than "spin up"? Justine On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 04:36, Jeff Neuman < jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> > wrote: Thanks Donna. I think these additions make a lot of sense and strengthen the proposal. Anyone else have thoughts on this modified version? Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> jeff@jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com From: Donna@registry.godaddy <mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy> <Donna@registry.godaddy <mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy> > Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 2:39 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees 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: a. 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 covering the costs of 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. b. 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. c. 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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: a. 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. b. 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 PDPs 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: a. 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. b. 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. c. 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 E: <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> jeff@jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Justine I appreciate the term ‘spin up’ may not translate well, but it accurately represents the intent of what I was trying to convey. This isn’t about launch or conducting future subsequent rounds, but rather those earlier preparation steps to get things moving. Nick has suggested: Spin up: Launch; create; assemble. I think assemble, in the sense of bring or pull together, is probably the best fit for the point I was trying to convey. * 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 covering the costs of maintaining the capability to spin up assemble 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. Thanks Donna From: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 2:41 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Donna Austin <Donna@registry.godaddy> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees Notice: This email is from an external sender. Is there a better term than "spin up"? Justine On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 04:36, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: Thanks Donna. I think these additions make a lot of sense and strengthen the proposal. Anyone else have thoughts on this modified version? [cid:image002.png@01D6CE0D.D480B5F0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy> <Donna@registry.godaddy<mailto:Donna@registry.godaddy>> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 2:39 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: 5th Topical Questions: Applicant Fees 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 covering the costs of 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<mailto: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<mailto: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: a. 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. b. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 [cid:image003.png@01D6CE0D.D480B5F0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (7)
-
christa＠dottba.com -
Donna＠registry.godaddy -
Jeff Neuman -
Justine Chew -
Kavouss Arasteh -
mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW -
Nick Shorey