June 2024 - SubPro-IRT - lists.icann.org

Application Fee FAQ
by Next Round Policy Implementation June 18, 2024

June 18, 2024

Dear IRT members, In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa

15 19

Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ
by Elisa Busetto June 17, 2024

June 17, 2024

Hi Enrique, Thanks for reaching out. Please note that we will make updates to the FAQ document to address further questions that have been received since the last version, including this one. Best regards, Elisa From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Enrique Somoza via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply to: Enrique Somoza <Enrique.Somoza(a)vercara.com> Date: Monday, 17 June 2024 at 09:08 To: Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation(a)icann.org>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ HI Eliza, Thank you the information! Could you clarify if the fee for the RSP Evaluation Program remains the same when applying to provide two critical functions on behalf of the registry operator, specifically for Domain Name System and DNS Security Extensions? Thanks, Enrique From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 at 8:01 AM To: subpro-irt(a)icann.org <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Dear IRT members, In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. If you have any concerns about the content of this message, press the "Phish Alert" button in Outlook or forward to cirt(a)vercara.com

1 0

Request for Detailed Cost Breakdown and Application Fee Rationale
by Martin Sutton June 17, 2024

June 17, 2024

Dear Lars, As requested by Xavier in the last IRT meeting, I am writing to provide more specifics on the level of granularity requested on the application and RSP fees and to provide rationale for using the 1,500 applications volume as the basis for determining the application fee. Cost Breakdown To assist ICANN, it is crucial to have more detailed information on cost breakdowns. Many of us have dedicated significant time to reviewing and improving the previous round, and we are passionate about ensuring the program’s effective implementation. While staff turnover means some may lack experience from the last round, the IRT team’s experience is invaluable for refining implementation plans to ensure they achieve their intended goals efficiently and effectively. Xavier asked for specifics on the information needed. At a minimum, I suggest a detailed breakdown of line items, distinguishing between fixed and variable costs that indicates when these costs would be incurred (e.g., pre-application vs. post-application window). I understand ICANN org’s concerns about publishing information that could impact vendor negotiations. However, this should not be an issue. Even if vendors gain some insight into budgeted costs, it would only be beneficial as they would need to come in lower on price and service capabilities and are still competing against other vendors. In fact, transparency might improve the quality of RFP responses. As Xavier noted, some functions include multiple vendors, thereby not providing any helpful insights on the projected budget for the service(s). Any detailed information on the breakout of the $4.1m RSP Pre-Evaluation would also be appreciated, along with breakdown of the $22 million costs associated with the 2012 Technical and Registry Operation Evaluation (referenced in the FAQ). Volume Projections Marika requested feedback on the application volume and related fees. Like many, I was also very surprised by ICANN org’s conservative estimates. Several factors suggest an increased number of applications for the next round: * Improved awareness and outreach: A significant budget has been allocated for this effort, which should lead to broader, global interest and resulting volume. ICANN did not undertake this activity in the last round and these efforts should result in a broader audiences resulting in a higher volume. * Increased relevance of TLDs: The digital landscape has evolved significantly since 2012, from new technologies and industries to new threats requiring organizations to protect their customers and their businesses. * Smoother process: The next round is expected to be more predictable and streamlined, attracting those who chose to wait for a more refined process. * Historical data: The last round anticipated 500 applications but received nearly 2000, despite minimal outreach efforts. Given these factors, 1,500 applications is a conservative volume estimate. Based on the projected costs and revenue provided, I envisage the following scenario could be our focus for determining the fee level: Fee set at $220k with 1,500 applicants: * Surplus generated ($330m received vs. $295m total costs) * Possible refund to applicants ($35k each, approximately 50% of the contingency element), resulting in net fee $185k * The outcome satisfies both ICANN and the applicants. A 1,500 application volume offers a balanced approach, ensuring reasonable pricing to attract applicants while minimizing fiduciary risks for ICANN org. By using a reasonable yet conservative volume and resulting fees of $220k, it allows the community to move forward in an expedient manner without spending further cycles on the price, and being no further ahead in determining the expected volume. More transparency would allow the IRT and the wider community to support ICANN org more effectively, and was echoed frequently in the Final Report and the PDP meetings. I look forward to receiving the detailed information and any feedback on the volume figure and scenario above. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Co-Founder, TLDz martin(a)tldz.com +44 (0)7774 556680 Tldz.com<http://tldz.com> [attachment.png] Illumiati Limited. 77 Camden Street Lower, Dublin, D02 XE80 The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

4 3

Post call | SubPro IRT Meeting #49 | 13 June 2024
by Next Round Policy Implementation June 14, 2024

June 14, 2024

Dear All, The recordings for Meeting #49 of the SubPro IRT held on Thursday, 13 June 2024 at 07:00-08:15 UTC are published on the meeting wiki page.<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw> These include: * Attendance * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/pQM5Dg>. Best regards, Renate

1 0

Upcoming IRT meetings
by Elisa Busetto June 13, 2024

June 13, 2024

Dear All, Please find below an overview of the upcoming IRT meetings: # Date Time UTC Topic Wiki 49a 20-Jun-24 19:00-20:00 22. Registrant Protections https://community.icann.org/x/UgCAF 50 25-Jun-24 19:00-20:00 new time 22. Registrant Protections https://community.icann.org/x/poEEF 51 27-Jun-24 19:00-20:00 18. Terms and Conditions https://community.icann.org/x/rYEEF 52 02-Jul-24 13:00-14:00 31. Objections https://community.icann.org/x/tIEEF 53 09-Jul-24 13:00-14:00 https://community.icann.org/x/u4EEF 54 11-Jul-24 19:00-20:00 https://community.icann.org/x/woEEF 55 16-Jul-24 13:00-14:00 https://community.icann.org/x/y4EEF 56 18-Jul-24 19:00-20:00 https://community.icann.org/x/04EEF Best regards, Elisa

1 0

Post call | SubPro IRT Meeting #48 | 12 June 2024
by Next Round Policy Implementation June 13, 2024

June 13, 2024

Dear All, The recordings for Meeting #48 of the SubPro IRT held on Wednesday, 12 June 2024 at 07:00-08:15 UTC are published on the meeting wiki page.<https://community.icann.org/x/xYBAEw> These include: * Attendance * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/pQM5Dg>. Best regards, Renate

1 0

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #49 | 13 June 2024, 07:00-08:15 UTC / 09:00-10:15 CAT | ICANN80
by Next Round Policy Implementation June 13, 2024

June 13, 2024

Dear All, Meeting #49 of the SubPro IRT will be held in one hour on 13 June 2024 at 07:00-08:15 UTC / 09:00-10:15 CAT [local time<https://tinyurl.com/yzp335w8>] during ICANN80 in Kigali, Rwanda, in a hybrid format. Up-to-date information on the session will be published here<https://icann80.sched.com/>, and the agenda here<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>. More information on ICANN80 can be found here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/meetings/icann80/>. Before the meeting, please ensure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>. In addition, we would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Please let us know ahead of time should you be unable to attend the meeting. A recording will be made available. We remain at your disposal should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

Prioritization idea
by Rubens Kuhl June 13, 2024

June 13, 2024

I’m not getting into whether we can change the prioritization from the adopted resolution, which needs to be looked at, but regarding the idea I believe the issue is the selection of the initial letter. IDNs can be solved by applying prioritization to the A-Label (not the Unicode version) of the transposed string, just like Werner suggested. So if the string is 點看 (“click to see”), the A-Label is xn—c1yn36f and the prioritization token would be f63ny1c (removing xn— . But we should also reverse ASCII strings, not just IDN ones, due to getting more dispersion of tokens. Since the report foresaw not mingling ASCII priorities with IDN priorities, this allows to not compare an IDN token to an ASCII token. This would suffer due to presence of digits in IDN A-Labels, which are not allowed in ASCII by the program rules, but that problem is not applicable due to hard separation of priorities. We should note that this system would allow some prioritization results to be shared among applications, like applications to the same string (elpmaxe for .example, example, .example etc.). But that’s not a bad thing, since one of the 2012 issues was exactly when a contention set was spread by very different priority levels. This can still happen, though, because of indirect contention; but it will happen much less. (BTW, this also fits nicely for prioritization in the name collision analysis process). As for the initial letter (which would be the end letter of the string) to go first, I suggest calling a psychic to pick one. A suggestion from a psychic is not random, it’s defined by other realms of the universe we don’t understand. Or, just picking I because it’s ICANN. That might favor languages with lots of words ending in I, like Italian, but not by much. Rubens

1 0

Applications Assessed in Rounds & Predictability Framework
by Next Round Policy Implementation June 12, 2024

June 12, 2024

Dear All, During tomorrow’s IRT meeting, we will go through the updated language for Applications Assessed in Rounds<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ycEvRMTkvRBm1Pd-Tt7Ewf4DHw1dKvTXc7KxKes…> and the Predictability Framework<https://docs.google.com/document/d/18Qs19Cj3Q5DK8pXfqw37aDa7a3RtI9wTNU0n7Sa…>. Pdf versions of both documents, as well as the updated agenda, can be found on the meeting page<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>. Best regards, Elisa

2 1

CHANGE OF TIME - SubPro IRT Meeting #50 | 25 June 2024, 19:00-20:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation June 12, 2024

June 12, 2024

Dear All, Meeting #50 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 25 June 2024 at 19:00-20:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/223v33wr>] and not at 13:00-14:00 UTC as originally scheduled. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/poEEF>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0