- SubPro-IRT - lists.icann.org

Post call | SubPro IRT Meetings #112 | 6 February 2025
by Next Round Policy Implementation Feb. 7, 2025

Feb. 7, 2025

Dear All, The recording for Meeting #112 of the SubPro IRT held on Wednesday, 6 February 2025 at 19:00-21:00 UTC are published on the meeting wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/AQAvH>. These include: * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) * Attendance 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 #112 | 6 February 2025, 19:00-21:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Feb. 6, 2025

Feb. 6, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CALL HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO TWO HOURS Dear All, Meeting #112 of the SubPro IRT will be held in one hour on 6 February 2025 at 19:00-21:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/4bwm7w5b>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/AQAvH>. 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> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://wecann.icann.org/external-link.jspa?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org…>. 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 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> 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

Re: [Ext] Re: $5k - $10k Additional Fees for Brand TLDs?
by Marika Konings Feb. 6, 2025

Feb. 6, 2025

Thanks, Martin. That will indeed be the next step. Note that sharing the t-shirt sizing was only to give some kind of indication to the IRT, but we understand that this may not have been helpful. We will not be including this in the draft AGB language to avoid further confusion over what this represents. To Jeff’s question, as also explained during yesterday’s meeting, we looked at the 2012 experience, actual costs where available from 2012 as well as compared new processes to somewhat comparable existing ones to get to these rough t-shirt sizes. For example, for .Brands, the following process was followed in 2012: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/base-agreement-spec-13-appli… which also included steps such as public comment, requests for extensions, requests and review of additional information. As also noted, most of these processes are still being designed and may have undergone changes as a result of the SubPro recommendations or lessons learned from the 2012 round that may result in less or more effort but we do not have the level of detail at this point which is why the numbers we shared should be taken for what they are. As also emphasized, actual costs will be based on work that is required and/or represent pass through costs in the case of third-party vendors. Best regards, Marika From: Martin Sutton <martin(a)tldz.com> Date: Wednesday, 5 February 2025 at 17:07 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org>, "Jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com" <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] $5k - $10k Additional Fees for Brand TLDs? Dear Marika, As Jeff suggested and was reiterated during yesterday’s call, outlining the steps ICANN expects to cover in these processes would be a strong starting point. This approach should help prevent over-engineering previously completed work and eliminate unnecessary costs. The T-shirt sizing approach should be avoided, as it has proven unhelpful and frustrating for many who have been working to create a more efficient and effective application process with ICANN. Additionally, please consider the perspective of applicants when imposing additional costs or offering only minimal refunds. ICANN risks deterring future applicants, particularly those outside the core industry players and ASP applicants. While adding $10K here and there may seem insignificant to ICANN Org, it represents a substantial burden for others. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Co-Founder, TLDz martin(a)tldz.com +44 (0)7774 556680 Tldz.com [tldz.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tldz.com__;!!PtGJab4!6Wn0qW2BBImWwsyH1Gu6…> [cid:image001.png@01DB77F4.84788CA0] 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. On 5 Feb 2025, at 14:32, Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: Marika, Can you please tell us what goes into the process of "rough T-shirt sizing?" If I were to be in charge of that the first thing I would do is look at what will be required of the Applicant, calculate the estimated hours it would take to do each evaluation and figure out if there is anything else out of band. I still would not have gotten to $5k - $10k as an estimate. Perhaps if we understood what goes into your estimates, this would be more easily digested <Outlook-1oafukwd.png> ________________________________ From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 9:22 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] $5k - $10k Additional Fees for Brand TLDs? Jeff, just to clarify, we are not proposing anything at this stage. We have only provided rough t-shirt sizing for each of these conditional evaluations to give some indication of where we currently think these evaluations MAY fall. As many of these are still going through the design process that will confirm what steps need to be followed to complete these evaluations and by whom, either by ICANN or a third party, only after we have gone through that exercise will we be able to confirm expected costs, together with the details around the work that is expected to go into these conditional evaluations. Best regards, Marika From: Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Date: Wednesday, 5 February 2025 at 15:15 To: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] $5k - $10k Additional Fees for Brand TLDs? In the last round, in order to get "Brand Status", the following needed to occur: 1. Applicant submits a Specification 13 application to qualify for .Brand Status. This application consisted of: * Agreement to Spec 13 * A physical copy of the trademark registration * A copy of your registration policies (which would already be in the original application) * The Trademark Clearinghouse's SMD file ID number. In order to get your mark into the Trademark Clearinghouse, there is a $155 per year fee (with discounts for longer registration periods). In exchange for that, the TMCH verifies the trademark and performs some functions with respect to the Sunrise Periods and claims services of ALL new gTLDs. What does this mean? 1. It means that ICANN does NOT need to separately verify the trademark registration because that is being done by the Trademark Clearinghouse (FOR ONLY $155). 1. All ICANN needs to do is to (a) glance over the policies of the Applicant (which has already been submitted in the original application) to ensure that it says it will be used as described in Spec 13; and (b) Get a signature on Spec 13. But ICANN is proposing a $5,000 fee? This makes no sense. Really ICANN should not be charging anything, but if it does want to charge, my small firm would be happy to provide this service to ICANN for $500 per application. That would be 90% off of the lowest $5000 fee proposed by ICANN and 95% off of the high estimate of $10,000. The above offer is serious as I am a qualified IP attorney. Sincerely, jeff <image001.png> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ 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.

4 3

Re: Refunds for Changes to Program and because of Name Collisions
by Marika Konings Feb. 6, 2025

Feb. 6, 2025

Thanks, Jeff. We’ll factor this in together with the other feedback received during yesterday’s IRT meeting as we further update the AGB language which we hope to share with the IRT shortly. On implementation guidance 18.5, as explained, we are of the view that there are reasons that now exist, that were not in place when the implementation guidance was originally developed, to not exactly do as worded, but as also noted, this does not take away the ability for the Board to make a different determination in those cases where a gTLD is applied for but later not approved because of risk of name collision. Best regards, Marika From: Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Date: Wednesday, 5 February 2025 at 05:27 To: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Refunds for Changes to Program and because of Name Collisions All, I spent some time reviewing the SubPro Final Report and the recommendation on refunds and I wanted to draw your attention to the following because it differs from what was discussed earlier today (or yesterday for some of you) when we were discussing that topic. Recommendation 18.4 states (pg 84): "Applicants must be allowed some type of refund if they decide to withdraw an application because substantive changes are made to the Applicant Guidebook or program processes and such changes have, or are reasonably likely to have, a material impact on applicants.117" FN 117 states: "This refund would differ from the normal refund schedule." Implementation Guidance 18.5 states: If the risk of name collisions will be determined after applications are submitted, ICANN should provide a full refund to applicants in cases where a new gTLD is applied for but later is not approved because of risk of name collision. However, the proposal today from ICANN was that the normal refund schedule would apply in both situations. Looking further to the Rationale: In connection with recommendations under Topic 2: Predictability, the Working Group agreed that there should be a clear and consistent framework for handling changes in the New gTLD Program, including changes to the Applicant Guidebook. The Working Group recommends that an applicant must be eligible for some type of refund if they decide to withdraw an application because substantive changes are made to the Applicant Guidebook or program processes and such changes have, or are reasonably likely to have, a material impact on applicants. The Working Group expects that the Implementation Review Team will conduct further work regarding the details of this refund. The Working Group also provided implementation guidance regarding recourse for cases where an applicant applies for a string and that application is later disqualified because of risk of name collision. (page 85 of 400) ON Name Collision (18.5): Understood that this is "Implementation Guidance", but Implementation Guidance means that it was "strongly recommended with a strong presumption that it will be implemented" although it recognizes that reasons may exist to not do exactly as it is worded. But ICANN must "make all efforts to achieve the purpose behind the recommended action as expressed in the rationale." Can we please have a further discussion on this topic? Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image001.png@01DB77CA.E6AE3FC0]

6 6

$5k - $10k Additional Fees for Brand TLDs?
by Jeff Neuman Feb. 6, 2025

Feb. 6, 2025

In the last round, in order to get "Brand Status", the following needed to occur: 1. Applicant submits a Specification 13 application to qualify for .Brand Status. This application consisted of: * Agreement to Spec 13 * A physical copy of the trademark registration * A copy of your registration policies (which would already be in the original application) * The Trademark Clearinghouse's SMD file ID number. In order to get your mark into the Trademark Clearinghouse, there is a $155 per year fee (with discounts for longer registration periods). In exchange for that, the TMCH verifies the trademark and performs some functions with respect to the Sunrise Periods and claims services of ALL new gTLDs. What does this mean? 1. It means that ICANN does NOT need to separately verify the trademark registration because that is being done by the Trademark Clearinghouse (FOR ONLY $155). 2. All ICANN needs to do is to (a) glance over the policies of the Applicant (which has already been submitted in the original application) to ensure that it says it will be used as described in Spec 13; and (b) Get a signature on Spec 13. But ICANN is proposing a $5,000 fee? This makes no sense. Really ICANN should not be charging anything, but if it does want to charge, my small firm would be happy to provide this service to ICANN for $500 per application. That would be 90% off of the lowest $5000 fee proposed by ICANN and 95% off of the high estimate of $10,000. The above offer is serious as I am a qualified IP attorney. Sincerely, jeff [cid:2cd7e7a9-5504-4ec5-b6d8-9b53d2da865c]

3 2

Refunds for Changes to Program and because of Name Collisions
by Jeff Neuman Feb. 5, 2025

Feb. 5, 2025

All, I spent some time reviewing the SubPro Final Report and the recommendation on refunds and I wanted to draw your attention to the following because it differs from what was discussed earlier today (or yesterday for some of you) when we were discussing that topic. Recommendation 18.4 states (pg 84): "Applicants must be allowed some type of refund if they decide to withdraw an application because substantive changes are made to the Applicant Guidebook or program processes and such changes have, or are reasonably likely to have, a material impact on applicants.117" FN 117 states: "This refund would differ from the normal refund schedule." Implementation Guidance 18.5 states: If the risk of name collisions will be determined after applications are submitted, ICANN should provide a full refund to applicants in cases where a new gTLD is applied for but later is not approved because of risk of name collision. However, the proposal today from ICANN was that the normal refund schedule would apply in both situations. Looking further to the Rationale: In connection with recommendations under Topic 2: Predictability, the Working Group agreed that there should be a clear and consistent framework for handling changes in the New gTLD Program, including changes to the Applicant Guidebook. The Working Group recommends that an applicant must be eligible for some type of refund if they decide to withdraw an application because substantive changes are made to the Applicant Guidebook or program processes and such changes have, or are reasonably likely to have, a material impact on applicants. The Working Group expects that the Implementation Review Team will conduct further work regarding the details of this refund. The Working Group also provided implementation guidance regarding recourse for cases where an applicant applies for a string and that application is later disqualified because of risk of name collision. (page 85 of 400) ON Name Collision (18.5): Understood that this is "Implementation Guidance", but Implementation Guidance means that it was "strongly recommended with a strong presumption that it will be implemented" although it recognizes that reasons may exist to not do exactly as it is worded. But ICANN must "make all efforts to achieve the purpose behind the recommended action as expressed in the rationale." Can we please have a further discussion on this topic? Sincerely, Jeff [cid:9c6e1ac8-f9c7-462f-a7a7-72ade0bcbb9c]

3 2

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #112 | 6 February 2025, 19:00-21:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Feb. 5, 2025

Feb. 5, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CALL HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO TWO HOURS Dear All, Meeting #112 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 6 February 2025 at 19:00-21:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/4bwm7w5b>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/AQAvH>. 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> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://wecann.icann.org/external-link.jspa?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org…>. 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 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> 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

Re: $5k - $10k Additional Fees for Brand TLDs?
by Marika Konings Feb. 5, 2025

Feb. 5, 2025

Jeff, just to clarify, we are not proposing anything at this stage. We have only provided rough t-shirt sizing for each of these conditional evaluations to give some indication of where we currently think these evaluations MAY fall. As many of these are still going through the design process that will confirm what steps need to be followed to complete these evaluations and by whom, either by ICANN or a third party, only after we have gone through that exercise will we be able to confirm expected costs, together with the details around the work that is expected to go into these conditional evaluations. Best regards, Marika From: Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Jeff Neuman <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com> Date: Wednesday, 5 February 2025 at 15:15 To: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] $5k - $10k Additional Fees for Brand TLDs? In the last round, in order to get "Brand Status", the following needed to occur: 1. Applicant submits a Specification 13 application to qualify for .Brand Status. This application consisted of: * Agreement to Spec 13 * A physical copy of the trademark registration * A copy of your registration policies (which would already be in the original application) * The Trademark Clearinghouse's SMD file ID number. In order to get your mark into the Trademark Clearinghouse, there is a $155 per year fee (with discounts for longer registration periods). In exchange for that, the TMCH verifies the trademark and performs some functions with respect to the Sunrise Periods and claims services of ALL new gTLDs. What does this mean? 1. It means that ICANN does NOT need to separately verify the trademark registration because that is being done by the Trademark Clearinghouse (FOR ONLY $155). 1. All ICANN needs to do is to (a) glance over the policies of the Applicant (which has already been submitted in the original application) to ensure that it says it will be used as described in Spec 13; and (b) Get a signature on Spec 13. But ICANN is proposing a $5,000 fee? This makes no sense. Really ICANN should not be charging anything, but if it does want to charge, my small firm would be happy to provide this service to ICANN for $500 per application. That would be 90% off of the lowest $5000 fee proposed by ICANN and 95% off of the high estimate of $10,000. The above offer is serious as I am a qualified IP attorney. Sincerely, jeff [cid:image001.png@01DB77E1.D1714550]

3 2

Post call | SubPro IRT Meetings #111 | 5 February 2025
by Next Round Policy Implementation Feb. 5, 2025

Feb. 5, 2025

Dear All, The recording for Meeting #111 of the SubPro IRT held on Wednesday, 5 February 2025 at 05:00-07:00 UTC are published on the meeting wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/CYAsH>. These include: * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) * Attendance 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 #111 | 5 February 2025, 05:00-07:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Feb. 5, 2025

Feb. 5, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CALL HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO TWO HOURS Dear All, Meeting #111 of the SubPro IRT will be held in one hour on 5 February 2025 at 05:00-07:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/5n7ehe7t>]. The agenda can be consulted here<https://community.icann.org/x/CYAsH>. 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> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://wecann.icann.org/external-link.jspa?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org…>. 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 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> 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