Right. This is why I oppose the added Spec 12 fee being assessed to the Applicant. The Applicant by this time has proven it is a community and now all we are doing is figuring out what can and cannot got into the Agreement (which is ICANN’s issue more than the issue of the Applicant). Putting that fee on the successful Community Applicant seems punitive. *From:* Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 1, 2025 2:00 PM *To:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: Apologies for Call The Spec 12 evaluation is only about ICANN being able to enforce that condition. It’s not related to gaming, which is what CPE is designed to prevent. A possible gaming applicant would be benefitted by passing CPE and then not being required to add a Spec 12 commitment, simply by forfeiting the Spec 12 evaluation fee. Rubebs Em 1 de abr. de 2025, à(s) 13:55, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu: I also have a conflicting obligation. I agree with Jeff on point 1 below. I am fine with the fees for Community Applications and think that the bar should be high to prevent gaming. Best regards, *Marc H. Trachtenberg* Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 T +1 312.456.1020 M +1 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> <image001.png> <image002.png> *From:* Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:29 AM *To:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Apologies for Call **EXTERNAL TO GT** All, Sending apologies for the call later. I have a conflicting obligation. That said, I put comments into the TLD Type document, mostly on the unexpected added fees for Brands and Communities. These make no sense to me at all. 1. Brands - We are saying they have to pay for an evaluation to see if they are eligible to get a .brand. And then it says they have to pay for a Spec. 9 Code of Conduct Exemption as well....even though the Code of Conduct exemption is embedded in Spec 13 (Section 3). Thus, if they qualify to be a brand TLD, then there is No Need for a separate evaluation OR a separate fee? Sure, if they fail eligibility, then you can ask the applicant if it wants the Spec 9 evaluation and then it pays for that. But if it passes eligibility, then no fee and no separate code of conduct evaluation. 2. Communities - Wow, we are really hitting them hard. Not only are they going have to pay for the CPE, which can be a good chunk of change, but then we are also going to charge them for the privilege of putting their policies into Spec 12. Right now, a provision was added that states that after a Community passes CPE, it needs to pay a Registry Commitment Evaluation fee so that ICANN can figure out what can go into Spec 12. -- <image003.png> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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.
