Thanks, Jothan. My understanding is that the gTLD applicant pays the gTLD evaluation fee and the RSP pays the RSP evaluation fee. In many/most (?) cases these are not the same entity. Of course, an applicant will need to contract with an evaluated RSP provider, but the fees for that will be set by the RSP itself and negotiated directly with the applicant. If the gTLD applicant is its own RSP, yes, in that case it would also need to budget for the RSP evaluation fee, but only once, not for every application as was the case in 2012. Best regards, Marika From: Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com> Date: Tuesday, 28 May 2024 at 11:10 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Thank you. I loves me a good analogy, because that is the style I use a lot. I got a little confused in the bus/chicken as to how to represent the fees when asked by folks less close to our ICANN world who are not following things closely like us. The main 2 questions on the next round that I field are, "how much? / when can I apply?" [If I had a nickel for how often I am asked those two specific questions.... ] For the "how much?" question, I find laying it out clearly works best, and doing so with worst case scenario amounts, so that they can obtain budget approvals or raise funding as needed. @Marika Konings<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> can you confirm... Related to the application pricing, it sounds like ... well, I think you are saying that a new entrant TLD applicant with a new platform should budget for an additional 92k above their (estimated) 250k fee, or an estimated 342k. This number might improve (give or take some refundable differences in the event of as of yet to be measured volume). Is that accurate? I always caveat these figures are estimates and identify them as being finalized closer to October when communicating them, but I try to keep folks up to date on what to expect. -Jothan On Tue, May 28, 2024, 1:21 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Jothan for that question. When we present the gTLD evaluation fee, we plan to show the savings that were made compared to 2012, but also the additional costs that need to be factored in (e.g. inflation, new evaluations). However, as indicated yesterday, comparing the costs for technical evaluation from the 2012 round is not identical to the RSP program so you will not see a reduction of 92K. Some have referenced the evaluation costs that were part of the 2012 fee, but it is important to remember that those just represent the external expenses. Other costs, such as staff support, implementation, etc. were included in other buckets that made up the 2012 evaluation fee. As I know Lars likes using the car analogy, maybe this is a way of looking at it: in 2012, technical evaluation paid for a seat on a very big bus which included a lot of other evaluations and aspects of the program. Per the SubPro recommendations, for the next round technical evaluation was taken off that bus and had to get its own. As part of that, it is not only the costs of the seat that needs to be covered, but also the new bus, the insurance, gas (e.g. RSP system development, RSP handbook, system maintenance, staff support). As said previously, comparing technical evaluation of the 2012 round with RSP is comparing apples to oranges, but bringing in MSA is like comparing it with chickens because that is part of ICANN’s operations which is structured and funded in a very different way compared to the next round. As indicated, the team will be sharing more details on the RSP budget so that will hopefully provide some further insight into the different parts that comprise the development, implementation and running of RSP and for which the costs need to be recuperated per the policy recommendations. Best regards, Marika From: Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com<mailto:jothan@jothan.com>> Date: Monday, 27 May 2024 at 18:31 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Hi Marika I realize we are still expecting some reveals on the pricing for an applicant, but wanted to ask a clarifying question. Is the anticipation that this $92,000 RSP fee would reduce the application fee (ie, est 250k - 92k = est 158k), or is this $92k on top of the est $250k such that a new entrant would be needing to contrast the 2012 round $185k all-inclusive against an estimated $342k all-inclusive? -Jothan Jothan Frakes Tel: +1.206-355-0230 On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 11:20 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review. My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once. Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP. Best regards, Marika From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Date: Sunday, 26 May 2024 at 21:18 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Em 26 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:26, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk<mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>> escreveu: Rubens Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions. Hi Nigel. Note that this does not applied only in 2012(actually 2014 since this is only charged when a gTLD changes RSPs); this is 2024 current fee to be an RSP for 2012 gTLDs. Org can’t blame inflation on this one, since it’s a comparison of current fees. Rubens _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ 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.