Thanks, Anne.
I’d like to jump in with just a couple of clarifications:
- The Board is not involved in assessing RVCs, this is done by ICANN.
- An application will proceed through the evaluation process unaffected even if it has received one or more GAC early warnings. GAC early warnings will never require an RVC (though an applicant may choose to submit one in response, of course).
- GAC early warnings have to be submitting during the 90-day application comment period that opens after string confirmation day.
- ‘Applicant review’ is the phase after string review. See page 8 for what is contained in string evaluation and what thus must be completed before applicant evaluation starts (see page 10 for the latter). The 35% refund applies for withdraws at any time during 2.4 – which is estimated to last 6 months.
I trust this addresses your concern.
Very best. Lars
From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 3 April 2025 at 01:10
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>
Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Apologies for Call
Thanks Marika. I think the answer actually depends on what point in time we believe the Board will actually be evaluating proposed RVCs. The AGB language doesn't seem to directly address when an Applicant can anticipate having a timely answer from the Board on whether or not an RVC has been accepted? When likely time frames for GAC Early Warning and related proposed RVCs are considered, what do you anticipate the applicable percentage refund would be? (It's difficult to see how there could be more than a 20% refund in that case based on the current language below.) Will an Applicant be able to delay the start in Item 2 below in order to preserve at least a 35% refund?
There will be three refund windows during the next round application process:
1. The period between receipt of applicant gTLD evaluation fee and ten days after String Confirmation Day (65% of the gTLD evaluation fee paid eligible as a refund);
2. The period from eleven days after String Confirmation Day until the start of the Application and Applicant Evaluation (35% of the gTLD evaluation fee paid eligible as a refund);
3. The period from the initiation of an Application and Applicant Evaluation up to the applicant entering into a Registry Agreement with ICANN (20% of the gTLD evaluation fee paid eligible as a refund).
Thank you,
Anne
On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 9:08 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Anne, please see section 3.1.3 for Topic 15: Application Fees that outlines the refund windows: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/topic-15-application-fees-14-02-2025-en.pdf [itp.cdn.icann.org]. The refund percentage will depend on at what moment an applicant decides to withdraw their application.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 2 April 2025 at 15:40
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Apologies for Call
In this regard, could someone please clarify how much the refund is if an RVC is rejected by the Board? It would be just awful to, for example, pay all the application and evaluation fees, develop an RVC to meet a GAC Early Warning request, and then have the entire application fail based on the Board's lack of approval for the RVC and end up forfeiting a large sum of money (and a ton of time, effort, and human resources) in the process.
Anne
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:30 AM Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Hit send too soon...just meant to say that with Communities, we should not be punishing them by making them pay for the commitment analysis, which was caused by ICANN's interpretation of its Bylaws (which some of us still do not agree with).
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 12:28 PM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
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.
--
Error! Filename not specified.
--
Error! Filename not specified.
_______________________________________________
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.