Apologies for Call
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. --
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.
--
--
My reading of the language is that if you opt for a .brand (spec 13) TLD you have to pay the fee for the .brand eligibility evaluation, or if you don’t have a qualifying trademark and want to opt for just a CoC exemption instead then you pay the fee for the CoC exemption evaluation. So it’s an either/or rather than a case of an applicant having to pay for both. Hopefully ICANN can confirm this, otherwise I agree with you, Jeff. In any case, we could probably try and make a language a little clearer in this section. Ashley Roberts Head of New TLD Consultancy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 264 [cid:image001.png@01DBA33F.6C5A3580] <https://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADD_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADD_RQA0> From: Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: 01 April 2025 17:30 To: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Apologies for Call 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<mailto: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. -- [https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/clio-manage-prod-us-a-public-objects/acco...] -- [https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/clio-manage-prod-us-a-public-objects/acco...] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com 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.
--
--
_______________________________________________ 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.
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-f.... 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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:30 AM Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@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.
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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com 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-f.... 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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
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.
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<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112202773/2025-...> 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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 9:08 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto: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-f... [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develop...>. 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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, 2 April 2025 at 15:40 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:30 AM Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@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.
Thanks Lars. Does this suggest that the likely refund where ICANN determines an RVC cannot be accepted is 35%? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 12:33 AM Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
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 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112202773/2025-...> 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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
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-f... [itp.cdn.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develop...>. 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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
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.
Thanks Lars for jumping in and making the clarifications with regard to RVCs. Hello Anne, Regarding your follow-up question about the refund percentage, it is hard to make a hard-and-fast rule at the moment. In the AGB draft text on RVCs (section 3.2.3<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/topic-9-rvcs-pics-14-0...>)., we noted that as a general rule, the evaluation of a proposed RVC will not impact the ability of the application to proceed. There are only limited situations in which the Registry Commitments Evaluation (RCE) result will impact the ability of the application to proceed, specifically concerning commitments made to overcome objections or GAC Consensus Advice (see section 3.2.4<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/topic-9-rvcs-pics-14-0...> for more detail). For example, since the GAC may submit Consensus Advice on a particular application at any time, the timing issue becomes uncertain and that can affect the percentage of the refund if the applicant ultimately decides to withdraw due to rejection to a proposed RVC (if an approved RVC is recognized as a required element to address the GAC Advice). However, since this question concerns the broader issue of fees and refund, the public comments on the AGB section on fees were received, and there were recent discussions about conditional evaluation fees on list/calls, the org team will discuss internally and get back to the IRT additional thought-out responses. Thank you, Ariel From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, April 3, 2025 at 7:56 AM To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Apologies for Call Thanks Lars. Does this suggest that the likely refund where ICANN determines an RVC cannot be accepted is 35%? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 12:33 AM Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote: 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 [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> 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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, 3 April 2025 at 01:10 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 9:08 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto: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-f... [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develop...>. 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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, 2 April 2025 at 15:40 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:30 AM Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@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.
Hi Ariel et al. I note that there is a 65% refund for any string that is found to be "high risk" in the Name Collision Assessment where no mitigation plan is submitted and the string is timely withdrawn. This makes sense because the applicant has no control over the timing of the Name Collision Risk Assessment. I would say the rejection of an RVC presents the same type of case and that a severely reduced refund will hurt small and new applicants much more than the large established players who have string "portfolios" due to vast resources. Rejection of an RVC required to overcome a GAC Early Warning, for example, could be a devastating blow for an application from an underserved region and its investors where the Early Warning comes as a complete surprise. Apologies for not raising this in the initial discussions on refunds but the length of time needed to evaluate an RVC under the "new rules" makes the likelihood of a reasonable refund quite slim. This is the same principle applied for the Name Collision refund rule being different I think. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 6:39 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks Lars for jumping in and making the clarifications with regard to RVCs.
Hello Anne,
Regarding your follow-up question about the refund percentage, it is hard to make a hard-and-fast rule at the moment.
In the AGB draft text on RVCs (section 3.2.3 <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/topic-9-rvcs-pics-14-0...>)., we noted that as a general rule, the evaluation of a proposed RVC will not impact the ability of the application to proceed. There are only limited situations in which the Registry Commitments Evaluation (RCE) result will impact the ability of the application to proceed, specifically concerning commitments made to overcome objections or GAC Consensus Advice (see section 3.2.4 <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/topic-9-rvcs-pics-14-0...> for more detail). For example, since the GAC may submit Consensus Advice on a particular application at any time, the timing issue becomes uncertain and that can affect the percentage of the refund if the applicant ultimately decides to withdraw due to rejection to a proposed RVC (if an approved RVC is recognized as a required element to address the GAC Advice).
However, since this question concerns the broader issue of fees and refund, the public comments on the AGB section on fees were received, and there were recent discussions about conditional evaluation fees on list/calls, the org team will discuss internally and get back to the IRT additional thought-out responses.
Thank you,
Ariel
*From: *Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, April 3, 2025 at 7:56 AM *To: *Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> *Cc: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Re: Apologies for Call
Thanks Lars. Does this suggest that the likely refund where ICANN determines an RVC cannot be accepted is 35%?
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 12:33 AM Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:
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 [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> 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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
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-f... [itp.cdn.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develop...>. 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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
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.
All, I just listened to the call, and I am not sure my questions were answered. *Community TLD Issue*: On the Community TLDs, my point had NOTHING to do with RVCs, so remove that from your minds for the moment. It only has to do with Spec 12. On Page 8 of the redline, ICANN added this language, “Please also note there will be a fee for the Registry Commitment Evaluation (RCE) process for Specification 12.” Again forget RVCs…….. Here is what it means: 1. Community Applicant pays Application Fee: $227,000 2. Community Applicant pays CPE Fee: $XX,XXXX 3. Community Pays Spec 12 RCE Fee $YY,YYYY Spec 12 is the Specification that deals with Communities. And it is the place where all community policies go. Again, NOT talking about additional RVCs here (which goes in Spec 13). Spec 12 used to be just a copy and paste from the application into Spec 12. Here, however, ICANN does not want every policy the registry proposes to be in Spec 12 because of *its own* decision on *how it interprets its bylaws*. So, what ICANN is saying is that the applicant has to pay ICANN yet another additional fee so ICANN’s legal team can draft Spec 12 for your agreement in way that is consistent with its bylaws……and that is what I think is wrong on so many levels. And because every community TLD must have a Spec 12, every community applicant must now pay that additional fee (above and beyond the CPE Fee). Yes, I heard the point that this is cost recovery, and that is what SubPro said it should be. But as part of every program, there are some costs that need to be absorbed as a cost of doing business. For example, I charge a certain fee for my consulting services. That doesn’t mean I charge additional money for my review of changes clients make to my consulting agreements. That is a cost of doing business. Similarly, ICANN should not be charging Applicants so that ICANN can be comfortable with the legal agreement it is requiring applicants to sign. *Brand TLD* You sort of addressed my Brand TLD question but then went in the wrong direction. When a brand applies for a .Brand TLD, all they have to show is: (i) the TLD string is identical to the textual elements protectable under applicable law, of a registered trademark valid under applicable law, which registered trademark: 1. is recorded with, and issued a signed data mark file by, the Trademark Clearinghouse or any successor or alternative trademark validation authority appointed by ICANN, if such trademark meets the eligibility requirements of such validation authority (provided that Registry Operator is not required to maintain such recordation for more than one year); 2. is owned and used by the Registry Operator or its Affiliate in the ordinary course of Registry Operator’s or its Affiliates’ business in connection with the offering of any of the goods and/or services claimed in the trademark registration; 3. was issued to Registry Operator or its Affiliate prior to the filing of its TLD registry application with ICANN; 4. is used throughout the Term continuously in the ordinary course of business of Registry Operator or its Affiliate in connection with the offering of any of the goods and/or services identified in the trademark registration; 5. does not begin with a period or a dot; and 6. is used by Registry Operator or its Affiliate in the conduct of one or more of its businesses that are unrelated to the provision of TLD Registry Services; and (ii) only Registry Operator, its Affiliates or Trademark Licensees are registrants of domain names in the TLD and control the DNS records associated with domain names at any level in the TLD; (iii) the TLD is not a Generic String TLD (as defined in Specification 11); and (iv) Registry Operator has provided ICANN with an accurate and complete copy of such trademark registration. If they show all of this, they get the code of conduct exemption. However, what I thought I heard Jarrod say is that yes the brand eligibility covers the exemption, but that an extra fee would be added to the brand evaluation fee to evaluate the Spec 9 factors. And that is where it went off base. ICANN is not evaluating whether a brand also meets the factors in Spec 9 to get an exemption. It gets the exemption simply by being a Brand TLD. In contrast, Spec 9 Code of Conduct exemption are strictly for *non-brand TLDs* that want to be exclusive use TLDs. In order for a “non-brand” to get the exemption, it must satisfy the following 3 exemption criteria: - All domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for the exclusive use of Registry Operator or its Affiliates; - Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate of Registry Operator; - Application of the Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest. To illustrate the point further, a Brand TLD does not have to show any of the 3 exemption criteria in Spec 9. So please do not jack up the .Brand Evaluation fee to include the Spec 9 Code of Conduct Exemption Fee, which is where I thought Jarrod was going……. *From:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 1, 2025 12:30 PM *To:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: Apologies for Call 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. -- --
Dear Jeff, Thanks for the follow up and clarifying comments. That is helpful. We will take this back, review, and revert back to the IRT. Any changes will be made in the fee section, as the authoritative source, but we will also update other sections as appropriate. Best, Jared From: Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Date: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 12:07 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Apologies for Call All, I just listened to the call, and I am not sure my questions were answered. Community TLD Issue: On the Community TLDs, my point had NOTHING to do with RVCs, so remove that from your minds for the moment. It only has to do with Spec 12. On Page 8 of the redline, ICANN added this language, “Please also note there will be a fee for the Registry Commitment Evaluation (RCE) process for Specification 12.” Again forget RVCs…….. Here is what it means: 1. Community Applicant pays Application Fee: $227,000 2. Community Applicant pays CPE Fee: $XX,XXXX 3. Community Pays Spec 12 RCE Fee $YY,YYYY Spec 12 is the Specification that deals with Communities. And it is the place where all community policies go. Again, NOT talking about additional RVCs here (which goes in Spec 13). Spec 12 used to be just a copy and paste from the application into Spec 12. Here, however, ICANN does not want every policy the registry proposes to be in Spec 12 because of its own decision on how it interprets its bylaws. So, what ICANN is saying is that the applicant has to pay ICANN yet another additional fee so ICANN’s legal team can draft Spec 12 for your agreement in way that is consistent with its bylaws……and that is what I think is wrong on so many levels. And because every community TLD must have a Spec 12, every community applicant must now pay that additional fee (above and beyond the CPE Fee). Yes, I heard the point that this is cost recovery, and that is what SubPro said it should be. But as part of every program, there are some costs that need to be absorbed as a cost of doing business. For example, I charge a certain fee for my consulting services. That doesn’t mean I charge additional money for my review of changes clients make to my consulting agreements. That is a cost of doing business. Similarly, ICANN should not be charging Applicants so that ICANN can be comfortable with the legal agreement it is requiring applicants to sign. Brand TLD You sort of addressed my Brand TLD question but then went in the wrong direction. When a brand applies for a .Brand TLD, all they have to show is: the TLD string is identical to the textual elements protectable under applicable law, of a registered trademark valid under applicable law, which registered trademark: * is recorded with, and issued a signed data mark file by, the Trademark Clearinghouse or any successor or alternative trademark validation authority appointed by ICANN, if such trademark meets the eligibility requirements of such validation authority (provided that Registry Operator is not required to maintain such recordation for more than one year); * is owned and used by the Registry Operator or its Affiliate in the ordinary course of Registry Operator’s or its Affiliates’ business in connection with the offering of any of the goods and/or services claimed in the trademark registration; * was issued to Registry Operator or its Affiliate prior to the filing of its TLD registry application with ICANN; * is used throughout the Term continuously in the ordinary course of business of Registry Operator or its Affiliate in connection with the offering of any of the goods and/or services identified in the trademark registration; * does not begin with a period or a dot; and * is used by Registry Operator or its Affiliate in the conduct of one or more of its businesses that are unrelated to the provision of TLD Registry Services; and only Registry Operator, its Affiliates or Trademark Licensees are registrants of domain names in the TLD and control the DNS records associated with domain names at any level in the TLD; the TLD is not a Generic String TLD (as defined in Specification 11); and Registry Operator has provided ICANN with an accurate and complete copy of such trademark registration. If they show all of this, they get the code of conduct exemption. However, what I thought I heard Jarrod say is that yes the brand eligibility covers the exemption, but that an extra fee would be added to the brand evaluation fee to evaluate the Spec 9 factors. And that is where it went off base. ICANN is not evaluating whether a brand also meets the factors in Spec 9 to get an exemption. It gets the exemption simply by being a Brand TLD. In contrast, Spec 9 Code of Conduct exemption are strictly for non-brand TLDs that want to be exclusive use TLDs. In order for a “non-brand” to get the exemption, it must satisfy the following 3 exemption criteria: * All domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for the exclusive use of Registry Operator or its Affiliates; * Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate of Registry Operator; * Application of the Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest. To illustrate the point further, a Brand TLD does not have to show any of the 3 exemption criteria in Spec 9. So please do not jack up the .Brand Evaluation fee to include the Spec 9 Code of Conduct Exemption Fee, which is where I thought Jarrod was going……. [cid:image001.png@01DBA3CA.F564B220] From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 12:30 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: Apologies for Call 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<mailto: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. -- [Image removed by sender.] -- [Image removed by sender.]
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<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [cid:image002.png@01DBA2FC.FE5D3060] 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. -- [cid:image003.png@01DBA2FC.FE5D3060]
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 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com <http://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 <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 11:29 AM To: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto: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.
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.
participants (9)
-
Anne ICANN -
Ariel Liang -
Ashley Roberts -
Jared Erwin -
Jeff Neuman -
Lars Hoffmann -
Marika Konings -
Rubens Kuhl -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com