Application Fee FAQ
Dear IRT members, In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa
Thanks Lars and Elisa, In Section 2, there is disagreement between the text and the chart. Text says the lowest fee (based on volume) would be $65,000. The chart says the lowest fee would be $68,500. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 5:01 AM Next Round Policy Implementation < NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org> wrote:
Dear IRT members,
In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting <https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee.
Best regards,
Elisa
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list 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.
Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org> escreveu:
Dear IRT members,
In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting <https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee.
Best regards, Elisa
Some comments about the FAQ: - In the RSP fee, it lacks a comparison to the USD 14k required for an unknown RSP to be evaluated for serving 2012 gTLDs. - It’s not mentioned whether applicants will be allowed to commit to use an evaluated RSP or can only choose already evaluated ones - In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation. - As mentioned by Seb during the session, some organizations might have challenges receiving the excess funding. So while it’s good to be the default to return the excess, giving applicants the option to not get that excess back solves for corner cases regarding tax or foreign exchange regulations. Applicants would only have to say they want it or not want it (no lingering). About the fee for joint venture review, if joint venture ends up playing a role in auctions, perhaps auction proceeds should pay for those. About the fee for lingering applications, I support the idea. Currently there is an asymmetrical relationship between letting it linger (Cranberries song playing in the background) and the Org costs. The hard issue, though, is defining it, since there should be no prevention of the use of accountability mechanisms or limited appeal processes created by that cost, but that can’t also trigger an excessive use of such mechanisms only to avoid the lingering fee. About the IDN Variant subsidy, agree with Edmon on changing its name, but I also add that this could be funded from fee leftovers (either from previous round or forecast of this round) or even Auctions leftovers. This would be aligned with guidelines to such expenditures, I believe. While this won’t change the application fee by any significant amount either way (circa 1%), this would simplify the fee determination and also could back ICANN claims to support multilingual development of the Internet. Rubens
Thank you Elisa and Lars, I apologize for not being able to attend due to time zone differences. I want to support the requests for more detailed costing information along with some concerns. In November 2016, Work Track 1 was tasked with evaluating the accuracy of cost estimates and reviewing the methodology used to develop the cost model. However, after months of requests, ICANN was unable to provide any information on the costs and methodology used in the 2009 application fees. Consequently, we could not properly address the Implementation Guideline B regarding the concept of differing application fees for different applicants and the potential creation of new application types, which may have necessitated a new costing analysis based on recommended changes (section 4.2.17 at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735931/Section%204.2.17.p... ). Since we were unable to attain the information, the working group wanted to ensure the scenario would not occur in the future rounds and emphasized the need for detailed and transparent disclosure of fees and methodologies to the community. The Final Report reflects this: * Top 15: Application Fees: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 66). * Working Group Emphasis: ICANN should be fully transparent about how the application fee is developed, explaining and documenting all cost assumptions (p. 69). * Summary of Outputs: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 249). Two additional points: 1. Application Fees and Deterrence: I understand wanting to be conservative approach to ensure costs are recovered however, this should be based on probabilities not extreme cases as provided with the 500 and 1,000 volume levels. Also, the scenarios presented suggest providing excess fees as a ‘credit’, but we recommended the option of a refund if the amount exceeded $1,000 (or another nominal amount) with a disbursement schedule based on milestones to avoid delays. This would ensure that applicants don't prepay their yearly ICANN fees, for an extended period, during a critical time when those funds could be utilized to launch and support the operation of their TLD(s). 2. The working group noted that only historical costs directly related to implementing the New gTLD Program should be part of the cost structure for determining application fees. “The Working Group believes, however, that for subsequent procedures the only historical costs that should be part of the cost structure in determining application fees are those actual costs directly related to the implementation of the New gTLD Program”. (p. 65). "Org Shared Services" do not align with this, as they are “not directly attributable to a program or project”. Additionally, it would be helpful to determine whether the $70k per application in implementation fees also includes past shared services amounts and, if they do, the amount included within the $70k. Without relevant details and transparency on the costs, it becomes difficult to understand the full picture, hinders analysis, and prevents the attainment of useful insights that can be utilized in future rounds and in the development of future policies. Apologies for the length, it was supposed to be a short email! Kind regards, Christa From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 8:00 PM To: Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> escreveu: Dear IRT members, In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa Some comments about the FAQ: - In the RSP fee, it lacks a comparison to the USD 14k required for an unknown RSP to be evaluated for serving 2012 gTLDs. - It’s not mentioned whether applicants will be allowed to commit to use an evaluated RSP or can only choose already evaluated ones - In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation. - As mentioned by Seb during the session, some organizations might have challenges receiving the excess funding. So while it’s good to be the default to return the excess, giving applicants the option to not get that excess back solves for corner cases regarding tax or foreign exchange regulations. Applicants would only have to say they want it or not want it (no lingering). About the fee for joint venture review, if joint venture ends up playing a role in auctions, perhaps auction proceeds should pay for those. About the fee for lingering applications, I support the idea. Currently there is an asymmetrical relationship between letting it linger (Cranberries song playing in the background) and the Org costs. The hard issue, though, is defining it, since there should be no prevention of the use of accountability mechanisms or limited appeal processes created by that cost, but that can’t also trigger an excessive use of such mechanisms only to avoid the lingering fee. About the IDN Variant subsidy, agree with Edmon on changing its name, but I also add that this could be funded from fee leftovers (either from previous round or forecast of this round) or even Auctions leftovers. This would be aligned with guidelines to such expenditures, I believe. While this won’t change the application fee by any significant amount either way (circa 1%), this would simplify the fee determination and also could back ICANN claims to support multilingual development of the Internet. Rubens
Thank you Elisa and Lars, I apologize for not being able to attend due to time zone differences. I want to support the requests for more detailed costing information along with some concerns. In November 2016, Work Track 1 was tasked with evaluating the accuracy of cost estimates and reviewing the methodology used to develop the cost model. However, after months of requests, ICANN was unable to provide any information on the costs and methodology used in the 2009 application fees. Consequently, we could not properly address the Implementation Guideline B regarding the concept of differing application fees for different applicants and the potential creation of new application types, which may have necessitated a new costing analysis based on recommended changes (section 4.2.17 at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735931/Section%204.2.17.p... ). Since we were unable to attain the information, the working group wanted to ensure the scenario would not occur in the future rounds and emphasized the need for detailed and transparent disclosure of fees and methodologies to the community. The Final Report reflects this: * Top 15: Application Fees: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 66). * Working Group Emphasis: ICANN should be fully transparent about how the application fee is developed, explaining and documenting all cost assumptions (p. 69). * Summary of Outputs: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 249). Two additional points: 1. Application Fees and Deterrence: I understand wanting to be conservative approach to ensure costs are recovered however, this should be based on probabilities not extreme cases as provided with the 500 and 1,000 volume levels. Also, the scenarios presented suggest providing excess fees as a ‘credit’, but we recommended the option of a refund if the amount exceeded $1,000 (or another nominal amount) with a disbursement schedule based on milestones to avoid delays. This would ensure that applicants don't prepay their yearly ICANN fees, for an extended period, during a critical time when those funds could be utilized to launch and support the operation of their TLD(s). 2. The working group noted that only historical costs directly related to implementing the New gTLD Program should be part of the cost structure for determining application fees. “The Working Group believes, however, that for subsequent procedures the only historical costs that should be part of the cost structure in determining application fees are those actual costs directly related to the implementation of the New gTLD Program”. (p. 65). "Org Shared Services" do not align with this, as they are “not directly attributable to a program or project”. Additionally, it would be helpful to determine whether the $70k per application in implementation fees also includes past shared services amounts and, if they do, the amount included within the $70k. Without relevant details and transparency on the costs, it becomes difficult to understand the full picture, hinders analysis, and prevents the attainment of useful insights that can be utilized in future rounds and in the development of future policies. Apologies for the length, it was supposed to be a short email! Kind regards, Christa From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 8:00 PM To: Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>>; subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> escreveu: Dear IRT members, In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa Some comments about the FAQ: - In the RSP fee, it lacks a comparison to the USD 14k required for an unknown RSP to be evaluated for serving 2012 gTLDs. - It’s not mentioned whether applicants will be allowed to commit to use an evaluated RSP or can only choose already evaluated ones - In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation. - As mentioned by Seb during the session, some organizations might have challenges receiving the excess funding. So while it’s good to be the default to return the excess, giving applicants the option to not get that excess back solves for corner cases regarding tax or foreign exchange regulations. Applicants would only have to say they want it or not want it (no lingering). About the fee for joint venture review, if joint venture ends up playing a role in auctions, perhaps auction proceeds should pay for those. About the fee for lingering applications, I support the idea. Currently there is an asymmetrical relationship between letting it linger (Cranberries song playing in the background) and the Org costs. The hard issue, though, is defining it, since there should be no prevention of the use of accountability mechanisms or limited appeal processes created by that cost, but that can’t also trigger an excessive use of such mechanisms only to avoid the lingering fee. About the IDN Variant subsidy, agree with Edmon on changing its name, but I also add that this could be funded from fee leftovers (either from previous round or forecast of this round) or even Auctions leftovers. This would be aligned with guidelines to such expenditures, I believe. While this won’t change the application fee by any significant amount either way (circa 1%), this would simplify the fee determination and also could back ICANN claims to support multilingual development of the Internet. Rubens
Just to add to the notion of a "Credit" vs. "Refund". A significant number of applicants either withdraw their applications or be eliminated through contention, lack of success in the application process, advice, etc. A credit does no good for these applicants because they will have nothing to credit against. I do not see a way around making this a refund as opposed to a credit. [cid:c194eb95-d749-4172-93ed-9474feec59e1] ________________________________ From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Christa Taylor <Christa@tldz.com> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:35 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Thank you Elisa and Lars, I apologize for not being able to attend due to time zone differences. I want to support the requests for more detailed costing information along with some concerns. In November 2016, Work Track 1 was tasked with evaluating the accuracy of cost estimates and reviewing the methodology used to develop the cost model. However, after months of requests, ICANN was unable to provide any information on the costs and methodology used in the 2009 application fees. Consequently, we could not properly address the Implementation Guideline B regarding the concept of differing application fees for different applicants and the potential creation of new application types, which may have necessitated a new costing analysis based on recommended changes (section 4.2.17 at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735931/Section%204.2.17.p... ). Since we were unable to attain the information, the working group wanted to ensure the scenario would not occur in the future rounds and emphasized the need for detailed and transparent disclosure of fees and methodologies to the community. The Final Report reflects this: * Top 15: Application Fees: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 66). * Working Group Emphasis: ICANN should be fully transparent about how the application fee is developed, explaining and documenting all cost assumptions (p. 69). * Summary of Outputs: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 249). Two additional points: 1. Application Fees and Deterrence: I understand wanting to be conservative approach to ensure costs are recovered however, this should be based on probabilities not extreme cases as provided with the 500 and 1,000 volume levels. Also, the scenarios presented suggest providing excess fees as a ‘credit’, but we recommended the option of a refund if the amount exceeded $1,000 (or another nominal amount) with a disbursement schedule based on milestones to avoid delays. This would ensure that applicants don't prepay their yearly ICANN fees, for an extended period, during a critical time when those funds could be utilized to launch and support the operation of their TLD(s). 2. The working group noted that only historical costs directly related to implementing the New gTLD Program should be part of the cost structure for determining application fees. “The Working Group believes, however, that for subsequent procedures the only historical costs that should be part of the cost structure in determining application fees are those actual costs directly related to the implementation of the New gTLD Program”. (p. 65). "Org Shared Services" do not align with this, as they are “not directly attributable to a program or project”. Additionally, it would be helpful to determine whether the $70k per application in implementation fees also includes past shared services amounts and, if they do, the amount included within the $70k. Without relevant details and transparency on the costs, it becomes difficult to understand the full picture, hinders analysis, and prevents the attainment of useful insights that can be utilized in future rounds and in the development of future policies. Apologies for the length, it was supposed to be a short email! Kind regards, Christa From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 8:00 PM To: Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> escreveu: Dear IRT members, In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa Some comments about the FAQ: - In the RSP fee, it lacks a comparison to the USD 14k required for an unknown RSP to be evaluated for serving 2012 gTLDs. - It’s not mentioned whether applicants will be allowed to commit to use an evaluated RSP or can only choose already evaluated ones - In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation. - As mentioned by Seb during the session, some organizations might have challenges receiving the excess funding. So while it’s good to be the default to return the excess, giving applicants the option to not get that excess back solves for corner cases regarding tax or foreign exchange regulations. Applicants would only have to say they want it or not want it (no lingering). About the fee for joint venture review, if joint venture ends up playing a role in auctions, perhaps auction proceeds should pay for those. About the fee for lingering applications, I support the idea. Currently there is an asymmetrical relationship between letting it linger (Cranberries song playing in the background) and the Org costs. The hard issue, though, is defining it, since there should be no prevention of the use of accountability mechanisms or limited appeal processes created by that cost, but that can’t also trigger an excessive use of such mechanisms only to avoid the lingering fee. About the IDN Variant subsidy, agree with Edmon on changing its name, but I also add that this could be funded from fee leftovers (either from previous round or forecast of this round) or even Auctions leftovers. This would be aligned with guidelines to such expenditures, I believe. While this won’t change the application fee by any significant amount either way (circa 1%), this would simplify the fee determination and also could back ICANN claims to support multilingual development of the Internet. Rubens
Perhaps, give applicants a choice depending on their respective circumstances? Or to waive the refund as someone suggested earlier. Justine --------- On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, 16:48 Jeff Neuman, <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Just to add to the notion of a "Credit" vs. "Refund". A significant number of applicants either withdraw their applications or be eliminated through contention, lack of success in the application process, advice, etc. A credit does no good for these applicants because they will have nothing to credit against.
I do not see a way around making this a refund as opposed to a credit.
------------------------------ *From:* SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Christa Taylor <Christa@tldz.com> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:35 AM *To:* Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; Next Round Policy Implementation < NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ
Thank you Elisa and Lars,
I apologize for not being able to attend due to time zone differences.
I want to support the requests for more detailed costing information along with some concerns.
In November 2016, Work Track 1 was tasked with evaluating the accuracy of cost estimates and reviewing the methodology used to develop the cost model. However, after months of requests, ICANN was unable to provide any information on the costs and methodology used in the 2009 application fees. Consequently, we could not properly address the Implementation Guideline B regarding the concept of differing application fees for different applicants and the potential creation of new application types, which may have necessitated a new costing analysis based on recommended changes (section 4.2.17 at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735931/Section%204.2.17.p... ).
Since we were unable to attain the information, the working group wanted to ensure the scenario would not occur in the future rounds and emphasized the need for detailed and transparent disclosure of fees and methodologies to the community. The Final Report reflects this:
- Top 15: Application Fees: “*The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented*” (p. 66). - Working Group Emphasis: * ICANN should be fully transparent about how the application fee is developed, explaining and documenting all cost assumptions (*p. 69). - Summary of Outputs: “*The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented*” (p. 249).
Two additional points:
1. Application Fees and Deterrence: I understand wanting to be conservative approach to ensure costs are recovered however, this should be based on probabilities not extreme cases as provided with the 500 and 1,000 volume levels. Also, the scenarios presented suggest providing excess fees as a ‘credit’, but we recommended the option of a refund if the amount exceeded $1,000 (or another nominal amount) with a disbursement schedule based on milestones to avoid delays. This would ensure that applicants don't prepay their yearly ICANN fees, for an extended period, during a critical time when those funds could be utilized to launch and support the operation of their TLD(s).
2. The working group noted that only historical costs directly related to implementing the New gTLD Program should be part of the cost structure for determining application fees.
*“The Working Group believes, however, that for subsequent procedures the only historical costs that should be part of the cost structure in determining application fees are those actual costs directly related to the implementation of the New gTLD Program”.* (p. 65). "Org Shared Services" do not align with this, as they are “*not directly attributable to a program or project*”. Additionally, it would be helpful to determine whether the $70k per application in implementation fees also includes past shared services amounts and, if they do, the amount included within the $70k.
Without relevant details and transparency on the costs, it becomes difficult to understand the full picture, hinders analysis, and prevents the attainment of useful insights that can be utilized in future rounds and in the development of future policies.
Apologies for the length, it was supposed to be a short email!
Kind regards,
Christa
*From:* SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2024 8:00 PM *To:* Next Round Policy Implementation < NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ
Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation < NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org> escreveu:
Dear IRT members,
In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting <https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee.
Best regards,
Elisa
Some comments about the FAQ:
- In the RSP fee, it lacks a comparison to the USD 14k required for an unknown RSP to be evaluated for serving 2012 gTLDs.
- It’s not mentioned whether applicants will be allowed to commit to use an evaluated RSP or can only choose already evaluated ones
- In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation.
- As mentioned by Seb during the session, some organizations might have challenges receiving the excess funding. So while it’s good to be the default to return the excess, giving applicants the option to not get that excess back solves for corner cases regarding tax or foreign exchange regulations. Applicants would only have to say they want it or not want it (no lingering).
About the fee for joint venture review, if joint venture ends up playing a role in auctions, perhaps auction proceeds should pay for those.
About the fee for lingering applications, I support the idea. Currently there is an asymmetrical relationship between letting it linger (Cranberries song playing in the background) and the Org costs. The hard issue, though, is defining it, since there should be no prevention of the use of accountability mechanisms or limited appeal processes created by that cost, but that can’t also trigger an excessive use of such mechanisms only to avoid the lingering fee.
About the IDN Variant subsidy, agree with Edmon on changing its name, but I also add that this could be funded from fee leftovers (either from previous round or forecast of this round) or even Auctions leftovers. This would be aligned with guidelines to such expenditures, I believe. While this won’t change the application fee by any significant amount either way (circa 1%), this would simplify the fee determination and also could back ICANN claims to support multilingual development of the Internet.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list 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.
As an economist too prefer a refund to a credit, which only applies if an applcation is going forward. I also support sealed bids. No strategic gaming. Applicants give it there best shot, and the envelopes are opened. No drama, full stop. Sam Lanfranco Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist, 416 816-2852 On Jun 13, 2024, 1:25 p.m., at 1:25 p.m., Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps, give applicants a choice depending on their respective circumstances? Or to waive the refund as someone suggested earlier.
Justine ---------
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, 16:48 Jeff Neuman, <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Just to add to the notion of a "Credit" vs. "Refund". A significant number of applicants either withdraw their applications or be eliminated through contention, lack of success in the application process, advice, etc. A credit does no good for these applicants because they will have nothing to credit against.
I do not see a way around making this a refund as opposed to a credit.
------------------------------ *From:* SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Christa Taylor <Christa@tldz.com> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:35 AM *To:* Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; Next Round Policy Implementation < NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ
Thank you Elisa and Lars,
I apologize for not being able to attend due to time zone differences.
I want to support the requests for more detailed costing information along with some concerns.
In November 2016, Work Track 1 was tasked with evaluating the accuracy of cost estimates and reviewing the methodology used to develop the cost model. However, after months of requests, ICANN was unable to provide any information on the costs and methodology used in the 2009 application fees. Consequently, we could not properly address the Implementation Guideline B regarding the concept of differing application fees for different applicants and the potential creation of new application types, which may have necessitated a new costing analysis based on recommended changes (section 4.2.17 at
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735931/Section%204.2.17.p...
).
Since we were unable to attain the information, the working group wanted to ensure the scenario would not occur in the future rounds and emphasized the need for detailed and transparent disclosure of fees and methodologies to the community. The Final Report reflects this:
- Top 15: Application Fees: “*The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented*” (p. 66). - Working Group Emphasis: * ICANN should be fully transparent about how the application fee is developed, explaining and documenting all cost assumptions (*p. 69). - Summary of Outputs: “*The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented*” (p. 249).
Two additional points:
1. Application Fees and Deterrence: I understand wanting to be conservative approach to ensure costs are recovered however, this should be based on probabilities not extreme cases as provided with the 500 and 1,000 volume levels. Also, the scenarios presented suggest providing excess fees as a ‘credit’, but we recommended the option of a refund if the amount exceeded $1,000 (or another nominal amount) with a disbursement schedule based on milestones to avoid delays. This would ensure that applicants don't prepay their yearly ICANN fees, for an extended period, during a critical time when those funds could be utilized to launch and support the operation of their TLD(s).
2. The working group noted that only historical costs directly related to implementing the New gTLD Program should be part of the cost structure for determining application fees.
*“The Working Group believes, however, that for subsequent procedures the only historical costs that should be part of the cost structure in determining application fees are those actual costs directly related to the implementation of the New gTLD Program”.* (p. 65). "Org Shared Services" do not align with this, as they are “*not directly attributable to a program or project*”. Additionally, it would be helpful to determine whether the $70k per application in implementation fees also includes past shared services amounts and, if they do, the amount included within the $70k.
Without relevant details and transparency on the costs, it becomes difficult to understand the full picture, hinders analysis, and prevents the attainment of useful insights that can be utilized in future rounds and in the development of future policies.
Apologies for the length, it was supposed to be a short email!
Kind regards,
Christa
*From:* SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2024 8:00 PM *To:* Next Round Policy Implementation < NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ
Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation < NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org> escreveu:
Dear IRT members,
In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting <https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee.
Best regards,
Elisa
Some comments about the FAQ:
- In the RSP fee, it lacks a comparison to the USD 14k required for an unknown RSP to be evaluated for serving 2012 gTLDs.
- It’s not mentioned whether applicants will be allowed to commit to use an evaluated RSP or can only choose already evaluated ones
- In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation.
- As mentioned by Seb during the session, some organizations might have challenges receiving the excess funding. So while it’s good to be the default to return the excess, giving applicants the option to not get that excess back solves for corner cases regarding tax or foreign exchange regulations. Applicants would only have to say they want it or not want it (no lingering).
About the fee for joint venture review, if joint venture ends up playing a role in auctions, perhaps auction proceeds should pay for those.
About the fee for lingering applications, I support the idea. Currently there is an asymmetrical relationship between letting it linger (Cranberries song playing in the background) and the Org costs. The hard issue, though, is defining it, since there should be no prevention of the use of accountability mechanisms or limited appeal processes created by that cost, but that can’t also trigger an excessive use of such mechanisms only to avoid the lingering fee.
About the IDN Variant subsidy, agree with Edmon on changing its name, but I also add that this could be funded from fee leftovers (either from previous round or forecast of this round) or even Auctions leftovers. This would be aligned with guidelines to such expenditures, I believe. While this won’t change the application fee by any significant amount either way (circa 1%), this would simplify the fee determination and also could back ICANN claims to support multilingual development of the Internet.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list 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.
From a Latin American point of view, I also support refunds, considering that the budget always are limited. Hector
Héctor Ariel Manoff Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen Viamonte 1145 10º Piso C1053ABW Buenos Aires República Argentina Te: (54-11) 4371-6100 Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365 E-mail: <mailto:amanoff@vmf.com.ar> amanoff@vmf.com.ar Web: <http://www.vmf.com.ar/> http://www.vmf.com.ar **************************************************************************************************************************************************** Esta comunicación tiene como destinatario a la persona o empresa a la cual está dirigida y puede contener información confidencial y reservada. Si el lector de este mensaje no es el destinatario o sus empleados o representantes, deberá proceder a reenviar el presente a su remitente. La distribución, diseminación o copiado de este mensaje podría constituir violación a la ley. Gracias. This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. Thank you. **************************************************************************************************************************************************** De: SubPro-IRT [mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Sam Lanfranco Enviado el: viernes, 14 de junio de 2024 06:23 Para: Justine Chew CC: Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Asunto: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ As an economist too prefer a refund to a credit, which only applies if an applcation is going forward. I also support sealed bids. No strategic gaming. Applicants give it there best shot, and the envelopes are opened. No drama, full stop. Sam Lanfranco Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist, 416 816-2852 On Jun 13, 2024, at 1:25 p.m., Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote: Perhaps, give applicants a choice depending on their respective circumstances? Or to waive the refund as someone suggested earlier. Justine --------- On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, 16:48 Jeff Neuman, <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote: Just to add to the notion of a "Credit" vs. "Refund". A significant number of applicants either withdraw their applications or be eliminated through contention, lack of success in the application process, advice, etc. A credit does no good for these applicants because they will have nothing to credit against. I do not see a way around making this a refund as opposed to a credit. _____ From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Christa Taylor <Christa@tldz.com> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:35 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Thank you Elisa and Lars, I apologize for not being able to attend due to time zone differences. I want to support the requests for more detailed costing information along with some concerns. In November 2016, Work Track 1 was tasked with evaluating the accuracy of cost estimates and reviewing the methodology used to develop the cost model. However, after months of requests, ICANN was unable to provide any information on the costs and methodology used in the 2009 application fees. Consequently, we could not properly address the Implementation Guideline B regarding the concept of differing application fees for different applicants and the potential creation of new application types, which may have necessitated a new costing analysis based on recommended changes (section 4.2.17 at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735931/Section%204.2.17.p... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735931/Section%204.2.17.p...> &modificationDate=1460741334000&api=v2 ). Since we were unable to attain the information, the working group wanted to ensure the scenario would not occur in the future rounds and emphasized the need for detailed and transparent disclosure of fees and methodologies to the community. The Final Report reflects this: * Top 15: Application Fees: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 66). * Working Group Emphasis: ICANN should be fully transparent about how the application fee is developed, explaining and documenting all cost assumptions (p. 69). * Summary of Outputs: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 249). Two additional points: 1. Application Fees and Deterrence: I understand wanting to be conservative approach to ensure costs are recovered however, this should be based on probabilities not extreme cases as provided with the 500 and 1,000 volume levels. Also, the scenarios presented suggest providing excess fees as a ‘credit’, but we recommended the option of a refund if the amount exceeded $1,000 (or another nominal amount) with a disbursement schedule based on milestones to avoid delays. This would ensure that applicants don't prepay their yearly ICANN fees, for an extended period, during a critical time when those funds could be utilized to launch and support the operation of their TLD(s). 2. The working group noted that only historical costs directly related to implementing the New gTLD Program should be part of the cost structure for determining application fees. “The Working Group believes, however, that for subsequent procedures the only historical costs that should be part of the cost structure in determining application fees are those actual costs directly related to the implementation of the New gTLD Program”. (p. 65). "Org Shared Services" do not align with this, as they are “not directly attributable to a program or project”. Additionally, it would be helpful to determine whether the $70k per application in implementation fees also includes past shared services amounts and, if they do, the amount included within the $70k. Without relevant details and transparency on the costs, it becomes difficult to understand the full picture, hinders analysis, and prevents the attainment of useful insights that can be utilized in future rounds and in the development of future policies. Apologies for the length, it was supposed to be a short email! Kind regards, Christa From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 8:00 PM To: Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org> escreveu: Dear IRT members, In preparation for <https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw> tomorrow's IRT meeting, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa Some comments about the FAQ: - In the RSP fee, it lacks a comparison to the USD 14k required for an unknown RSP to be evaluated for serving 2012 gTLDs. - It’s not mentioned whether applicants will be allowed to commit to use an evaluated RSP or can only choose already evaluated ones - In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation. - As mentioned by Seb during the session, some organizations might have challenges receiving the excess funding. So while it’s good to be the default to return the excess, giving applicants the option to not get that excess back solves for corner cases regarding tax or foreign exchange regulations. Applicants would only have to say they want it or not want it (no lingering). About the fee for joint venture review, if joint venture ends up playing a role in auctions, perhaps auction proceeds should pay for those. About the fee for lingering applications, I support the idea. Currently there is an asymmetrical relationship between letting it linger (Cranberries song playing in the background) and the Org costs. The hard issue, though, is defining it, since there should be no prevention of the use of accountability mechanisms or limited appeal processes created by that cost, but that can’t also trigger an excessive use of such mechanisms only to avoid the lingering fee. About the IDN Variant subsidy, agree with Edmon on changing its name, but I also add that this could be funded from fee leftovers (either from previous round or forecast of this round) or even Auctions leftovers. This would be aligned with guidelines to such expenditures, I believe. While this won’t change the application fee by any significant amount either way (circa 1%), this would simplify the fee determination and also could back ICANN claims to support multilingual development of the Internet. Rubens _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list 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. _____ SubPro-IRT mailing list 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.
Thanks, all for your feedback. Please note that at this point we are proposing a refund, not a credit, and will make sure that this is clear in the FAQ. Best regards, Marika From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Manoff <amanoff@vmf.com.ar> Date: Friday, 14 June 2024 at 13:47 To: 'Sam Lanfranco' <samlanfranco@gmail.com>, 'Justine Chew' <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> Cc: 'Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT' <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ From a Latin American point of view, I also support refunds, considering that the budget always are limited. Hector Héctor Ariel Manoff Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen Viamonte 1145 10º Piso C1053ABW Buenos Aires República Argentina Te: (54-11) 4371-6100 Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365 E-mail: amanoff@vmf.com.ar<mailto:amanoff@vmf.com.ar> Web: http://www.vmf.com.ar<http://www.vmf.com.ar/> **************************************************************************************************************************************************** Esta comunicación tiene como destinatario a la persona o empresa a la cual está dirigida y puede contener información confidencial y reservada. Si el lector de este mensaje no es el destinatario o sus empleados o representantes, deberá proceder a reenviar el presente a su remitente. La distribución, diseminación o copiado de este mensaje podría constituir violación a la ley. Gracias. This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. Thank you. **************************************************************************************************************************************************** De: SubPro-IRT [mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Sam Lanfranco Enviado el: viernes, 14 de junio de 2024 06:23 Para: Justine Chew CC: Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Asunto: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ As an economist too prefer a refund to a credit, which only applies if an applcation is going forward. I also support sealed bids. No strategic gaming. Applicants give it there best shot, and the envelopes are opened. No drama, full stop. Sam Lanfranco Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist, 416 816-2852 On Jun 13, 2024, at 1:25 p.m., Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> wrote: Perhaps, give applicants a choice depending on their respective circumstances? Or to waive the refund as someone suggested earlier. Justine --------- On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, 16:48 Jeff Neuman, <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: Just to add to the notion of a "Credit" vs. "Refund". A significant number of applicants either withdraw their applications or be eliminated through contention, lack of success in the application process, advice, etc. A credit does no good for these applicants because they will have nothing to credit against. I do not see a way around making this a refund as opposed to a credit. [cid:c194eb95-d749-4172-93ed-9474feec59e1] ________________________________ From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Christa Taylor <Christa@tldz.com<mailto:Christa@tldz.com>> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:35 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>>; subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Thank you Elisa and Lars, I apologize for not being able to attend due to time zone differences. I want to support the requests for more detailed costing information along with some concerns. In November 2016, Work Track 1 was tasked with evaluating the accuracy of cost estimates and reviewing the methodology used to develop the cost model. However, after months of requests, ICANN was unable to provide any information on the costs and methodology used in the 2009 application fees. Consequently, we could not properly address the Implementation Guideline B regarding the concept of differing application fees for different applicants and the potential creation of new application types, which may have necessitated a new costing analysis based on recommended changes (section 4.2.17 at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735931/Section%204.2.17.p... ). Since we were unable to attain the information, the working group wanted to ensure the scenario would not occur in the future rounds and emphasized the need for detailed and transparent disclosure of fees and methodologies to the community. The Final Report reflects this: * Top 15: Application Fees: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 66). * Working Group Emphasis: ICANN should be fully transparent about how the application fee is developed, explaining and documenting all cost assumptions (p. 69). * Summary of Outputs: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 249). Two additional points: 1. Application Fees and Deterrence: I understand wanting to be conservative approach to ensure costs are recovered however, this should be based on probabilities not extreme cases as provided with the 500 and 1,000 volume levels. Also, the scenarios presented suggest providing excess fees as a ‘credit’, but we recommended the option of a refund if the amount exceeded $1,000 (or another nominal amount) with a disbursement schedule based on milestones to avoid delays. This would ensure that applicants don't prepay their yearly ICANN fees, for an extended period, during a critical time when those funds could be utilized to launch and support the operation of their TLD(s). 2. The working group noted that only historical costs directly related to implementing the New gTLD Program should be part of the cost structure for determining application fees. “The Working Group believes, however, that for subsequent procedures the only historical costs that should be part of the cost structure in determining application fees are those actual costs directly related to the implementation of the New gTLD Program”. (p. 65). "Org Shared Services" do not align with this, as they are “not directly attributable to a program or project”. Additionally, it would be helpful to determine whether the $70k per application in implementation fees also includes past shared services amounts and, if they do, the amount included within the $70k. Without relevant details and transparency on the costs, it becomes difficult to understand the full picture, hinders analysis, and prevents the attainment of useful insights that can be utilized in future rounds and in the development of future policies. Apologies for the length, it was supposed to be a short email! Kind regards, Christa From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 8:00 PM To: Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>>; subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> escreveu: Dear IRT members, In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa Some comments about the FAQ: - In the RSP fee, it lacks a comparison to the USD 14k required for an unknown RSP to be evaluated for serving 2012 gTLDs. - It’s not mentioned whether applicants will be allowed to commit to use an evaluated RSP or can only choose already evaluated ones - In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation. - As mentioned by Seb during the session, some organizations might have challenges receiving the excess funding. So while it’s good to be the default to return the excess, giving applicants the option to not get that excess back solves for corner cases regarding tax or foreign exchange regulations. Applicants would only have to say they want it or not want it (no lingering). About the fee for joint venture review, if joint venture ends up playing a role in auctions, perhaps auction proceeds should pay for those. About the fee for lingering applications, I support the idea. Currently there is an asymmetrical relationship between letting it linger (Cranberries song playing in the background) and the Org costs. The hard issue, though, is defining it, since there should be no prevention of the use of accountability mechanisms or limited appeal processes created by that cost, but that can’t also trigger an excessive use of such mechanisms only to avoid the lingering fee. About the IDN Variant subsidy, agree with Edmon on changing its name, but I also add that this could be funded from fee leftovers (either from previous round or forecast of this round) or even Auctions leftovers. This would be aligned with guidelines to such expenditures, I believe. While this won’t change the application fee by any significant amount either way (circa 1%), this would simplify the fee determination and also could back ICANN claims to support multilingual development of the Internet. 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. ________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list 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.
Sam, Can you clarify what you mean by “sealed bids”? Are you suggesting applications submit sealed bids for their application fees? Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Jun 14, 2024, at 11:23 AM, Sam Lanfranco <samlanfranco@gmail.com> wrote: *EXTERNAL TO GT* As an economist too prefer a refund to a credit, which only applies if an applcation is going forward. I also support sealed bids. No strategic gaming. Applicants give it there best shot, and the envelopes are opened. No drama, full stop. Sam Lanfranco Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist, 416 816-2852 On Jun 13, 2024, at 1:25 p.m., Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>> wrote: Perhaps, give applicants a choice depending on their respective circumstances? Or to waive the refund as someone suggested earlier. Justine --------- On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, 16:48 Jeff Neuman, <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: Just to add to the notion of a "Credit" vs. "Refund". A significant number of applicants either withdraw their applications or be eliminated through contention, lack of success in the application process, advice, etc. A credit does no good for these applicants because they will have nothing to credit against. I do not see a way around making this a refund as opposed to a credit. [cid:c194eb95-d749-4172-93ed-9474feec59e1] ________________________________ From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Christa Taylor <Christa@tldz.com<mailto:Christa@tldz.com>> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:35 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>>; subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Thank you Elisa and Lars, I apologize for not being able to attend due to time zone differences. I want to support the requests for more detailed costing information along with some concerns. In November 2016, Work Track 1 was tasked with evaluating the accuracy of cost estimates and reviewing the methodology used to develop the cost model. However, after months of requests, ICANN was unable to provide any information on the costs and methodology used in the 2009 application fees. Consequently, we could not properly address the Implementation Guideline B regarding the concept of differing application fees for different applicants and the potential creation of new application types, which may have necessitated a new costing analysis based on recommended changes (section 4.2.17 at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735931/Section%204.2.17.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1460741334000&api=v2<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735931/Section*204.2.17.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1460741334000&api=v2__;JQ!!DUT_TFPxUQ!CHBYFV8IeuKPCgkAVpqVASCDCaXFuAchjwSdiWHKD_eV9yCOTnJALBJ4vWkxn7zNwkt7rLCK8eDfsYKS0_V-ALPg$> ). Since we were unable to attain the information, the working group wanted to ensure the scenario would not occur in the future rounds and emphasized the need for detailed and transparent disclosure of fees and methodologies to the community. The Final Report reflects this: * Top 15: Application Fees: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 66). * Working Group Emphasis: ICANN should be fully transparent about how the application fee is developed, explaining and documenting all cost assumptions (p. 69). * Summary of Outputs: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 249). Two additional points: 1. Application Fees and Deterrence: I understand wanting to be conservative approach to ensure costs are recovered however, this should be based on probabilities not extreme cases as provided with the 500 and 1,000 volume levels. Also, the scenarios presented suggest providing excess fees as a ‘credit’, but we recommended the option of a refund if the amount exceeded $1,000 (or another nominal amount) with a disbursement schedule based on milestones to avoid delays. This would ensure that applicants don't prepay their yearly ICANN fees, for an extended period, during a critical time when those funds could be utilized to launch and support the operation of their TLD(s). 2. The working group noted that only historical costs directly related to implementing the New gTLD Program should be part of the cost structure for determining application fees. “The Working Group believes, however, that for subsequent procedures the only historical costs that should be part of the cost structure in determining application fees are those actual costs directly related to the implementation of the New gTLD Program”. (p. 65). "Org Shared Services" do not align with this, as they are “not directly attributable to a program or project”. Additionally, it would be helpful to determine whether the $70k per application in implementation fees also includes past shared services amounts and, if they do, the amount included within the $70k. Without relevant details and transparency on the costs, it becomes difficult to understand the full picture, hinders analysis, and prevents the attainment of useful insights that can be utilized in future rounds and in the development of future policies. Apologies for the length, it was supposed to be a short email! Kind regards, Christa From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 8:00 PM To: Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>>; subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> escreveu: Dear IRT members, In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw__;!!DUT_TFP...>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa Some comments about the FAQ: - In the RSP fee, it lacks a comparison to the USD 14k required for an unknown RSP to be evaluated for serving 2012 gTLDs. - It’s not mentioned whether applicants will be allowed to commit to use an evaluated RSP or can only choose already evaluated ones - In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation. - As mentioned by Seb during the session, some organizations might have challenges receiving the excess funding. So while it’s good to be the default to return the excess, giving applicants the option to not get that excess back solves for corner cases regarding tax or foreign exchange regulations. Applicants would only have to say they want it or not want it (no lingering). About the fee for joint venture review, if joint venture ends up playing a role in auctions, perhaps auction proceeds should pay for those. About the fee for lingering applications, I support the idea. Currently there is an asymmetrical relationship between letting it linger (Cranberries song playing in the background) and the Org costs. The hard issue, though, is defining it, since there should be no prevention of the use of accountability mechanisms or limited appeal processes created by that cost, but that can’t also trigger an excessive use of such mechanisms only to avoid the lingering fee. About the IDN Variant subsidy, agree with Edmon on changing its name, but I also add that this could be funded from fee leftovers (either from previous round or forecast of this round) or even Auctions leftovers. This would be aligned with guidelines to such expenditures, I believe. While this won’t change the application fee by any significant amount either way (circa 1%), this would simplify the fee determination and also could back ICANN claims to support multilingual development of the Internet. Rubens _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!CHBYFV8IeuKPCgkAVpqVASCDCaXFuAchjwSdiWHKD_eV9yCOTnJALBJ4vWkxn7zNwkt7rLCK8eDfsYKS03J772pv$> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!CHBYFV8IeuKPCgkAVpqVASCDCaXFuAchjwSdiWHKD_eV9yCOTnJALBJ4vWkxn7zNwkt7rLCK8eDfsYKS0_Cpg7eY$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!CHBYFV8IeuKPCgkAVpqVASCDCaXFuAchjwSdiWHKD_eV9yCOTnJALBJ4vWkxn7zNwkt7rLCK8eDfsYKS0_BjC2KL$>). 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. ________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!CHBYFV8IeuKPCgkAVpqVASCDCaXFuAchjwSdiWHKD_eV9yCOTnJALBJ4vWkxn7zNwkt7rLCK8eDfsYKS03J772pv$> ________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!CHBYFV8IeuKPCgkAVpqVASCDCaXFuAchjwSdiWHKD_eV9yCOTnJALBJ4vWkxn7zNwkt7rLCK8eDfsYKS0_Cpg7eY$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!CHBYFV8IeuKPCgkAVpqVASCDCaXFuAchjwSdiWHKD_eV9yCOTnJALBJ4vWkxn7zNwkt7rLCK8eDfsYKS0_BjC2KL$>). 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. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFP... ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ... ). 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
Em 14 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 11:55, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:
Sam,
Can you clarify what you mean by “sealed bids”? Are you suggesting applications submit sealed bids for their application fees?
I took it as not having ascending bids for auction of last resort. What I am unsure is whether this would apply only to contention sets with supported applicants (those would only have a single round) or to all auctions of last resort. Rubens
I had not given that matter thought in my initial statement, but in general the economist in my favors, in this case, simple sealed bid auctions. There applicants have to make a "best guess" based on their business case estimates. This avoids bidding wars, and a bit less revenue to ICANN, but is also gives the winner a cost based on their business case estimates. ICANN going for more, and gamblers will likely disagree with me. Sam L. Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist On Jun 14, 2024, 8:50 p.m., at 8:50 p.m., Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Em 14 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 11:55, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:
Sam,
Can you clarify what you mean by “sealed bids”? Are you suggesting applications submit sealed bids for their application fees?
I took it as not having ascending bids for auction of last resort. What I am unsure is whether this would apply only to contention sets with supported applicants (those would only have a single round) or to all auctions of last resort.
Rubens
I reread the final report and ascending clock is not foreseen in the report, only a sealed bid like you mentioned. And the sealed bid amount needs to be informed prior to Reveal Day, although it may be later changed in some conditions (like indirect contention and withdrawals). Rubens
Em 14 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 17:27, Sam Lanfranco <samlanfranco@gmail.com> escreveu:
I had not given that matter thought in my initial statement, but in general the economist in my favors, in this case, simple sealed bid auctions. There applicants have to make a "best guess" based on their business case estimates. This avoids bidding wars, and a bit less revenue to ICANN, but is also gives the winner a cost based on their business case estimates. ICANN going for more, and gamblers will likely disagree with me.
Sam L.
Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist On Jun 14, 2024, at 8:50 p.m., Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote:
Em 14 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 11:55, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:
Sam,
Can you clarify what you mean by “sealed bids”? Are you suggesting applications submit sealed bids for their application fees?
I took it as not having ascending bids for auction of last resort. What I am unsure is whether this would apply only to contention sets with supported applicants (those would only have a single round) or to all auctions of last resort.
Rubens
Dear Rubens and Sam, Thank you for your input on the matter of ICANN’s Aucions of Last Resort. I wanted to quickly remind everyone that the GNSO Council did not adopt recommendations 35.2 and 35.4 and, thus, these were not forwarded to the Board for its consideration. As a result, there are no recommendations on private auctions (see also Council Clarifying Statement in the September 2023 Scorecard<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-subpro-pdp-board-actio...>) , and no recommendations on ICANN’s auction of last resort. Best wishes, Lars From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply to: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Saturday, 15 June 2024 at 04:52 To: Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ I reread the final report and ascending clock is not foreseen in the report, only a sealed bid like you mentioned. And the sealed bid amount needs to be informed prior to Reveal Day, although it may be later changed in some conditions (like indirect contention and withdrawals). Rubens Em 14 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 17:27, Sam Lanfranco <samlanfranco@gmail.com> escreveu: I had not given that matter thought in my initial statement, but in general the economist in my favors, in this case, simple sealed bid auctions. There applicants have to make a "best guess" based on their business case estimates. This avoids bidding wars, and a bit less revenue to ICANN, but is also gives the winner a cost based on their business case estimates. ICANN going for more, and gamblers will likely disagree with me. Sam L. Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist On Jun 14, 2024, at 8:50 p.m., Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Em 14 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 11:55, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu: Sam, Can you clarify what you mean by “sealed bids”? Are you suggesting applications submit sealed bids for their application fees? I took it as not having ascending bids for auction of last resort. What I am unsure is whether this would apply only to contention sets with supported applicants (those would only have a single round) or to all auctions of last resort. Rubens
Lars cc as above Good afternoon. Well, on private auctions; there are now Recommendations on private auctions....at least from GAC https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann80-kigali-communique best Nigel From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 9:39 AM To: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Dear Rubens and Sam, Thank you for your input on the matter of ICANN's Aucions of Last Resort. I wanted to quickly remind everyone that the GNSO Council did not adopt recommendations 35.2 and 35.4 and, thus, these were not forwarded to the Board for its consideration. As a result, there are no recommendations on private auctions (see also Council Clarifying Statement in the September 2023 Scorecard<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-subpro-pdp-board-actio...>) , and no recommendations on ICANN's auction of last resort. Best wishes, Lars 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: Saturday, 15 June 2024 at 04:52 To: Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ I reread the final report and ascending clock is not foreseen in the report, only a sealed bid like you mentioned. And the sealed bid amount needs to be informed prior to Reveal Day, although it may be later changed in some conditions (like indirect contention and withdrawals). Rubens Em 14 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 17:27, Sam Lanfranco <samlanfranco@gmail.com<mailto:samlanfranco@gmail.com>> escreveu: I had not given that matter thought in my initial statement, but in general the economist in my favors, in this case, simple sealed bid auctions. There applicants have to make a "best guess" based on their business case estimates. This avoids bidding wars, and a bit less revenue to ICANN, but is also gives the winner a cost based on their business case estimates. ICANN going for more, and gamblers will likely disagree with me. Sam L. Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist On Jun 14, 2024, at 8:50 p.m., Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Em 14 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 11:55, trachtenbergm--- via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> escreveu: Sam, Can you clarify what you mean by "sealed bids"? Are you suggesting applications submit sealed bids for their application fees? I took it as not having ascending bids for auction of last resort. What I am unsure is whether this would apply only to contention sets with supported applicants (those would only have a single round) or to all auctions of last resort. Rubens
Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 23:59, Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:
Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org> escreveu:
Dear IRT members,
In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting <https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee.
Best regards, Elisa
- In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation.
Specifically on TMCH fees, after help from another gTLD registry I can provide the following links: RySG Correspondence: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-03oct17... (It contains other fee-related matters but only TMCH is in discussion here) ICANN Board Resolution: https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re... And the point here is that this established a line of action from 2012, and there is no SubPro recommendation (or any Board decision for that matter) to change that. Rubens
Thanks, Rubens, for sharing the 2012 correspondence and resolution in relation to the TMCH fees. As you will note, this was specific to the 2012 round and the circumstances relevant at that time. As also pointed out during the IRT session, the TMCH fees are included in the base registry agreement, article 6 – fees, which calls out all the fees that are applicable to registries following signing of the registry agreement (see https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-agreements/base-registry-agreeme...). Best regards, Marika From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Friday, 14 June 2024 at 14:44 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 23:59, Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu: Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org> escreveu: Dear IRT members, In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa - In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation. Specifically on TMCH fees, after help from another gTLD registry I can provide the following links: RySG Correspondence: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-03oct17... (It contains other fee-related matters but only TMCH is in discussion here) ICANN Board Resolution: https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re... And the point here is that this established a line of action from 2012, and there is no SubPro recommendation (or any Board decision for that matter) to change that. Rubens
HI Eliza, Thank you the information! Could you clarify if the fee for the RSP Evaluation Program remains the same when applying to provide two critical functions on behalf of the registry operator, specifically for Domain Name System and DNS Security Extensions? Thanks, Enrique From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 at 8:01 AM To: subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Dear IRT members, In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments. If you have any concerns about the content of this message, press the "Phish Alert" button in Outlook or forward to cirt@vercara.com
Dear All, I would like to re-iterate my comment I made during our first and last call at ICANN80: I understand that estimations for future costs are estimations and will not 100% accurate. At least there should be data available for the period 2023 Q2 until 2024 Q1. Providing these data to our group might help to evaluate on a factual basis whether the estimate seems appropriate. I would also like to emphasize that we still have a strong inflation going on, at least in Europe. Together with global tensions and uncertainties, this might have an impact on investment decisions by corporations and/or other entities interested in applying for a TLD. I’m not saying that this will have an impact, but it might be so. Therefore I understand that you took a moderate approach in estimating the number of potential TLD applications. Best Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Next Round Policy Implementation Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Juni 2024 14:02 An: subpro-irt@icann.org Betreff: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ Dear IRT members, In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee. Best regards, Elisa
participants (15)
-
Anne ICANN -
Ariel Manoff -
Christa Taylor -
Christa Taylor -
Enrique Somoza -
Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) -
Jeff Neuman -
Justine Chew -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
Lars Hoffmann -
Marika Konings -
Next Round Policy Implementation -
Rubens Kuhl -
Sam Lanfranco -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com