Having heard the RSP fee part of the May 21st meeting, I have to say I’m appalled by the proposed USD 92k RSP evaluation fee. Currently, the evaluation fee for a fully new, not known, RSP for 2012 gTLDs is USD 14,300. Source: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/msa-change-guide-15dec21-en.pdf So if the RSP fee for 2026+ gTLDs is USD 92,000, this means that the self-regulating ICANN model is establishing a significant barrier of entry for new entrants to the gTLD market, which could raise anti-trust concerns with competition authorities. BTW, consultations from other Global South RSPs already indicate that we will have less, or none, such RSPs. And since there is no ASP for RSPs, we will likely cause ASP to fail again since ASP only provides for initial costs, and the running costs will be strongly-tied to the availability of RSPs willing to provide cheaper than usual services. Rubens
Rubens Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions. Best Nigel From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2024 11:50 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Having heard the RSP fee part of the May 21st meeting, I have to say I'm appalled by the proposed USD 92k RSP evaluation fee. Currently, the evaluation fee for a fully new, not known, RSP for 2012 gTLDs is USD 14,300. Source: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/msa-change-guide-15dec21-en.pdf So if the RSP fee for 2026+ gTLDs is USD 92,000, this means that the self-regulating ICANN model is establishing a significant barrier of entry for new entrants to the gTLD market, which could raise anti-trust concerns with competition authorities. BTW, consultations from other Global South RSPs already indicate that we will have less, or none, such RSPs. And since there is no ASP for RSPs, we will likely cause ASP to fail again since ASP only provides for initial costs, and the running costs will be strongly-tied to the availability of RSPs willing to provide cheaper than usual services. Rubens
Em 26 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:26, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk> escreveu:
Rubens
Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions.
Hi Nigel. Note that this does not applied only in 2012(actually 2014 since this is only charged when a gTLD changes RSPs); this is 2024 current fee to be an RSP for 2012 gTLDs. Org can’t blame inflation on this one, since it’s a comparison of current fees. Rubens
All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review. My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once. Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP. Best regards, Marika From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Sunday, 26 May 2024 at 21:18 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Em 26 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:26, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk> escreveu: Rubens Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions. Hi Nigel. Note that this does not applied only in 2012(actually 2014 since this is only charged when a gTLD changes RSPs); this is 2024 current fee to be an RSP for 2012 gTLDs. Org can’t blame inflation on this one, since it’s a comparison of current fees. Rubens
Hi Marika, Thank you for jumping in and the information provided. With regards to the cost of technical evaluations in the last round, $40k-$50k seems extremely high for a couple of reasons. ICANN org budgeted approximately $60k per application for all the evaluation processes, something Jeff flagged during the call. Also, the repetitive/duplicative nature of completing multiple technical evaluations for the same RSP presumably minimised the processing resources/costs. I guess the IRT is lacking any reliable data to justify the costs/fess proposed for the next round, with some of us left with just a ‘gut feel’ that these are unnecessarily high, which will have a detrimental affect on new entrants, especially from underserved regions. The only real comparison we have presently is the technical evaluation for a new RSP as part of the MSA process you and Ruben’s referred to. This is triggered when an RSP does not support an existing new gTLD, with an estimated cost of $14.3k. This figure would also fit comfortably in the overall evaluations costs budget in the last round for each application, highlighted above. I sensed from the presentation on the call that estimates for RSP pre-evaluation were up to 100. This is not a huge number of technical evaluations and with an improved, methodical and uniform process, should be relatively straightforward. Hopefully, this has not attracted an over-engineered and costly application system, especially if it is comparable to the MSA technical evaluation which can be completed from three to nine weeks. It was somewhat surprising to see the fees for pre-evaluation presented without any supporting data for the underlying costs, but hopefully this breakdown will be provided shortly. I would recommend providing a comparison between the MSA technical evaluation, as this will be helpful to illustrate the key variances in processes and resources/costs. Beyond the RSP Pre-evaluation topic, the new gTLD application fee is due to be shared with the IRT in the coming weeks. It would be helpful if this is presented with detailed breakdown of costs for transparency and justification. Kind regards, Martin The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. On 27 May 2024, at 07:20, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review. My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once. Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP. Best regards, Marika From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Sunday, 26 May 2024 at 21:18 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Em 26 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:26, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk> escreveu: Rubens Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions. Hi Nigel. Note that this does not applied only in 2012(actually 2014 since this is only charged when a gTLD changes RSPs); this is 2024 current fee to be an RSP for 2012 gTLDs. Org can’t blame inflation on this one, since it’s a comparison of current fees. Rubens _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org 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 27 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 03:20, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> escreveu:
All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review.
Exactly, this is a current applicable in 2024 fee for RSP evaluation, as long as it only intends to serve 2012 gTLDs. Note that this fee assumes a completely unknown RSP, so the full 2012 technical evaluation needs to be applied to it. Which makes it a good proxy for 2026+ since the evaluation criteria is basically the same.
My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once.
The MSA change fee also applies only once. As long as an RSP pays it and is approved for 2012 gTLDs, like CIRA was for .kiwi, it no longer needs to pay the fee again. Like CIRA for the gTLDs it started serving after .kiwi (.eco, .crown and .mls).
Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP.
Cost recovery is not a blank check for paying whatever it costs regardless of reasonability. For instance, if there are 45 RSPs and a reasonable cost recovery fee is USD 14k, to match 2012 gTLDs, this means the program cost should have been planned to cost around USD 630k. Making it cost 6.5x more and transferring that to RSPs is what causing the problem. And knowing the cost breakdown, while interesting, will not solve the problem of enacting barriers for 2026+ gTLDs against underserved regions, markets and incoming registries. It seems policy is being followed like in the “Bedazzled” movie, where requests are followed to the letter but still contradicts everything the requester wanted. Rubens
Hi Marika I realize we are still expecting some reveals on the pricing for an applicant, but wanted to ask a clarifying question. Is the anticipation that this $92,000 RSP fee would reduce the application fee (ie, est 250k - 92k = est 158k), or is this $92k on top of the est $250k such that a new entrant would be needing to contrast the 2012 round $185k all-inclusive against an estimated $342k all-inclusive? -Jothan Jothan Frakes Tel: +1.206-355-0230 On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 11:20 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review. My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once. Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP.
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> *Date: *Sunday, 26 May 2024 at 21:18 *To: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee
Em 26 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:26, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) < nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk> escreveu:
Rubens
Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions.
Hi Nigel.
Note that this does not applied only in 2012(actually 2014 since this is only charged when a gTLD changes RSPs); this is 2024 current fee to be an RSP for 2012 gTLDs. Org can’t blame inflation on this one, since it’s a comparison of current fees.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org 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.
Jothan, Putting my Marika mask on, what Org said is that it would reduce the application fee. By how much is the question, since the actual cost of a technical evaluation is USD 14k, so they could just subtract 14k from 250k and say that the application fee without RSP evaluation is 236k. And it will be hard to challenge that figure, because that’s the actual cost. Rubens
Em 27 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 13:30, Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com> escreveu:
Hi Marika
I realize we are still expecting some reveals on the pricing for an applicant, but wanted to ask a clarifying question.
Is the anticipation that this $92,000 RSP fee would reduce the application fee (ie, est 250k - 92k = est 158k), or is this $92k on top of the est $250k such that a new entrant would be needing to contrast the 2012 round $185k all-inclusive against an estimated $342k all-inclusive?
-Jothan
Jothan Frakes Tel: +1.206-355-0230
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 11:20 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote:
All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review. My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once. Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP.
Best regards,
Marika
From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Date: Sunday, 26 May 2024 at 21:18 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee
Em 26 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:26, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk <mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>> escreveu:
Rubens
Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions.
Hi Nigel.
Note that this does not applied only in 2012(actually 2014 since this is only charged when a gTLD changes RSPs); this is 2024 current fee to be an RSP for 2012 gTLDs. Org can’t blame inflation on this one, since it’s a comparison of current fees.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks, Jothan for that question. When we present the gTLD evaluation fee, we plan to show the savings that were made compared to 2012, but also the additional costs that need to be factored in (e.g. inflation, new evaluations). However, as indicated yesterday, comparing the costs for technical evaluation from the 2012 round is not identical to the RSP program so you will not see a reduction of 92K. Some have referenced the evaluation costs that were part of the 2012 fee, but it is important to remember that those just represent the external expenses. Other costs, such as staff support, implementation, etc. were included in other buckets that made up the 2012 evaluation fee. As I know Lars likes using the car analogy, maybe this is a way of looking at it: in 2012, technical evaluation paid for a seat on a very big bus which included a lot of other evaluations and aspects of the program. Per the SubPro recommendations, for the next round technical evaluation was taken off that bus and had to get its own. As part of that, it is not only the costs of the seat that needs to be covered, but also the new bus, the insurance, gas (e.g. RSP system development, RSP handbook, system maintenance, staff support). As said previously, comparing technical evaluation of the 2012 round with RSP is comparing apples to oranges, but bringing in MSA is like comparing it with chickens because that is part of ICANN’s operations which is structured and funded in a very different way compared to the next round. As indicated, the team will be sharing more details on the RSP budget so that will hopefully provide some further insight into the different parts that comprise the development, implementation and running of RSP and for which the costs need to be recuperated per the policy recommendations. Best regards, Marika From: Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com> Date: Monday, 27 May 2024 at 18:31 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Hi Marika I realize we are still expecting some reveals on the pricing for an applicant, but wanted to ask a clarifying question. Is the anticipation that this $92,000 RSP fee would reduce the application fee (ie, est 250k - 92k = est 158k), or is this $92k on top of the est $250k such that a new entrant would be needing to contrast the 2012 round $185k all-inclusive against an estimated $342k all-inclusive? -Jothan Jothan Frakes Tel: +1.206-355-0230 On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 11:20 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review. My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once. Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP. Best regards, Marika From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Date: Sunday, 26 May 2024 at 21:18 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Em 26 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:26, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk<mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>> escreveu: Rubens Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions. Hi Nigel. Note that this does not applied only in 2012(actually 2014 since this is only charged when a gTLD changes RSPs); this is 2024 current fee to be an RSP for 2012 gTLDs. Org can’t blame inflation on this one, since it’s a comparison of current fees. Rubens _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thank you. I loves me a good analogy, because that is the style I use a lot. I got a little confused in the bus/chicken as to how to represent the fees when asked by folks less close to our ICANN world who are not following things closely like us. The main 2 questions on the next round that I field are, "how much? / when can I apply?" [If I had a nickel for how often I am asked those two specific questions.... ] For the "how much?" question, I find laying it out clearly works best, and doing so with worst case scenario amounts, so that they can obtain budget approvals or raise funding as needed. @Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> can you confirm... Related to the application pricing, it sounds like ... well, I think you are saying that a new entrant TLD applicant with a new platform should budget for an additional 92k above their (estimated) 250k fee, or an estimated 342k. This number might improve (give or take some refundable differences in the event of as of yet to be measured volume). Is that accurate? I always caveat these figures are estimates and identify them as being finalized closer to October when communicating them, but I try to keep folks up to date on what to expect. -Jothan On Tue, May 28, 2024, 1:21 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Jothan for that question. When we present the gTLD evaluation fee, we plan to show the savings that were made compared to 2012, but also the additional costs that need to be factored in (e.g. inflation, new evaluations). However, as indicated yesterday, comparing the costs for technical evaluation from the 2012 round is not identical to the RSP program so you will not see a reduction of 92K. Some have referenced the evaluation costs that were part of the 2012 fee, but it is important to remember that those just represent the external expenses. Other costs, such as staff support, implementation, etc. were included in other buckets that made up the 2012 evaluation fee.
As I know Lars likes using the car analogy, maybe this is a way of looking at it: in 2012, technical evaluation paid for a seat on a very big bus which included a lot of other evaluations and aspects of the program. Per the SubPro recommendations, for the next round technical evaluation was taken off that bus and had to get its own. As part of that, it is not only the costs of the seat that needs to be covered, but also the new bus, the insurance, gas (e.g. RSP system development, RSP handbook, system maintenance, staff support). As said previously, comparing technical evaluation of the 2012 round with RSP is comparing apples to oranges, but bringing in MSA is like comparing it with chickens because that is part of ICANN’s operations which is structured and funded in a very different way compared to the next round.
As indicated, the team will be sharing more details on the RSP budget so that will hopefully provide some further insight into the different parts that comprise the development, implementation and running of RSP and for which the costs need to be recuperated per the policy recommendations.
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com> *Date: *Monday, 27 May 2024 at 18:31 *To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> *Cc: *Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" < subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee
Hi Marika
I realize we are still expecting some reveals on the pricing for an applicant, but wanted to ask a clarifying question.
Is the anticipation that this $92,000 RSP fee would reduce the application fee (ie, est 250k - 92k = est 158k), or is this $92k on top of the est $250k such that a new entrant would be needing to contrast the 2012 round $185k all-inclusive against an estimated $342k all-inclusive?
-Jothan
Jothan Frakes Tel: +1.206-355-0230
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 11:20 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review. My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once. Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP.
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> *Date: *Sunday, 26 May 2024 at 21:18 *To: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee
Em 26 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:26, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) < nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk> escreveu:
Rubens
Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions.
Hi Nigel.
Note that this does not applied only in 2012(actually 2014 since this is only charged when a gTLD changes RSPs); this is 2024 current fee to be an RSP for 2012 gTLDs. Org can’t blame inflation on this one, since it’s a comparison of current fees.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org 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, Jothan. My understanding is that the gTLD applicant pays the gTLD evaluation fee and the RSP pays the RSP evaluation fee. In many/most (?) cases these are not the same entity. Of course, an applicant will need to contract with an evaluated RSP provider, but the fees for that will be set by the RSP itself and negotiated directly with the applicant. If the gTLD applicant is its own RSP, yes, in that case it would also need to budget for the RSP evaluation fee, but only once, not for every application as was the case in 2012. Best regards, Marika From: Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com> Date: Tuesday, 28 May 2024 at 11:10 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Thank you. I loves me a good analogy, because that is the style I use a lot. I got a little confused in the bus/chicken as to how to represent the fees when asked by folks less close to our ICANN world who are not following things closely like us. The main 2 questions on the next round that I field are, "how much? / when can I apply?" [If I had a nickel for how often I am asked those two specific questions.... ] For the "how much?" question, I find laying it out clearly works best, and doing so with worst case scenario amounts, so that they can obtain budget approvals or raise funding as needed. @Marika Konings<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> can you confirm... Related to the application pricing, it sounds like ... well, I think you are saying that a new entrant TLD applicant with a new platform should budget for an additional 92k above their (estimated) 250k fee, or an estimated 342k. This number might improve (give or take some refundable differences in the event of as of yet to be measured volume). Is that accurate? I always caveat these figures are estimates and identify them as being finalized closer to October when communicating them, but I try to keep folks up to date on what to expect. -Jothan On Tue, May 28, 2024, 1:21 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Jothan for that question. When we present the gTLD evaluation fee, we plan to show the savings that were made compared to 2012, but also the additional costs that need to be factored in (e.g. inflation, new evaluations). However, as indicated yesterday, comparing the costs for technical evaluation from the 2012 round is not identical to the RSP program so you will not see a reduction of 92K. Some have referenced the evaluation costs that were part of the 2012 fee, but it is important to remember that those just represent the external expenses. Other costs, such as staff support, implementation, etc. were included in other buckets that made up the 2012 evaluation fee. As I know Lars likes using the car analogy, maybe this is a way of looking at it: in 2012, technical evaluation paid for a seat on a very big bus which included a lot of other evaluations and aspects of the program. Per the SubPro recommendations, for the next round technical evaluation was taken off that bus and had to get its own. As part of that, it is not only the costs of the seat that needs to be covered, but also the new bus, the insurance, gas (e.g. RSP system development, RSP handbook, system maintenance, staff support). As said previously, comparing technical evaluation of the 2012 round with RSP is comparing apples to oranges, but bringing in MSA is like comparing it with chickens because that is part of ICANN’s operations which is structured and funded in a very different way compared to the next round. As indicated, the team will be sharing more details on the RSP budget so that will hopefully provide some further insight into the different parts that comprise the development, implementation and running of RSP and for which the costs need to be recuperated per the policy recommendations. Best regards, Marika From: Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com<mailto:jothan@jothan.com>> Date: Monday, 27 May 2024 at 18:31 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Hi Marika I realize we are still expecting some reveals on the pricing for an applicant, but wanted to ask a clarifying question. Is the anticipation that this $92,000 RSP fee would reduce the application fee (ie, est 250k - 92k = est 158k), or is this $92k on top of the est $250k such that a new entrant would be needing to contrast the 2012 round $185k all-inclusive against an estimated $342k all-inclusive? -Jothan Jothan Frakes Tel: +1.206-355-0230 On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 11:20 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review. My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once. Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP. Best regards, Marika From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Date: Sunday, 26 May 2024 at 21:18 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Em 26 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:26, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk<mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>> escreveu: Rubens Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions. Hi Nigel. Note that this does not applied only in 2012(actually 2014 since this is only charged when a gTLD changes RSPs); this is 2024 current fee to be an RSP for 2012 gTLDs. Org can’t blame inflation on this one, since it’s a comparison of current fees. Rubens _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi All, I have been meaning to make a contribution to this discussion, but work pressure has simply not allowed me to do so. I have, however, raised a few of my concerns directly with some of you on this list. For those that may not know me, I represent an African based RSP, currently involved with several existing gTLDs and an African based ccTLD. We have been involved in the registry technical environment for over 30-years and, more recently, since the last nTLD round in 2012 (i.e .africa). I also appreciate a good analogy, but must point out that in the current (Marika) example, RSPs having their own bus means very little on its own. An RSP without a TLD (or the prospect of a TLD) to support is simply a waste of time and money—like being all dressed up with nowhere to go . A more fitting analogy for the 2026 nTLD round is that RSPs are not mere passengers needing a seat or even their own entire bus. Instead, RSPs are actually responsible for providing, driving, and maintaining the bus that nTLD applicants (the passengers) will use. ICANN’s role is to ensure that the bus provided and maintained by an RSP is roadworthy and fit for purpose - in the best interests of passengers and other road users. To complete the analogy, in the above scenario ICANN simply provides the roadway and ensures that road users stick to the rules. Indulge me as I take this analogy a step further. In relation to the 2026 nTLD round, most (if not all) the RSPs will use the exact same (approved) bus that they used during the 2012 nTLD round and still use today. In 2012 ICANN conducted a 'roadworthy check' on the same bus for every passenger ticket issued, a method that was neither efficient nor cost-effective for ensuring compliance and uniformity. For 2026 we are moving towards a single certification for the RSP’s bus, irrespective of the number of nTLD passengers who will request a seat. It’s the same roadworthy validation process as in 2012, but without the repetitive checks. So why does it now suddenly cost us more? It's the same bus, largely the same route, and more or less the same type of passengers. Even if it does cost more this time round, why is this simply not funded from the proceeds of the 2012 nTLD round? - I realise I may be opening a can of worms here :-| The crux of the matter is that I don’t think this proposed US$92,000 RSP pre-evaluation fee is going to encourage diverse participation in the next nTLD round, especially from developing regions. It’s a new financial barrier to entry that previously was not there and it will almost certainly hamper participation from developing regions in the next nTLD round. We for one, an established RSP from Africa, will need to carefully consider our participation in this pre-evaluation process. Not because we don’t have the skills, experience or willingness to participate, but rather that the costs are prohibitive for what may be a limited return on investment. This is not an ideal scenario as our role (as an RSP and Technical partner in Africa) should be to encourage and support broad participation from Africa. Lastly, some of you may suggest that we simply do not participate in the pre-evaluation process but rather only when the nTLD round opens. The problem with this is that being on a pre-evaluated RSP list will certainly help create much needed visibility of our services and expertise in a region that is in dire need of it (especially leading up to the 2026 nTLD window). Its a matter of "damned if you do and damned if you don’t". I hope to join the Zoom call later today, but I do have a conflicting meeting with the local regulator. Regards Neil Dundas DNS Africa Ltd
On 28 May 2024, at 11:09, Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com> wrote:
Thank you.
I loves me a good analogy, because that is the style I use a lot. I got a little confused in the bus/chicken as to how to represent the fees when asked by folks less close to our ICANN world who are not following things closely like us.
The main 2 questions on the next round that I field are, "how much? / when can I apply?"
[If I had a nickel for how often I am asked those two specific questions.... ]
For the "how much?" question, I find laying it out clearly works best, and doing so with worst case scenario amounts, so that they can obtain budget approvals or raise funding as needed.
@Marika Konings <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> can you confirm... Related to the application pricing, it sounds like ... well, I think you are saying that a new entrant TLD applicant with a new platform should budget for an additional 92k above their (estimated) 250k fee, or an estimated 342k. This number might improve (give or take some refundable differences in the event of as of yet to be measured volume).
Is that accurate?
I always caveat these figures are estimates and identify them as being finalized closer to October when communicating them, but I try to keep folks up to date on what to expect.
-Jothan
On Tue, May 28, 2024, 1:21 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote:
Thanks, Jothan for that question. When we present the gTLD evaluation fee, we plan to show the savings that were made compared to 2012, but also the additional costs that need to be factored in (e.g. inflation, new evaluations). However, as indicated yesterday, comparing the costs for technical evaluation from the 2012 round is not identical to the RSP program so you will not see a reduction of 92K. Some have referenced the evaluation costs that were part of the 2012 fee, but it is important to remember that those just represent the external expenses. Other costs, such as staff support, implementation, etc. were included in other buckets that made up the 2012 evaluation fee.
As I know Lars likes using the car analogy, maybe this is a way of looking at it: in 2012, technical evaluation paid for a seat on a very big bus which included a lot of other evaluations and aspects of the program. Per the SubPro recommendations, for the next round technical evaluation was taken off that bus and had to get its own. As part of that, it is not only the costs of the seat that needs to be covered, but also the new bus, the insurance, gas (e.g. RSP system development, RSP handbook, system maintenance, staff support). As said previously, comparing technical evaluation of the 2012 round with RSP is comparing apples to oranges, but bringing in MSA is like comparing it with chickens because that is part of ICANN’s operations which is structured and funded in a very different way compared to the next round.
As indicated, the team will be sharing more details on the RSP budget so that will hopefully provide some further insight into the different parts that comprise the development, implementation and running of RSP and for which the costs need to be recuperated per the policy recommendations.
Best regards,
Marika
From: Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com <mailto:jothan@jothan.com>> Date: Monday, 27 May 2024 at 18:31 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee
Hi Marika
I realize we are still expecting some reveals on the pricing for an applicant, but wanted to ask a clarifying question.
Is the anticipation that this $92,000 RSP fee would reduce the application fee (ie, est 250k - 92k = est 158k), or is this $92k on top of the est $250k such that a new entrant would be needing to contrast the 2012 round $185k all-inclusive against an estimated $342k all-inclusive?
-Jothan
Jothan Frakes Tel: +1.206-355-0230
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 11:20 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote:
All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review. My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once. Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP.
Best regards,
Marika
From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Date: Sunday, 26 May 2024 at 21:18 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee
Em 26 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:26, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk <mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>> escreveu:
Rubens
Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions.
Hi Nigel.
Note that this does not applied only in 2012(actually 2014 since this is only charged when a gTLD changes RSPs); this is 2024 current fee to be an RSP for 2012 gTLDs. Org can’t blame inflation on this one, since it’s a comparison of current fees.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Thank you Neil, Your expansion and corrections of the analogy are very much appreciated, bringing much-needed reality to the discussion. Whilst we have our hands tied as members of the IRT (ICANN org largely dictates the implementation costs and associated fees) your extended analogy is a useful reminder as to the root of the Sub Pro recommendations. For the RSP pre-evaluation, the expectation was a streamlined, cost-effective process that would remove the highly duplicative processes in the last round. What has been presented so far is not it. My concern is that this has been converted into an over-engineered process and introduces new systems that will perform the same function as the existing technical evaluations (the same evaluations that have been relied upon to safeguard the security and integrity of the registries that underpin the internet already). The detailed breakdown will be helpful, but as Rueben’s alluded to, the approach seems to have lost the emphasis on streamlining and cost-effective solutions that drive the recommendations and outputs for the RSP pre-evaluation. Thanks again Neil, I appreciate your comments and insights. Martin Martin Sutton Co-Founder E: Martin@tldz.com T: +44 7774 556680 TLDz.com [image001.png] On 28 May 2024, at 12:03, Neil Dundas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: Hi All, I have been meaning to make a contribution to this discussion, but work pressure has simply not allowed me to do so. I have, however, raised a few of my concerns directly with some of you on this list. For those that may not know me, I represent an African based RSP, currently involved with several existing gTLDs and an African based ccTLD. We have been involved in the registry technical environment for over 30-years and, more recently, since the last nTLD round in 2012 (i.e .africa). I also appreciate a good analogy, but must point out that in the current (Marika) example, RSPs having their own bus means very little on its own. An RSP without a TLD (or the prospect of a TLD) to support is simply a waste of time and money—like being all dressed up with nowhere to go . A more fitting analogy for the 2026 nTLD round is that RSPs are not mere passengers needing a seat or even their own entire bus. Instead, RSPs are actually responsible for providing, driving, and maintaining the bus that nTLD applicants (the passengers) will use. ICANN’s role is to ensure that the bus provided and maintained by an RSP is roadworthy and fit for purpose - in the best interests of passengers and other road users. To complete the analogy, in the above scenario ICANN simply provides the roadway and ensures that road users stick to the rules. Indulge me as I take this analogy a step further. In relation to the 2026 nTLD round, most (if not all) the RSPs will use the exact same (approved) bus that they used during the 2012 nTLD round and still use today. In 2012 ICANN conducted a 'roadworthy check' on the same bus for every passenger ticket issued, a method that was neither efficient nor cost-effective for ensuring compliance and uniformity. For 2026 we are moving towards a single certification for the RSP’s bus, irrespective of the number of nTLD passengers who will request a seat. It’s the same roadworthy validation process as in 2012, but without the repetitive checks. So why does it now suddenly cost us more? It's the same bus, largely the same route, and more or less the same type of passengers. Even if it does cost more this time round, why is this simply not funded from the proceeds of the 2012 nTLD round? - I realise I may be opening a can of worms here :-| The crux of the matter is that I don’t think this proposed US$92,000 RSP pre-evaluation fee is going to encourage diverse participation in the next nTLD round, especially from developing regions. It’s a new financial barrier to entry that previously was not there and it will almost certainly hamper participation from developing regions in the next nTLD round. We for one, an established RSP from Africa, will need to carefully consider our participation in this pre-evaluation process. Not because we don’t have the skills, experience or willingness to participate, but rather that the costs are prohibitive for what may be a limited return on investment. This is not an ideal scenario as our role (as an RSP and Technical partner in Africa) should be to encourage and support broad participation from Africa. Lastly, some of you may suggest that we simply do not participate in the pre-evaluation process but rather only when the nTLD round opens. The problem with this is that being on a pre-evaluated RSP list will certainly help create much needed visibility of our services and expertise in a region that is in dire need of it (especially leading up to the 2026 nTLD window). Its a matter of "damned if you do and damned if you don’t". I hope to join the Zoom call later today, but I do have a conflicting meeting with the local regulator. Regards Neil Dundas DNS Africa Ltd On 28 May 2024, at 11:09, Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com> wrote: Thank you. I loves me a good analogy, because that is the style I use a lot. I got a little confused in the bus/chicken as to how to represent the fees when asked by folks less close to our ICANN world who are not following things closely like us. The main 2 questions on the next round that I field are, "how much? / when can I apply?" [If I had a nickel for how often I am asked those two specific questions.... ] For the "how much?" question, I find laying it out clearly works best, and doing so with worst case scenario amounts, so that they can obtain budget approvals or raise funding as needed. @Marika Konings<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> can you confirm... Related to the application pricing, it sounds like ... well, I think you are saying that a new entrant TLD applicant with a new platform should budget for an additional 92k above their (estimated) 250k fee, or an estimated 342k. This number might improve (give or take some refundable differences in the event of as of yet to be measured volume). Is that accurate? I always caveat these figures are estimates and identify them as being finalized closer to October when communicating them, but I try to keep folks up to date on what to expect. -Jothan On Tue, May 28, 2024, 1:21 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Jothan for that question. When we present the gTLD evaluation fee, we plan to show the savings that were made compared to 2012, but also the additional costs that need to be factored in (e.g. inflation, new evaluations). However, as indicated yesterday, comparing the costs for technical evaluation from the 2012 round is not identical to the RSP program so you will not see a reduction of 92K. Some have referenced the evaluation costs that were part of the 2012 fee, but it is important to remember that those just represent the external expenses. Other costs, such as staff support, implementation, etc. were included in other buckets that made up the 2012 evaluation fee. As I know Lars likes using the car analogy, maybe this is a way of looking at it: in 2012, technical evaluation paid for a seat on a very big bus which included a lot of other evaluations and aspects of the program. Per the SubPro recommendations, for the next round technical evaluation was taken off that bus and had to get its own. As part of that, it is not only the costs of the seat that needs to be covered, but also the new bus, the insurance, gas (e.g. RSP system development, RSP handbook, system maintenance, staff support). As said previously, comparing technical evaluation of the 2012 round with RSP is comparing apples to oranges, but bringing in MSA is like comparing it with chickens because that is part of ICANN’s operations which is structured and funded in a very different way compared to the next round. As indicated, the team will be sharing more details on the RSP budget so that will hopefully provide some further insight into the different parts that comprise the development, implementation and running of RSP and for which the costs need to be recuperated per the policy recommendations. Best regards, Marika From: Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com<mailto:jothan@jothan.com>> Date: Monday, 27 May 2024 at 18:31 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Hi Marika I realize we are still expecting some reveals on the pricing for an applicant, but wanted to ask a clarifying question. Is the anticipation that this $92,000 RSP fee would reduce the application fee (ie, est 250k - 92k = est 158k), or is this $92k on top of the est $250k such that a new entrant would be needing to contrast the 2012 round $185k all-inclusive against an estimated $342k all-inclusive? -Jothan Jothan Frakes Tel: +1.206-355-0230 On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 11:20 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review. My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once. Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP. Best regards, Marika From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Date: Sunday, 26 May 2024 at 21:18 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] RSP fee Em 26 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:26, Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) <nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk<mailto:nigel.hickson@dsit.gov.uk>> escreveu: Rubens Good morning; like yourself I was on IRT Call when this came up, but had not appreciated what the cost in 2012 round was; this is indeed a significant increase. I am sure the GAC will be very concerned as to how this impacts applications from underserved regions. Hi Nigel. Note that this does not applied only in 2012(actually 2014 since this is only charged when a gTLD changes RSPs); this is 2024 current fee to be an RSP for 2012 gTLDs. Org can’t blame inflation on this one, since it’s a comparison of current fees. Rubens _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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.
As I know Lars likes using the car analogy, maybe this is a way of looking at it: in 2012, technical evaluation paid for a seat on a very big bus which included a lot of other evaluations and aspects of the program. Per the SubPro recommendations, for the next round technical evaluation was taken off that bus and had to get its own. As part of that, it is not only the costs of the seat that needs to be covered, but also the new bus, the insurance, gas (e.g. RSP system development, RSP handbook, system maintenance, staff support). As said previously, comparing technical evaluation of the 2012 round with RSP is comparing apples to oranges, but bringing in MSA is like comparing it with chickens because that is part of ICANN’s operations which is structured and funded in a very different way compared to the next round.
Besides what Neil already mentioned regarding analogies, the MSA fee is what pays evaluators external to Org to make a full technical evaluation. So it’s not dependent on other sources of funding. If the structure is 6.5x costlier then that’s where the problem is.
As indicated, the team will be sharing more details on the RSP budget so that will hopefully provide some further insight into the different parts that comprise the development, implementation and running of RSP and for which the costs need to be recuperated per the policy recommendations.
This will likely trigger a bunch of fee ceiling definitions in future policies, exactly because the RSP program didn’t follow the overall guidance of the SubPro policy. Policy development has been so far wary of defining fees but this episode will strongly hamper community’s confidence in reasonability of decisions impacting fees everywhere. Rubens
participants (6)
-
Hickson, Nigel (DSIT) -
Jothan Frakes -
Marika Konings -
Martin Sutton -
Neil Dundas -
Rubens Kuhl