ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] "WT1" -- Fees/ Costs

  • To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] "WT1" -- Fees/ Costs
  • From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 10:02:26 -0700

Some thoughts on Tony's post.

HISTORICAL PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT COSTS.   This is the $26K per application Tony 
identifies below.  The Board/ Staff have decided that applicants should pay for 
this 'sunk' cost' as applicants are the beneficiaries of the work done.  Their 
alternative was to have existing registrants pay for it (out of the ICANN fees 
for COM/ NET/ ORG/ BIZ/ INFO etc names).     If we propose the $26K be waived 
for the class of applicant identified by our WG we will have to ask the Board 
to change their cost recovery approach (for that specific cost item,  for our 
specific applicants - so it would be a more nuanced waiver of the cost recovery 
principle).    I'm fine with us making that request.

predictions about the cost of this round versus other rounds.    The scale and 
nature of this round will be different (larger and far more complex) than 
anything done before.  One of the drivers of cost for this round is the 
incredible amount of review and the highly detailed requirements that continue 
to be injected into the process.  Let me take one example.  Various parties 
have insisted that detailed economic analyses be undertaken to assess the 
costs, benefits and demand for new TLDs.  These studies,  which are hopefully 
close to completion,  have added between $5K and $10K per application 
(depending on how many applications are received).   Similarly there are 
current proposals to change the methodology by which applicants are selected 
for a string (categories) which will also add time and cost to the process.    
My general point here is that every new piece of complexity and variation built 
into the DAG is likely to increase the current estimate of $26K.   

Somewhat separate from the above,  I'm interested to get the groups' sense of 
how many applicants might qualify for support under our criteria.     I realize 
we haven't set these criteria yet,  and when we do we still won't know how many 
will apply.   Nevertheless, I'd like to get a very unscientific poll of the 
groups' expectations.  For example,  my expectation is that somewhere around  
5% of applicants will qualify for support  (e.g.  if there are 400 applicants 
something like 20 might qualify for support).     I'm curious to know if anyone 
has markedly different expectations from that.  There's no right or wrong 
answer - I'd just like to get a sense of expectations. 



On May 14, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Anthony Harris wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
> I will be unable to participate in Monday's call, since I am in
> transit travelling to the LACNIC meeting at the time scheduled.
> Perhaps the following can contribute to starting the discussion:
> "WT1" -- Review of the existing application fee structure
> We have heard comments to the effect that:
> - ICANN will be most reluctant to consider reducing the application fee.
>   Bringing this subject up would be a waste of our time.
> - To push in that direction, could cause ICANN to review the fee and add in
>   the additional costs incurred by the emergence of the "overarching issues"
>   which have significantly delayed the process, and generated unforeseen
>   expenditures.
> - It would be unfair to request reduction of fees for some and not for others.
> - Etc., etc.
> And of course, the GNSO Council has yet to approve the charter as submitted.
> While WT2 deliberate on the other issues related to this WG, perhaps a useful
> exercise might be to adopt the ICANN document that Olof pointed us to as our
> source of information:
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en.pdf
> It is not a long document, and I would urge those who are interested in this
> discussion to read it.
> It basically divides the fee structure as follows:
>          1.  New gTLD Program Development Costs                               
>          U$S   26.000
>          2.  Fixed and variable Application evaluation costs - Predictable  - 
>    U$S 100.000
>          3.  Variable processing costs - uncertain                            
>                 U$S  60.000
> Note: Item 2 would actually be U$S 99.000 to arrive at the total Application 
> fee
> of U$S 185.000.
> From the few exchanges we have had in the WG on this subject, a suggestion was
> made that the cost of Program Development might be waived for selected 
> entities
> qualifying for financial assistance. Perhaps some concession might be 
> justifiable
> related to the "uncertain" processing costs (item 3), as well.
> We might also want to bear in mind that the total cost of the previous round 
> of
> applications, which the document quantifies as $1.8MM for all ten 
> applications,
> ( $ 180.000 per application), most probably includes costs associated with the
> conflict that arose from the rejection of the ".XXX" application, which went 
> on
> for quite a while. The actual evaluation and administrative costs for the 
> other
> nine applications should have  been considerably less than $ 180.000 per 
> piece.
> To summarize, a close look at how the application fee has been constructed
> (and explained/justified), could help us all see if there is any potential for
> requesting the fee be revisited in line with the results that WT2 come up
> with.
> Tony Harris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Evan Leibovitch
> To: Olof Nordling
> Cc: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG - Draft agenda for next call
> On 14 May 2010 07:56, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Please find a draft agenda for Monday’s JAS WG call below.
> It looks good, except that I haven't seen much discussion on WT1 or WT2. So 
> there won't be much of an update on Monday unless some initial discussions 
> start happening.
> Would the leaders of the two teams like to start something? Toss out an 
> initial idea of what the issues are and perhaps and opening position. To 
> assist people in following, start the Subject with
> "WT1" -- Review of the existing application fee structure
> "WT2" – Who should qualify for subsidies and where to find the subsidy money
> We will certainly have some discussion on the call but it will go easier if 
> there is some preliminary discussion on this list first.
> Thanks!
> - Evan

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy