ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>, "soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] "WT1" -- Fees/ Costs
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 16:33:17 -0400

I agree with Richard's two points.

Note that there is a second costing document that adds considerable information - http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-04oct09-en.pdf.

Regarding the percentage of applications that will meet our yet-to-be determined criteria. I could find no estimate of what percentage of applications are expected to be community-based. I suspect it is out there, but the best I could find is in the decision tree in the first costing document, there is an estimate that 40% of applications with string contention will be community based. Whether this applies to the overall mix, I don't know. I presume that Staff should have this number.

On top of that, we briefly discussed the issue of non-for profits who might qualify for assistance. I am assuming that there will be not-for-profits that are not really communities...

So where does that put the number. For not logic-based reason, I think that a range of 5-10% is probably a good one.


At 16/05/2010 01:02 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
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.

COMPARISON WITH COSTS OF PREVIOUS ROUNDS. I don't think we can make 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.


RT  40

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

- 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:

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

Tony Harris

----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:evan@xxxxxxxxx>Evan Leibovitch
To: <mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>Olof Nordling
Cc: <mailto:soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>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 <<mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>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.


- Evan

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy