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 -
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 $26K.
Somewhat separate from the above, I'm
interested to get the groups' sense of how many
applicants might qualify for support under our
criteria. I realize we haven't set these
criteria yet, and when we do we still won't
know how many will apply. Nevertheless, I'd
like to get a very unscientific poll of the
groups' expectations. For example, my
expectation is that somewhere around 5% of
applicants will qualify for support (e.g. if
there are 400 applicants something like 20 might
qualify for support). I'm curious to know if
anyone has markedly different expectations from
that. There's no right or wrong answer - I'd
just like to get a sense of expectations.
On May 14, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Anthony Harris wrote:
I will be unable to participate in Monday's call, since I am in
transit travelling to the LACNIC meeting at the time scheduled.
Perhaps the following can contribute to starting the discussion:
"WT1" -- Review of the existing application fee structure
We have heard comments to the effect that:
- ICANN will be most reluctant to consider reducing the application fee.
Bringing this subject up would be a waste of our time.
- To push in that direction, could cause ICANN to review the fee and add in
the additional costs incurred by the emergence of the "overarching issues"
which have significantly delayed the process, and generated unforeseen
- It would be unfair to request reduction of
fees for some and not for others.
- Etc., etc.
And of course, the GNSO Council has yet to approve the charter as submitted.
While WT2 deliberate on the other issues related to this WG, perhaps a useful
exercise might be to adopt the ICANN document that Olof pointed us to as our
source of information:
It is not a long document, and I would urge those who are interested in this
discussion to read it.
It basically divides the fee structure as follows:
1. New gTLD Program Development
Costs U$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
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:evan@xxxxxxxxx>Evan Leibovitch
To: <mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>Olof Nordling
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
Please find a draft agenda for Mondays 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.