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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
Alan

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.
> Thx
>
> 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
> >   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>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: <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.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > - Evan