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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Thanks Elaine.  That's useful data.    

Regarding the last sentence.    I think one of our 'Who' factors should look at 
the net assets of the applicant.    Having non-profit status, and/or being from 
a country with very low GDP, doesn't necessarily mean the applicant will be 
financially distressed.   

This is more of a WT2 comment - but it responds to a WT1 post.

RT


On May 16, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Elaine Pruis wrote:

> There are a few new TLD applicant "monitors" that have published "announced" 
> intentions. We could use these as a rough guide in discussing who/how many:
> 
> http://www.newtlds.tv/newtlds/  with 104 TLDs listed
> 
> another (graphical, less TLDs, some different) :
>  http://robrozicki.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/5-14-2010-7-20-15-pm.png
> Interesting thing about this listing is that of those listed as "community"  
> none of them appear "disadvantaged".
> 
> Elaine
> 
> 
> On May 16, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> 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
> 
> Elaine Pruis
> VP Client Services
> elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> +1 509 899 3161
>