ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WT 1 Fees-lower up front fee

  • To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WT 1 Fees-lower up front fee
  • From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:36:20 -0700

An argument that some parties may use against this will be the same argument 
used against the Expression of Interest proposal  ---   that only requiring a 
portion of the fees up front will encourage speculative applications.    This 
was discussed at some length in Nairobi and there were a lot of concerns 
expressed about the  'gaming' possibility.

Our solution to this is limiting the phased fee approach to only our applicants.


On May 18, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> On 18 May 2010 12:45, Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Continuing the thread from yesterday's call.
> Richard suggested that applicants that meet specific criteria for assistance 
> may benefit from not having to pay the entire fee up front.
> The language from the cost analysis paper is 
> "– ICANN will collect the entire application 
> evaluation fee at the time an application is submitted. This approach avoids 
> a situation 
> in which the applicant partially completes the application process, then may 
> not have 
> the resources to continue. It also ensures that all costs are covered.
> The ALAC response to this (which I reproduce verbatim from within the 
> gTLD-related statement produced at the At-Large Summit in Mexico City) is:
> In the place of the proposed system of refunds, we recommend a phased fee 
> system under which an applicant would pay a portion initially and additional 
> fees as each milestone is
> achieved. While ICANN will still be paid up-front for its evaluations, 
> applicants only need pay for the stages which they are eligible to pursue.
> (Page 14 of  
> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf)
> I don't see why this approach is any less valid now than it was at the time 
> of the Summit. Each application will already be subject to review regarding 
> its financial stability and sustainability. There is no need to use the fee 
> structure to impose a crudely Darwinistic barrier to all but the best-funded 
> applicants.
> Besides the benefits Elaine mentions, a graduated payment system also 
> eliminates the bureaucracy needed to evaluate and process refund requests.
> - Evan

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy