<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] "WT1" -- Fees/ Costs
- To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] "WT1" -- Fees/ Costs
- From: Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 11:43:01 -0700
Throwing this thought into the ring for discussion (or pommeling);
Since it seems our objective is to ensure disenfranchised applicants
( I wish we were further in defining "who") with communities that
might benefit from having a gTLD are not excluded from the application
process, does it make sense to offer aid beyond the initial
application fees to parties that have competition for the same string?
A fictitious example: the string .coffee is applied for by Coffee
Growers Association of Ethiopia. They don't have the technical savvy
nor the finances to get through the application process without
support, let alone run the registry. They meet our criteria for
whatever support we have established.
The string .coffee is also applied for by Starbucks Coffee Company, a
multinational corporation with the finances and means to run
the .coffee registry on their own. They don't require any support.
Since it is our objective to incorporate disadvantage applicants, do
we support the Coffee Growers Association in their bid beyond the
initial evaluation, knowing they have a 99.9999% chance of losing the
allocation at auction?
Are we trying to level the TLD playing field (the CGA in Ethiopia is
now a TLD operator!) or are we simply assisting an applicant through
the process?
Either way coffee drinkers are served...
Elaine
On May 18, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:
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
Elaine Pruis
VP Client Services
elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+1 509 899 3161
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|
