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

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Tony,

 

May I ask you kindly to propose a draft on:

*       The cost to be recovered as per the board resolution 20 (application
cost and on-going services cost)
*       How this cost can be reduced for certain applicants, and
*       How the reduced cost can be paid progressively. 

 

Thank you Tony

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Directeur exécutif

Fédération Méditerranéenne des Associations d'Internet

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  _____  

De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Elaine Pruis
Envoyé : lundi 31 mai 2010 19:43
À : Richard Tindal
Cc : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] "WT1" -- Fees/ Costs

 

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 <mailto:evan@xxxxxxxxx> 

To: Olof Nordling <mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx> 

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

 

Ce message entrant est certifié sans virus connu.
Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr
Version: 9.0.819 / Base de données virale: 271.1.1/2909 - Date: 05/31/10
19:25:00