[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] Work Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Aug 7 23:07:27 UTC 2017
As I read through these responses, a question
came to mind. Is or was there an economy of scale
in processing applications. That is, it is more
expensive to process say 10 applications one by
one than as a batch. If there is an economy of
scale, the price that is set should work for the
later staeady-state situation where the
applications may be coming in slowly and will
need to be processed one at a time.
Alan
At 07/08/2017 04:37 PM, Sara Bockey wrote:
>Thank you, Donna, Vanda and Rubens for your
>feedback on this. You’ve all made some
>excellent points and suggestions. We look
>forward to discussing this further and
>additional input during our next call in a few hours.
>
>Best,
>
>Sara
>
>sara bockey
>policy manager | GoDaddy™
>sbockey at godaddy.com 480-366-3616
>skype: sbockey
>
>This email message and any attachments hereto is
>intended for use only by the addressee(s) named
>herein and may contain confidential information.
>If you have received this email in error, please
>immediately notify the sender and permanently
>delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.
>
>From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org>
>Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:06 PM
>To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
>Cc: Sara Bockey <sbockey at godaddy.com>,
>"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL]
>Work Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC
>
>Thanks for your feedback Donna. I understand
>having string conflict will be difficult to
>postpone but I was thinking only for cities (
>government) which can face some pontual
>difficulty depends on the election calendar of
>each region. In general I would follow the idea
>to stick with same price for this next round.
>May be will be some surplus with such value but
>we can use as reserve to face any litigation, as
>suggested by Rubens or well as to define some alternative for reimbursement.
>
>Vanda Scartezini
>Polo Consultores Associados
>Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
>01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
>Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
>Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
>Sorry for any typos.
>
>
>
>
>
>From: "Austin, Donna"
><<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
>Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 15:10
>To: Rubens Kuhl
><<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>rubensk at nic.br>, Vanda
>Scartezini <<mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>vanda at scartezini.org>
>Cc: Sara Bockey
><<mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>sbockey at godaddy.com>,
>"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org"
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org>
>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL]
>Work Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC
>
>Hi Rubens and Vanda, comments inline below.
>
>From: Rubens Kuhl [<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>mailto:rubensk at nic.br]
>Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 3:23 PM
>To: Austin, Donna
><<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
>Cc: Sara Bockey
><<mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>sbockey at godaddy.com>;
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL]
>Work Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC
>
>Donna,
>
>I believe the data points you mentioned do
>exist, in the form of the actual expenses
>incurred by ICANN in the 2012-round. And
>considering the gains of scale foreseen by
>aggregating technical evaluation per back-end,
>with or without RSP program, the actual cost for
>further rounds is clearly expected to be lower.
>DA: I agree that there is data available from
>2012 that could be helpful to our discussion and
>to that end, we should ask Trang if she can
>provide an overview of the costs associated with
>the 2012 round, but we would need to define the
>cost parameters. I agree that an RSP program
>could reduce the costs associated with the
>technical evaluation, but current discussions
>suggest that the technical evaluation could
>still occur during the application process.
>
>But we could adopt something in between
>specifying a new application fee and the reimbursement idea, like this:
>- Application fee will be no less than 50% of
>the 2012-round fee, and designed to be of a
>cost-recovery target; in the event it generates
>more surplus than expected, the reimbursement
>will be available either as credit towards
>registry fees for successful applicants or
>reimbursement for non-approved or drop-out applicants.
>DA: I have no objection to the concept, but 50%
>seems to be a large reduction in terms of
>fairness and competition for 2012 applicants,
>but I accept your note below that 2012
>applicants will have a time-to-market advantage
>over future entrants. Any number we come up will
>largely be arbitrary at this point so the
>challenge is to come up with a reasoned
>rationale. We should also look for options to
>address Vanda’s point about not making the
>upfront fee too prohibitive, or finding a
>mechanism that would allow applicants from
>underserved regions to pay post-evaluation. This
>would become complicated where there is
>contention for the string, but if there was no
>competition for the string then perhaps this would be a little easier.
>
>It’s also important to decide whether the
>application fee would change over time. I must
>admit that when I was thinking about this, it
>was only from the perspective of the next
>application window and not beyond that. It would
>be fair to assume that a lot of the setup costs
>for the next application window will not be
>repeated for processes beyond that, particularly
>as it relates to infrastructure or software
>development. The outcome of the rounds v
>first-come-first-serve discussion will be important to this one.
>
>One issue to calculate the reimbursement is how
>much does the legal reserves need to be; the
>2012-round proved that litigation either thru
>internal accountability or legal courts will
>happen, but how much ? If someone from the work
>track, or someone from ICANN Board risk
>committee, could provide an actuary's point of view would be interesting.
>DA: Agree that a % of the application fee should
>be set aside for legal reserves, on the
>condition that the reserves are set aside for a designated period of time.
>
>We should note that 2012-round applicants got a
>4 to 6 years time-to-market advantage, and that
>could be worth much more than the application fee difference.
>
>
>
>
>Rubens
>
>
>On Aug 4, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Austin, Donna via
>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org> wrote:
>
>Hi Sara, all
>
>I’ve had a look at the responses to the CC2
>responses as they relate to Application Fees and
>believe that the responses are largely
>consistent with the discussions we have already
>had within the working group on this topic.
>
>My rudimentary analysis of the comments suggest the following:
>
>Based on the CC2 responses it would appear that
>most of the respondents support the principle of
>an application fee that is cost neutral or break
>even, which is consistent with the cost-recovery
>model that was developed for the 2012 round.
>However, many of the responses acknowledge that
>the assumptions of the 2012 round was off the
>mark because the number of applications exceeded
>expectations and resulted in a considerable
>surplus of funds (approximately $100M).
>
>It would appear from the responses that there is
>little support for maintaining the $185,000
>application fee into the future, with many
>responses suggesting a reduction, with the
>exception of John Poole who recommended that
>each applicant require a $1m deposit. However,
>there was support for the principle that the
>application fee should maintain a bar sufficient
>to ensure that applications are worth dedicating
>resources to evaluation and processing; and fees
>should not be too low as to be detrimental to
>security and stability and competition between rounds.
>
>It would also appear that there is support for
>the WG providing direction on the use of excess
>funds, in the event that future rounds result in a surplus of funds.
>
>Some suggested considerations for moving this conversation forward:
>· While it appears that there is
>consensus around the concept of an application
>that achieves the principle of cost-recovery, it
>is impossible for this group to come up with an
>actual number for any future round because we
>have no way to predict how many applications there will be.
>· The number of applications for a
>future application window will depend on a range
>of factors, including the amount of the application fee.
>· We could ask ICANN to provide
>estimates for costs associated with preparing
>for the next application window, but I don’t
>believe we are far along in deciding some of the
>core issues to provide them with enough guidance
>on which to base any estimates or predictions.
>· What we do have from the 2012
>application round is an application fee of
>$185,000 that resulted in 1930 applications—some 1400 more than was preddicted.
>
>The policy for the WG could potentially be something along the lines of:
>· The application fee should be based on
>the principle of cost recovery.
>· Based on the principles of fairness
>and competition to 2012 new gTLD applications,
>$185,000 will be the application fee for any future application window.
>· In the event of surplus application
>fees, ICANN will provide all applicants
>(successful/unsuccessful?) with a reimbursement
>of an equal share of the surplus application fees; or
>· In the event of surplus applications
>fees, ICANN will provide all applicants a
>reimbursement up to an amount of
>$50,000/$80,000/$100,000 (successful applicants
>may choose this reimbursement as a contribution to ICANN’s annual fee); and
>· The remainder of the surplus
>application fees will be used to support
>ICANN’s efforts in Universal Awareness and
>Universal Acceptance (or some other designated activity)
>
>Some exemptions/exceptions:
>· Applications from underserved regions
>would/could (depending on the policy) have the
>application fee waived so that it is not considered a barrier to entry.
>· There may be other exclusions or
>exemptions from the application fee that could
>be developed to remove other possible barriers
>to entry perceived by some as being too high.
>
>Rationale:
>· We have a principle of cost recovery,
>but rather than requiring complex economic
>modelling (or somebody’s best guess) to arrive
>at the amount of the application fee, we achieve
>the principle in an order of reverse by
>providing a reimbursement of a portion of the
>application fee equal to the distribution of excess funds.
>
>I don’t believe we can solve this problem
>absent a considerable amount of data that at
>this point in time simply doesn’t exist, so I
>offer this as a possible way to enable us to
>move forward and certainly to encourage discussion.
>
>Donna
>
>From:
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces at icann.org
>[<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces at icann.org>mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces at icann.org]
>On Behalf Of Sara Bockey
>Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 9:31 AM
>To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org
>Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Work
>Track 1 Agenda for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC
>
>Dear All,
>
>The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent
>Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall
>Process/Suppport/Outreach Issue will take place
>on Tuesday, 8 August 2017 at 3:00 UTC.
>
>The proposed agenda is as follows:
>
>Welcome & Agenda Overview
>SOIs
>Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions
> * Application Fees
> * Systems
> * AOB
> The CC2 responses we will be covering may be
> review in the google
> document:
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz-5FH-5FlPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw_edit-23gid-3D1442059046&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=KxXpBeMo6gbRQ-BqdZ0TqFv_TRF2rGQiCdN-DB_qN84&s=4vy3M-5mmpfeBvqqyXWRPSI-t6ZrUwBiYzDw4G8yxqQ&e=>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErSJd9uhkZw/edit#gid=1442059046.
>
>
> Chat soon!
>
> Sara
>
> sara bockey
> policy manager | GoDaddy™
>
> <mailto:sbockey at godaddy.com>sbockey at godaddy.com 480-366-3616
> skype: sbockey
>
> This email message and any attachments
> hereto is intended for use only by the
> addressee(s) named herein and may contain
> confidential information. If you have received
> this email in error, please immediately notify
> the sender and permanently delete the original
> and any copy of this message and its attachments.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 mailing list
> <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1
>
>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>
>1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:TSSrAIPoG+Dsfo4pjr5FI/gtSPSDzoQoN7Yydy0lx++MPVqKu8QqT/E0LAYoKKbtMwTWf7NmXPjyYQE9Tht88+bzyAcdWuvDfOpTk5rZhUBa1QOyr+MSeSAW+8MX+cGZ
>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>
>ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 mailing list
>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170807/cac33048/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1
mailing list