[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 23:25:32 UTC 2017
Yes, I know they were done in batches which is
why I raised the question. If Trang made a
comment regarding the cost-effectiveness of doing
that, I must have missed that call.
Alan
At 07/08/2017 07:16 PM, Austin, Donna wrote:
>Alan
>
>I believe the applications from 2012 were done
>in batches and I think Trang made some comments
>in this regard on a recent call.
>
>Donna
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 4:07 PM
>To: Sara Bockey <sbockey at godaddy.com>; Vanda
>Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org>; Austin, Donna
><Donna.Austin at team.neustar>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
>Cc: 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
>
>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. You̢۪ve all made some
>excellent points ts 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™
><mailto:sbockey at godaddy.comm>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 <<mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>vanda at scartezini.org>
>Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:06 PM
>To: "Austin, Donna"
><<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>Donna.Austin at team.neustar>,
>Rubens Kuhl <<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>rubensk at nic.br>
>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
>
>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„¢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.
>
>It̢۪s also important to decide whether the
>applicationion 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
>
>I̢۪ve had a look at the responses to the CC2
>responsenses 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 don̢۪t
>believe we are far along in deciding so 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
>11400 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 ICANN̢۪s annual fe fee); and
>· The remainder of the surplus
>application fees will be used to support
>ICANN̢۪s efforts in Universal Awareareness 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 somebody̢۪s besbest
>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 don̢۪t believe we can solve this problem
>absebsent a considerable amount of data that at
>this point in time simply doesn̢۪t exist, so I
>offer this as a possossible 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] 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/Outreacch 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
>1. Application Fees
>2. 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™
>
>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
><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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170807/8193b973/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1
mailing list