<html>
<body>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 07/08/2017 07:16 PM, Austin, Donna wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Alan<br>
<br>
I believe the applications from 2012 were done in batches and I think
Trang made some comments in this regard on a recent call.<br>
<br>
Donna<br>
<b>From:</b> Alan Greenberg
[<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" eudora="autourl">
mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 07, 2017 4:07 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com>; Vanda Scartezini
<vanda@scartezini.org>; Austin, Donna
<Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Rubens Kuhl
<rubensk@nic.br><br>
<b>Cc:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] Work Track 1 Agenda
for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC<br>
<br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 07/08/2017 04:37 PM, Sara Bockey wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Best,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Sara<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>sara bockey<br>
<dd>policy manager | GoDaddy™<br>
</sup>
<dd><a href="mailto:sbockey@godaddy.comm">sbockey@godaddy.com</a>
480-366-3616<br>
<dd>skype: sbockey<br>
</b>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
</i>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From: </b>Vanda Scartezini
<<a href="mailto:vanda@scartezini.org">vanda@scartezini.org</a>><br>
<dd>Date: </b>Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:06 PM<br>
<dd>To: </b>"Austin, Donna"
<<a href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar">
Donna.Austin@team.neustar</a>>, Rubens Kuhl
<<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br">rubensk@nic.br</a>><br>
<dd>Cc: </b>Sara Bockey
<<a href="mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com">sbockey@godaddy.com</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org</a>><br>
<dd>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] Work Track 1 Agenda
for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Vanda Scartezini<br>
<dd>Polo Consultores Associados<br>
<dd>Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004<br>
<dd>01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil<br>
<dd>Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253<br>
<dd>Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <br>
<dd>Sorry for any typos. <br>
</i></b>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From: </b>"Austin, Donna"
<<a href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar">
Donna.Austin@team.neustar</a>><br>
<dd>Date: </b>Monday, August 7, 2017 at 15:10<br>
<dd>To: </b>Rubens Kuhl
<<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br">rubensk@nic.br</a>>, Vanda
Scartezini
<<a href="mailto:vanda@scartezini.org">vanda@scartezini.org</a>><br>
<dd>Cc: </b>Sara Bockey
<<a href="mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com">sbockey@godaddy.com</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org</a>><br>
<dd>Subject: </b>RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] Work Track 1 Agenda
for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Hi Rubens and Vanda, comments inline below.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From: Rubens Kuhl
[<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br">mailto:rubensk@nic.br</a>] <br>
<dd>Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 3:23 PM<br>
<dd>To: Austin, Donna <<a href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar">
Donna.Austin@team.neustar</a>><br>
<dd>Cc: Sara Bockey
<<a href="mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com">sbockey@godaddy.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] Work Track 1 Agenda for
8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Donna,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>But we could adopt something in between specifying a new application
fee and the reimbursement idea, like this:<br>
<dd>- 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. <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Rubens<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>On Aug 4, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Hi Sara, all<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>My rudimentary analysis of the comments suggest the following:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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).<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Some suggested considerations for moving this conversation
forward:<br>
<dd>· 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.<br>
<dd>· The number of
applications for a future application window will depend on a range of
factors, including the amount of the application fee.<br>
<dd>· 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.<br>
<dd>· 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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The policy for the WG could potentially be something along the lines
of:<br>
<dd>· The application fee
should be based on the principle of cost recovery.<br>
<dd>· 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.<br>
<dd>· 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<br>
<dd>· 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<br>
<dd>· 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)<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Some exemptions/exceptions:<br>
<dd>· 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.<br>
<dd>· 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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Rationale:<br>
<dd>· 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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Donna<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
</a>
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Sara
Bockey<br>
<dd>Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 9:31 AM<br>
<dd>To:
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Work Track 1 Agenda for 8
August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Dear All,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The proposed agenda is as follows:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Welcome & Agenda Overview <br>
<dd>SOIs <br>
<dd>Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions <br>
<dd>1. Application Fees <br>
<dd>2. Systems <br>
<dd>· AOB <br>
<dd>The CC2 responses we will be covering may be review in the google
document:
<a href="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</a>
. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Chat soon!<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Sara<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>sara bockey<br>
<dd>policy manager | GoDaddy™<br><br>
<dd><a href="??">sbockey@godaddy.com</a> 480-366-3616<br>
<dd>skype: sbockey<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org">
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<dd>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
<dd>Content-Disposition: inline<br>
<dd>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>
<dd>
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:TSSrAIPoG+Dsfo4pjr5FI/gtSPSDzoQoN7Yydy0lx++MPVqKu8QqT/E0LAYoKKbtMwTWf7NmXPjyYQE9Tht88+bzyAcdWuvDfOpTk5rZhUBa1QOyr+MSeSAW+8MX+cGZ<br>
<dd>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:<br>
<dd>
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);<br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org">
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1</a><br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>