<html>
<body>
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>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Sara<br>
<br>
<b>sara bockey<br>
policy manager | GoDaddy<sup>™<br>
</sup>sbockey@godaddy.com 480-366-3616<br>
skype: sbockey<br>
</b> <br>
<i>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> <br>
<b>From: </b>Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:06 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>,
Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com>,
"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org"
<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>
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>
<br>
<b><i>Vanda Scartezini<br>
Polo Consultores Associados<br>
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004<br>
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil<br>
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253<br>
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <br>
Sorry for any typos. <br>
</i></b> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From: </b>"Austin, Donna"
<<a href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar">
Donna.Austin@team.neustar</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, August 7, 2017 at 15:10<br>
<b>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>
<b>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>
<b>Subject: </b>RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [EXTERNAL] Work Track 1 Agenda
for 8 August 2017 @ 3:00 UTC<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi Rubens and Vanda, comments inline below.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:</b> Rubens Kuhl
[<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br">mailto:rubensk@nic.br</a>] <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 06, 2017 3:23 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Austin, Donna
<<a href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar">
Donna.Austin@team.neustar</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><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>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 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>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.<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>
<dl>
<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>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. <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 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.<br>
<dd>· 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.<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 ICANN’s annual fee);
and<br>
<dd>· 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)<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
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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Donna<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:</b>
<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">
mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Sara
Bockey<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 03, 2017 9:31 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [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/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 8
August 2017 at 3:00 UTC.<br>
</b>
<dd> <br>
<dd>The proposed agenda is as follows:<br>
<dd>
<dd>Welcome & Agenda Overview
<dd>SOIs
<dd>Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions
<ol>
<li>Application Fees
<li>Systems
</ol>
<li>AOB
<br>
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>
<br>
Chat soon!<br>
<br>
Sara<br>
<br>
sara bockey<br>
policy manager | GoDaddy™<br>
</sup></b><br>
<a href="mailto:sbockey@godaddy.com">sbockey@godaddy.com</a>
480-366-3616<br>
skype: sbockey<br>
</b>
<br>
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>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org">
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org</a><br>
<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><br>
</dl>
<dd> <br><br>
</dl>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline<br>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:TSSrAIPoG+Dsfo4pjr5FI/gtSPSDzoQoN7Yydy0lx++MPVqKu8QqT/E0LAYoKKbtMwTWf7NmXPjyYQE9Tht88+bzyAcdWuvDfOpTk5rZhUBa1QOyr+MSeSAW+8MX+cGZ<br>
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 mailing list<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org<br>
<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></blockquote>
</body>
</html>