[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] [Ext] Re: PP fees proposal document attached

[theo geurts]

Hi Amy,

If there is no counter argument why do we provide feedback in the first 
place?
Were the arguments not valid, not good enough?

I still see a program startup, that will cost over a million, and that 
does not make sense to me post GDPR with a redacted WHOIS for 23+ days.

Thanks,

Theo




On 13-6-2018 19:11, Amy Bivins wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback on the privacy and proxy service provider accreditation fees-related documentation, both on the list and during the meetings we have recently had on this topic.
>
> ICANN org has carefully considered the feedback of all IRT members in developing the proposed fee structure. Despite recommendations from some IRT members to reduce the proposed fees, ICANN org continues to believe that the fees proposed are reasonable and appropriate, for the reasons identified in the fees proposal documentation (attached).
>
> As noted in the fees proposal, ICANN org analyzed three relevant factors in reaching the fee structure that was proposed: relevant benchmarks; fees transparency, simplicity, stability and predictability; and anticipated program management costs. ICANN org understands that some IRT members disagree with this assessment, but did not find any of the arguments or suggestions raised by IRT members persuasive.
>   
> If persuasive reasons are raised for revisiting the proposed fee structure during the public comment period, ICANN org commits to revisit the proposed fees. Please know that ICANN org sincerely appreciates the time and effort you committed to this exercise and the broader work of the IRT.
>
> Best,
>
> Amy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gtheo [mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 10:04 AM
> To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
> Cc: Amy Bivins <amy.bivins at icann.org>
> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP fees proposal document attached
>
> Thanks Amy,
>
> Am I reading this correctly? The program startup and application processing is going to cost; 1,117,390???
> That is a huge amount of money for a program startup if only a few providers signup for this and the majority decides that the temporary spec or it's successor is enough privacy for registrants. But maybe I am reading it incorrectly.
>
> When I look at the Activity Relevant Department(s) Accredited Provider Account Management Services, it seems many of these activities already exist for Registrars. Can those activities not be handled by the same folks?
> I mean does it matter if a Registrar changes its name or a Privacy Provider? It's the same type of processing is it not?
>
> Also, a question about the PP Data Retention Waiver activity. What is this activity?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Theo
>
>
> Amy Bivins schreef op 2018-05-22 10:20 PM:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Attached, you will find additional information related to the proposed
>> fees for the privacy and proxy service provider accreditation program.
>> Please review and send any comments/questions to the list.
>>
>> Thank you for your patience.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Amy
>>
>> AMY E. BIVINS
>>
>> Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager
>>
>> Registrar Services and Industry Relations
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
>>
>> Fax:  +1 (202) 789-0104
>>
>> Email: amy.bivins at icann.org
>>
>> www.icann.org [1]
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1]
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=Dw
>> ICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=uerz4ckt1v4Qhbv-T
>> plkjKTey9bgtdWrvLyZDu0mXuk&m=BJtpG8Olp_3NAmSVAsUTW_HmMsKblc3_3k59uUScn
>> vs&s=YBcBo-2U5vstASdpDcav-4W8w712XbFjerD180TrPRo&e=
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
>> Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl