[Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Documents for Review / Input before Monday Meeting

[Michael Bauland]

Hi Donna,

thanks to you, Justine, and Ariel for the extra weekend work you put 
into this project.


On 03.04.2023 05:30, Donna austin wrote:
> Hi Team
> 
> I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that Justine and I have been 
> reviewing documents over the weekend and today. I want to draw to your 
> attention that there has been changes to documents posted by Ariel 
> previously, most notably recommendation 1.2 under A3; and 2.25 and 2.29 
> under D1b.
> 
> You may recall that during our discussions last week about application 
> fees, we agreed that an applicant may be subject to additional fees 
> across multiple rounds if the cumulative number of allocatable variants 
> they apply for exceeds [x]. As I reviewed the recommendation language 
> earlier today on this matter, I found it difficult to justify such a 
> recommendation because an applicant for allocatable variant label in 
> future rounds will still need to pay the base application fee. If they 
> are only applying for one variant label and that variant label takes 
> them above the threshold of [x] for a previously applied-for and 
> delegated primary gTLD, it seems hard to justify what could be an 
> automatic additional fee. I’ve made notes in the draft to that effect, 
> but I would welcome input from others.

there are two questions I'd like rise and discuss in this context and 
suggest a solution.

For the future, take [x] as the number of "free" variants when a new 
gTLD label is applied for.

1. Do the free labels carry over to future rounds? If you applied for 1 
variant first, will you be able to get [x-1] variants for free in the 
next round?

My suggestion is: no, because this causes some overhead in work that the 
application should pay.


2. Is the price of adding variants to an existing TLD the same as 
applying for whole new TLD?

My suggestion is: no, because it's (presumably) far more involved to 
start a new TLD application than to add some variants to an existing 
application.


See attached document for a suggestion with some examples (sorry that it 
does not look as beautiful as Ariel's documents).

In my opinion, this solution best reflects the cost-recovery paradigm, 
while at the same time it does not charge every single variant, which 
would discourage the use of variants.

Happy to discuss this in today's call.

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
____________________________________________________________________
      |       |
      | knipp |            Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
       -------                    Technologiepark
                                  Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
                                  44227 Dortmund
                                  Germany

      Dipl.-Informatiker          Fon:    +49 231 9703-0
                                  Fax:    +49 231 9703-200
      Dr. Michael Bauland         SIP:    Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
      Software Development        E-mail: Michael.Bauland at knipp.de

                                  Register Court:
                                  Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728

                                  Chief Executive Officers:
                                  Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cost-structure.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 17460 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/attachments/20230403/21ce231a/cost-structure.pdf>