[Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Deadline 21 April - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 1

Thu Apr 16 12:04:47 UTC 2020

Hi,

A simple question:

Regarding the “fee issue” we seem to have a small portfolio of “alternatives” that we present to the community, right? How exactly and by whom would one of the alternatives be adopted? People comment, the comments are being evaluated, then who decides which scenario is adopted?

One of the more likely alternatives seems to be the “cost based” fee plan - without fee floors. The mechanism itself is well explained. However: even those who frequently deal with that topic will have deep troubles to “visualize” potential real live scenarios (which are obviously heavily depending on the application volume: if there was only 1 application the cost would be astronomic. If there were 100,000 applications the cost might drop to US $2,000 per application – as it equals US $200 Million in fees; and I guess 200 Million Dollar would be sufficient to evaluate 100k applications). While we obviously can’t know all the details and wouldn’t be able to pinpoint potential scenarios to an exact price point: we should be able to provide a small chart that visualizes some kind of min/max bracket of “projected cost base fees” over application volume. Just for illustration. It would be important to showcase what happens if for example 25,000 applications where submitted: would that lead to a cost based fee of US $4,000 to US $6,000 per application for a portfolio applicant (if they chose the lowest path of resistance having several thousand applications as single applicant, all the same validated RSP, etc)? Obviously ICANN would not be able to “guarantee” the fee structure – it would in my opinion just be important that those who are tasked to support or deny support for a fee structure model have an “idea” what that results to in reality! ESPECIALLY in regards to potential mass-grab of gTLD-land by entities that abuse the DNS-expansion as “investment opportunity”.

To rephrase this: If we had a 100% cost based approach without fee floors: Shouldn’t we showcase how this would likely turn out for 1,000, 2,500,  5,000, 10,000 applications? I guess many will be amazed how cheap the per application cost might drop (after refunds issued at the end of the application round).

The same goes for the application fee floor model: Who will when adopt the floor pricing?

So this is not a “I can’t live with this or that” – this is a question of process rather.

Am I the only one who is concerned about too low application fees?

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 7:03 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Deadline 21 April - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 1

I just want to highlight some key points although Emily made them as well.  Hopefully if we say it multiple times, there will be less confusion.  Remember also that we have been through these materials at least five or six times over the years (if not more).

1.	There are 6 topics here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit> :

a.	Applicant Guidebook
b.	Communications
c.	Systems
d.	Fees
e.	Applicant Submission Period
f.	Applicant Terms and Conditions

2.	Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format.

3.	Deadline for comments is Tuesday, April 21st at 23:59 UTC

4.	Comments will be tracked here:  https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw.

Thanks all 😊

Jeff Neuman

Senior Vice President 

Com Laude | Valideus

D: +1.703.635.7514

E:  <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 2:37 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deadline 21 April - Comments on Revised Draft Recommendations - Package 1

Dear all,  

As discussed by the Co-Chairs on today’s call, the leadership team is providing with this email a series of revised draft final recommendations for your review, specifically: 2.4.1 Applicant Guidebook, 2.4.2 Communications, 2.4.3 Systems, 2.5.1 Application Fees/2.5.2 Variable Fees (these two are combined into a single section), 2.5.3 Application Submission Period, and 2.5.5 Terms & Conditions. Revisions are based on Working Group feedback, discussion on calls, and mailing list contributions. The purpose of this exercise is to prepare sections for the draft Final Report so that the draft Final Report can be published for public comment. This is not a consensus call. As discussed, the deadline for comments from WG members on these sections (package 1) is Tuesday 21 April at 23:59 UTC. Please see below for instructions on providing comments. 

A clean version of the revised sections is available in read-only format here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit> . If you prefer to view the sections in redline, please see the relevant sections of the working document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit> ). At this stage, please do not add comments to the working document in the above referenced sections. 

Please limit comments to items in the revised sections that you absolutely “cannot live with.” If there is text that you cannot accept, please fill out the attached form and send it to the WG by email. Please do not provide your input in any other format.

We will be tracking the release of revised draft recommendations and the feedback WG members submit on the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw. Any issues identified will be addressed and resolved on the mailing list, or if necessary, scheduled for discussion on a subsequent call.

Kind regards,

Steve, Julie, and Emily

Emily Barabas

Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

 <http://www.icann.org/> www.icann.org

  _____  

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200416/d2679e6c/attachment-0001.html>