[SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ

[Rubens Kuhl]

> Em 12 de jun. de 2024, à(s) 09:01, Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation at icann.org> escreveu:
> 
> Dear IRT members, 
>  
> In preparation for tomorrow's IRT meeting <https://community.icann.org/x/zIBAEw>, ICANN org has prepared the attached FAQ which aims to address the various questions that have been raised both in relation to the RSP fee as well as the gTLD evaluation fee.
>  
> Best regards,
> Elisa
>  
>  

Some comments about the FAQ:

- In the RSP fee, it lacks a comparison to the USD 14k required for an unknown RSP to be evaluated for serving 2012 gTLDs. 
- It’s not mentioned whether applicants will be allowed to commit to use an evaluated RSP or can only choose already evaluated ones
- In item 3, it’s mentioned that TMCH fees are not included. In 2012, registries got their TMCH fees back after being initially charged, so in effect, there was no additional payment of TMCH fees beyond the application fee. Changing that is not supported by any SubPro recommendation. 
- As mentioned by Seb during the session, some organizations might have challenges receiving the excess funding. So while it’s good to be the default to return the excess, giving applicants the option to not get that excess back solves for corner cases regarding tax or foreign exchange regulations. Applicants would only  have to say they want it or not want it (no lingering). 


About the fee for joint venture review, if joint venture ends up playing a role in auctions, perhaps auction proceeds should pay for those. 

About the fee for lingering applications, I support the idea. Currently there is an asymmetrical relationship between letting it linger (Cranberries song playing in the background) and the Org costs. The hard issue, though, is defining it, since there should be no prevention of the use of accountability mechanisms or limited appeal processes created by that cost, but that can’t also trigger an excessive use of such mechanisms only to avoid the lingering fee. 

About the IDN Variant subsidy, agree with Edmon on changing its name, but I also add that this could be funded from fee leftovers (either from previous round or forecast of this round) or even Auctions leftovers. This would be aligned with guidelines to such expenditures, I believe. While this won’t change the application fee by any significant amount either way (circa 1%), this would simplify the fee determination and also could back ICANN claims to support multilingual development of the Internet. 


Rubens



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20240612/706cbcd2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20240612/706cbcd2/signature.asc>