[SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ

Thu Jun 13 11:25:06 UTC 2024

Perhaps, give applicants a choice depending on their respective
circumstances? Or to waive the refund as someone suggested earlier.

Justine
---------

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, 16:48 Jeff Neuman, <jeff at jjnsolutions.com> wrote:

> Just to add to the notion of a "Credit" vs. "Refund".  A significant
> number of applicants either withdraw their applications or be eliminated
> through contention, lack of success in the application process, advice,
> etc.  A credit does no good for these applicants because they will have
> nothing to credit against.
>
> I do not see a way around making this a refund as opposed to a credit.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Christa
> Taylor <Christa at tldz.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:35 AM
> *To:* Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>; Next Round Policy Implementation <
> NextRound_PolicyImplementation at icann.org>; subpro-irt at icann.org <
> subpro-irt at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ
>
>
> Thank you Elisa and Lars,
>
>
>
> I apologize for not being able to attend due to time zone differences.
>
>
>
> I want to support the requests for more detailed costing information along
> with some concerns.
>
>
>
> In November 2016, Work Track 1 was tasked with evaluating the accuracy of
> cost estimates and reviewing the methodology used to develop the cost
> model. However, after months of requests, ICANN was unable to provide any
> information on the costs and methodology used in the 2009 application fees.
> Consequently, we could not properly address the Implementation Guideline B
> regarding the concept of differing application fees for different
> applicants and the potential creation of new application types, which may
> have necessitated a new costing analysis based on recommended changes
> (section 4.2.17 at
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735931/Section%204.2.17.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1460741334000&api=v2
> ).
>
>
>
> Since we were unable to attain the information, the working group wanted
> to ensure the scenario would not occur in the future rounds and emphasized
> the need for detailed and transparent disclosure of fees and methodologies
> to the community.  The Final Report reflects this:
>
>    - Top 15: Application Fees: “*The development of the application fee
>    must be fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and
>    documented*” (p. 66).
>    - Working Group Emphasis: * ICANN should be fully transparent about
>    how the application fee is developed, explaining and documenting all cost
>    assumptions (*p. 69).
>    - Summary of Outputs: “*The development of the application fee must be
>    fully transparent, with all cost assumptions explained and documented*”
>    (p. 249).
>
>
>
> Two additional points:
>
>
>
> 1. Application Fees and Deterrence:  I understand wanting to be
> conservative approach to ensure costs are recovered however, this should be
> based on probabilities not extreme cases as provided with the 500 and 1,000
> volume levels.  Also, the scenarios presented suggest providing excess fees
> as a ‘credit’, but we recommended the option of a refund if the amount
> exceeded $1,000 (or another nominal amount) with a disbursement schedule
> based on milestones to avoid delays. This would ensure that applicants
> don't prepay their yearly ICANN fees, for an extended period, during a
> critical time when those funds could be utilized to launch and support the
> operation of their TLD(s).
>
>
>
> 2. The working group noted that only historical costs directly related to
> implementing the New gTLD Program should be part of the cost structure for
> determining application fees.
>
> *“The Working Group believes, however, that for subsequent procedures the
> only historical costs that should be part of the cost structure in
> determining application fees are those actual costs directly related to the
> implementation of the New gTLD Program”.*  (p. 65).  "Org Shared
> Services" do not align with this, as they are “*not directly attributable
> to a program or project*”.  Additionally, it would be helpful to
> determine whether the $70k per application in implementation fees also
> includes past shared services amounts and, if they do, the amount included
> within the $70k.
>
>
>
> Without relevant details and transparency on the costs, it becomes
> difficult to understand the full picture, hinders analysis, and prevents
> the attainment of useful insights that can be utilized in future rounds and
> in the development of future policies.
>
>
>
> Apologies for the length, it was supposed to be a short email!
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Christa
>
>
>
> *From:* SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Rubens
> Kuhl via SubPro-IRT
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2024 8:00 PM
> *To:* Next Round Policy Implementation <
> NextRound_PolicyImplementation at icann.org>; subpro-irt at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Application Fee FAQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SubPro-IRT mailing list
> SubPro-IRT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20240613/7349f935/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-zzo3umae.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13020 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20240613/7349f935/Outlook-zzo3umae-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-zzo3umae.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13020 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20240613/7349f935/Outlook-zzo3umae-0003.png>