[SubPro-IRT] RySG Applicant Decisions and Milestones Input & ICANN org Response

Thu May 2 21:58:20 UTC 2024

Dear Rubens,

I’m pasting here my earlier response to Martin for your awareness. I believe this aligns with what you’ve said.

To clarify, the RSP fee has been pulled out of and made separate from the overall application fee. This means that an applicant that uses a pre-evaluated RSP will pay just the application fee (which won’t include fees for RSP evaluation), while an applicant that does not use a pre-evaluated RSP will pay the application fee + an RSP evaluation fee. So, the difference comes in whether one pays the RSP fee, not in the application fee.

Thank you
Jared

--

Jared Erwin
Director, New gTLD Program
Global Domains & Strategy
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
jared.erwin at icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin at icann.org>

From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt at icann.org>
Reply-To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
Date: Thursday, May 2, 2024 at 2:14 PM
To: "subpro-irt at icann.org" <subpro-irt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] RySG Applicant Decisions and Milestones Input & ICANN org Response

Martin,

I hope they are saying that the technical evaluation will have the same cost in pre-evaluation or in evaluation window, but if someone choses to use any pre-evaluated RSP, that cost won’t be applied to
If they are indeed saying what you implied, then it’s time to file a RfR while there is time to do so.

Org is still not disclosing whether they will break SubPro recs that were approved by the Board regarding forcing to choose a specific pre-approved RSP. I’m still waiting on that with RfR text ready just in case.

Rubens

Em 2 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 14:15, Martin Sutton <martin at tldz.com> escreveu:

Dear Elisa,

Thank you for sharing. Please note my updated email address.

All - the first thing ICANN org mentions in its response is that no differentiation in fees will be applied to an application with pre-evaluated RSP vs without. This is at odds with the SubPro discussions and outputs, where the RSP pre-evaluation was expected to considerably reduce duplication of effort and streamline processing, and reduce costs, reflected in lower fees for applicants selecting a pre-evaluated RSP. Dusting down the over 3-year old Final Report, this is referred to under Implementation Guidance 15.2.

Whilst I respect the IRT is not responsible for setting fees, I think ICANN org will be challenged to justify this stance and deviation from the implementation guidance in the Final Report.

Is anyone else surprised with this or other elements in ICANN org’s reply?

Kind regards,

Martin

Martin Sutton
Co-Founder, TLDz
martin at tldz.com
+44 (0)7774 556680
TLDz.com<http://tldz.com/>

<attachment.png>

Illumiati Limited. 77 Camden Street Lower, Dublin, D02 XE80

The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

On 2 May 2024, at 10:25, Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto at icann.org> wrote:

Dear IRT members,

In the ICANN78 Policy Outcomes Report<https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/meetings/icann78-policy-outcome-report-21nov23-en.pdf>, it was noted that “[a]s information for the ICANN Board, the CPH can prepare a list of the decisions and work that need to be done by a potential applicant”.

In this context, we would like to inform you that on 29 February 2024 the RySG shared with ICANN org a letter<https://community.icann.org/display/SPIR/Reference+Material?preview=/238617519/331808819/RySG%20Applicant%20Decisions%20and%20Milestones_Feb%202024.pdf>outlining the “list of the decisions that potential new gTLD applicants need to make in determining whether of not to apply for a new gTLD”, to which ICANN org responded<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/238617519/Response%20to%20RySG%20Applicant%20Decisions%20and%20Milestones%20Letter%20-%20Apr%202024.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1714641424505&api=v2> on 23 April 2024.

Best regards,
Elisa
_______________________________________________
SubPro-IRT mailing list
SubPro-IRT at icann.org<mailto: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.

_______________________________________________
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/20240502/73bb3812/attachment-0001.html>