[SubPro-IRT] RSP fee

[Rubens Kuhl]

> Em 27 de mai. de 2024, à(s) 03:20, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> escreveu:
> 
> All, as my US colleagues are out today for a US holiday, I thought I would jump in to try and avoid any confusion. The link that Rubens shared is NOT the cost estimate from the 2012 round but for a Material Subcontracting Arrangement (MSA) change. This is an ad-hoc, individual request review.

Exactly, this is a current applicable in 2024 fee for RSP evaluation, as long as it only intends to serve 2012 gTLDs. 
Note that this fee assumes a completely unknown RSP, so the full 2012 technical evaluation needs to be applied to it. Which makes it a good proxy for 2026+ since the evaluation criteria is basically the same. 


> My understanding is that the estimated costs of technical evaluation in 2012 were between $40,000 and $50,000 per application (not per RSP). Regardless, as Gustavo also pointed out on the call, focusing on the difference between 2012 and RSP is to a certain degree comparing apples to pears as per the SubPro recommendations, a separate program has now been created with its own application system as well as RST 2.0, that will evaluate RSPs only once.

The MSA change fee also applies only once. As long as an RSP pays it and is approved for 2012 gTLDs, like CIRA was for .kiwi, it no longer needs to pay the fee again. Like CIRA for the gTLDs it started serving after .kiwi (.eco, .crown and .mls). 


> Gustavo and team will be sharing more details on the cost breakdown of implementing and running RSP as requested by the IRT, but as a reminder, per policy recommendation 6.8, the program is expected to be cost recovery with those seeking evaluation funding RSP.  
>  

Cost recovery is not a blank check for paying whatever it costs regardless of reasonability. For instance, if there are 45 RSPs and a reasonable cost recovery fee is USD 14k, to match 2012 gTLDs, this means the program cost should have been planned to cost around USD 630k. Making it cost 6.5x more and transferring that to RSPs is what causing the problem. And knowing the cost breakdown, while interesting, will not solve the problem of enacting barriers for 2026+ gTLDs against underserved regions, markets and incoming registries. 

It seems policy is being followed like in the “Bedazzled” movie, where requests are followed to the letter but still contradicts everything the requester wanted. 


Rubens



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20240527/b9afd7df/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/20240527/b9afd7df/signature.asc>