
44:59
my first call was 2am today its now 10pm...

45:21
I hear you @Jim

45:29
@Jim, hardy soul indeed. Thanks for making it.

45:36
IGF weeks. plural

45:53
yes more to come!!!

46:04
hardly smarter

48:27
Sure, link here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT_gMRSkQ/edit#gid=1163822586

53:01
It needs to consider expenses that go beyond one round i.e. systems

53:09
:-)\

53:50
yes, systems is an example that's allocated over number of systems

54:05
#number of rounds

54:15
Thanks @Christa (makes sense to me ;-)

54:43
You mean like how asset depreciation is applied?

54:54
Exactly

55:21
amortise over several rounds/years

55:52
So round 1 applicants would have to wait 10 years to get their overpayment refund?

56:19
yes agreed . Differentiate capex to write off over rounds

57:36
It does add some complexity to the process, which is a concern

59:40
It is a little more complex, but accountants do this all the time.

59:53
+1 Donna. Mutualization over 10 years minus anticipated legal fees? This is quickly becoming meaningless.

01:01:36
Agree with Donna. Cost recovery can be allocated on various methods - number of application, time periods, rounds, weighted, etc. May depend on the item

01:02:49
exactly - ICANN determines what things will cost so we are not dealing with complete info.

01:03:04
+1 to comment

01:03:13
makes sense

01:03:14
+1 Jeff

01:03:18
Worth a try

01:03:30
Got it

01:06:03
+1 Jim. Unless we are prepared to say just use whatever is booked or budgeted for at X date, this question isn't going to resolve itself.

01:07:33
15

01:07:35
Agreed Jim . Needs to be a "cost reconciliation " at the end of a deemed round .

01:08:05
Won't we not know whether there is an excess for some time after the round as there could be potential disputes or litigation later which would normally be paid for from application fees

01:08:13
It wasn't meant to take $1k out but if it was less than $1k

01:09:41
I agree with Christa, I think this makes sense. It's not worth the administrative cost.

01:11:05
I think we should be practical

01:11:09
not wasteful

01:11:19
indeed @Heather

01:11:49
Anything that helps finance existing causes is good.

01:12:59
@Jeff, how was the figure for AS derived for the 2012 round?

01:13:05
Not only the discount, but we also don't say what the overall budget is do we?

01:14:31
If I recall correctly, it was a USD47,000 discount for AS qualifiers

01:14:36
I couldn't find the breakout on how the first AS fee was determined. Might be worthy of reviewing it so we know how it was calc.

01:15:09
Justine - was it 47k discount or the total amount paid was 47k by the applicant

01:15:41
Yes, my bad, it was US47k fee amount, not discount

01:16:04
Or could it be subsidized by the program itself?

01:16:24
So AS qualifiers paid only USD47k instead of USD185k

01:17:27
Yes - its in excess fees!!

01:17:33
I think you're right Jeff

01:18:52
It would be good if we could frame expectations about how many Applicant Support Applications would be considered good.

01:19:57
@Jeff, as Christa and I asked earlier, can we find out how the US47k was derived?

01:19:59
Guidance then up to the IRT works for me on this

01:20:09
Okay if we punted. I'll let it go.

01:21:41
If we have an understanding of how USD47k was derived, then we can at least consider if that formula could be retained for IRT to work on..... just thinking out loud.

01:22:11
Olive Garden Gift cards

01:22:38
I think it's a good idea, but perhaps ask staff if it can be done.

01:22:43
Accountants hate wires... ;-)

01:25:07
but could be supportive to the new gTLD program

01:25:10
It goes towards the identified causes in our recommendation

01:25:35
Yep, 15.9

01:26:05
yes I was trying to agree (not very articulate atm sorry)

01:26:30
Agreed Justine . So AS applicant would get a 75% discount ( as it stands at the moment ) on the Application Fee ( TBD) - for starters !

01:28:32
Agree with Paul. Do we really need to design another complicated system?

01:28:45
why is it complicated?

01:29:02
Re going to the CA SOS, the SOS would not keep it. It would be unclaimed property

01:29:08
Agree @Jeff

01:29:19
not terribly complex at all

01:29:24
1,000 uncomplicated things = a complicated system

01:29:55
+1 to Paul

01:30:10
I'd rather the unclaimed monies goes towards benefitting ICANN-related programs than anything California-specific.

01:30:40
___ @Justine

01:30:50
+1 on transparency to both

01:30:54
should be +++

01:35:10
That's correct Jeff

01:36:28
But we are making a number of changes to the evaluation process so how will ICANN know how much everything will cost this time? Also the changes we make could result in more litigation and disputes. So is it really that easy to determine?

01:36:48
ICANNorg comes up with budgets

01:37:38
the theory makes sense...

01:38:51
A bit like how a corporation might determine periodic dividend amounts and payouts.

01:39:03
indeed @Justine

01:42:05
I can click over to the recommendations if that helps

01:42:25
We can review from notes

01:42:53
Link for this sheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mkfwWZtyGAOdIbN3LsgNtDnVs6ehPmgrONzl85gWD2I/edit#gid=1163822586

01:48:05
@Cheryl , think we need a tighter definition of historical costs . Could I follow up next week

01:49:24
Sorry, Jeff- could you repeat

01:49:27
Makes sense

01:49:32
Just so I'm 100% clear

01:49:53
Yes, I agree with Paul, that makes sense

01:50:05
Sorry, I didn't want to agree unless I fully grasped what you were saying

01:50:23
I agree, makes sense

01:51:14
I am having difficulty envisioning an example of non-consensus policy items for which an exemption can be negotiated

01:52:12
I thought it was my inability to compute atm @Justine

01:54:17
@Donna, you're speaking of the .JOBS TLD

01:56:11
Okay, I reserve my position that then

01:58:27
What was the original idea? In RA or PIC?

01:59:02
36

01:59:27
Steve gave the Douglas Adams answer.

02:00:00
I also typed 15 earlier :)

02:05:15
So what does the WG think??

02:09:48
Yes, thanks Jeff for clarification

02:11:15
It sounds like ICANN is suggesting that they do not have the processes in place to identify fraud or deal with potential fraud. Hence it's reliant on external bodies to identify and determine it is fraud. Perhaps ICANN doesn't want to take on that liability from various perspectives i.e. accusing a registry, potential damages, etc.

02:12:13
got it...ignore.

02:12:32
Agree sorry.

02:12:49
Good progress again today team, thanks for all your deliberations, Next call is 1500 UTC on Nov 10 (I believe) remember list work on a few issues from today until then... Thanks and Bye for Now...

02:12:54
Thanks, Jeff