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

I hear you @Jim

@Jim, hardy soul indeed. Thanks for making it.

IGF weeks. plural

yes more to come!!!

hardly smarter

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

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

:-)\

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

#number of rounds

Thanks @Christa (makes sense to me ;-)

You mean like how asset depreciation is applied?

Exactly

amortise over several rounds/years

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

yes agreed . Differentiate capex to write off over rounds

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

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

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

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

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

+1 to comment

makes sense

+1 Jeff

Worth a try

Got it

+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.

15

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

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

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

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

I think we should be practical

not wasteful

indeed @Heather

Anything that helps finance existing causes is good.

@Jeff, how was the figure for AS derived for the 2012 round?

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

If I recall correctly, it was a USD47,000 discount for AS qualifiers

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.

Justine - was it 47k discount or the total amount paid was 47k by the applicant

Yes, my bad, it was US47k fee amount, not discount

Or could it be subsidized by the program itself?

So AS qualifiers paid only USD47k instead of USD185k

Yes - its in excess fees!!

I think you're right Jeff

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

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

Guidance then up to the IRT works for me on this

Okay if we punted. I'll let it go.

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.

Olive Garden Gift cards

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

Accountants hate wires... ;-)

but could be supportive to the new gTLD program

It goes towards the identified causes in our recommendation

Yep, 15.9

yes I was trying to agree (not very articulate atm sorry)

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

Agree with Paul. Do we really need to design another complicated system?

why is it complicated?

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

Agree @Jeff

not terribly complex at all

1,000 uncomplicated things = a complicated system

+1 to Paul

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

___ @Justine

+1 on transparency to both

should be +++

That's correct Jeff

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?

ICANNorg comes up with budgets

the theory makes sense...

A bit like how a corporation might determine periodic dividend amounts and payouts.

indeed @Justine

I can click over to the recommendations if that helps

We can review from notes

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

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

Sorry, Jeff- could you repeat

Makes sense

Just so I'm 100% clear

Yes, I agree with Paul, that makes sense

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

I agree, makes sense

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

I thought it was my inability to compute atm @Justine

@Donna, you're speaking of the .JOBS TLD

Okay, I reserve my position that then

What was the original idea? In RA or PIC?

36

Steve gave the Douglas Adams answer.

I also typed 15 earlier :)

So what does the WG think??

Yes, thanks Jeff for clarification

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.

got it...ignore.

Agree sorry.

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...

Thanks, Jeff