Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Hedlund
35:39
@Maxim and all, I think we will try to stop the call at 5 minutes before the top of the hour (55 minutes) for those who need to join the GNSO Council call.
Julie Hedlund
36:51
Will do Jeff
Jim Prendergast
38:12
with the time constraints this week - if we need to move my AOB request to next call, Im ok with that as well.
Alexander Schubert
39:35
Who ON EARTH dictates that the fees have to be recovery based?
Alexander Schubert
39:42
that's insane
Maxim Alzoba
39:56
it was declared so
Alexander Schubert
40:08
Could we dig into that AGAIN?
Alexander Schubert
40:27
I don't care what was declared 2 years ago.
Alexander Schubert
40:32
12 years
Alexander Schubert
40:40
times have changed
Alexander Schubert
40:54
is there a consent?
Alexander Schubert
41:04
how do we know?
Maxim Alzoba
41:07
it seems to be an issue to understand how much per app was spent
Donna Austin, Neustar
41:07
I don't think so Alexander, I do believe this group has pretty much agreed to maintain the principle.'
Susan Payne
41:11
Alexander I cannot remember which WT, but it has been dug into already
Katrin Ohlmer
41:22
@Alex: there has been a debate aerlier in the WG about that topic.
Maxim Alzoba
41:33
some apps were simple, some quite not
Alexander Schubert
42:01
there has to be SOME hurdle. if we take away the financial hurdle - my grandma will run a hobby gTLD
Alexander Schubert
43:07
I know :D
Katrin Ohlmer
43:25
@Alec: The proposal is to have an fee floor to avoid speculation.
Paul McGrady
43:52
What is the issue? Does Alexander want ICANN to make profits on the applications?
Paul McGrady
44:28
Alexander's Grandmother sounds cool.
Alexander Schubert
44:34
hahaha
Jim Prendergast
46:20
If I recall from Alexander's previous interventions on this - the still needs to be a serious application fee to ward off less that serious or nefarious operators. But as many know - the application fee is but a drop in the bucket compared to your operating costs including the annual fee to ICANN.
Katrin Ohlmer
47:23
General awareness campaigns do not necessarily have to target Universal Acceptance, could also target the value of domain names in general.
Paul McGrady
47:37
@Jim - agree, but we don't want it to be so high that only the extremely elite can apply. $185K was pretty high.
Maxim Alzoba
48:33
@Paul, comparing to annual expenses of a small registry it is mild
Jeff Neuman
48:51
@Christopher - this is why we are sticking to a formula based discussion as opposed to actual numbers
Katrin Ohlmer
49:00
+1 Maxim
Paul McGrady
49:06
@Maxim, perhaps for open TLDs. Not sure that is true for .brands.
Susan Payne
50:09
how about we talk about application support when we get to that topic?
Paul McGrady
50:26
+1 Susan- I've lost the narrative on application fee
Katrin Ohlmer
50:35
@Paul: Especially for .brands, e.g. re-branding to their .brand does cost a multiple than the application fee.
Maxim Alzoba
50:44
@Paul, for most (you need at least a small office, and a set of requirement, each of those cost a lot per month), so if an organization/company can not afford it - probability to sustain a year of doing nothing (like Names Collisions last time) is zero
Susan Payne
51:20
Quite @Paul. For some reason we have toliosten to CW's agenda trather than the actual one on every call
Julie Bisland
52:05
All: Does anyone know who’s phone number joined, ending in **800?
Paul McGrady
52:36
@Katrin - perhaps. But just because a project is really expensive otherwise, it doesn't follow that making an application fee really expensive is mandatory or beneficial. Seems the opposite. If using your .brand is cost prohibitive, why would we want to jack up the application price (unless the goal is to try to keep new .brands out - then that would make sense - obviously not a goal I share)
Paul McGrady
52:57
+1 Susan. We need to stay on track here.
Robin Gross
53:06
+1 Susan
Martin Sutton
53:16
@Susan +1.
Maxim Alzoba
53:32
@Paul, if the brand wants full control over the their own TLD, it is not going to be cheap
Paul McGrady
54:02
@Maxim, no one is asking for cheap, just not unnecesarily expensive.
Maxim Alzoba
55:14
@Paul, it is expensive (they will need infrastructure , staff, subsidiary registrar for own real-time registrations (beyond few domains) e.t.c)
Steve Chan
55:25
@Jeff, Emily is sharing her screen, not me today :)
Emily Barabas
55:50
No problem, I also respond to “Steve” :)
Katrin Ohlmer
56:18
@Paul: The application fees should not be unnecessarily expensive without a reason, whether for .brands nor geos or any other applicant.
Donna Austin, Neustar
56:32
I tend to agree with Paul.
Julie Bisland
56:34
@Jeff: at your next opportunity, would you ask the phone audio caller to identify themself? 1310***800 (to confirm membership and attendance taking) Thank you!
Jeff Neuman
56:54
yep
Maxim Alzoba
56:58
but the amount should be at least somehow justified
Paul McGrady
58:49
@Jeff, that is my take as well. I will make an inquiry just to be sure and will report back to this group.
Susan Payne
59:47
There's a whole different set of responses on applicant support
Paul McGrady
01:00:27
@Christopher - the topic you were discussing was not what we were discussing and Susan was 100% in rights to ask that you stay on topic. Calling her out by name isn't helpful.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:02:53
If there is no further support, let's move on to the next paragraph.
Paul McGrady
01:03:24
@Jeff - which of the 3 bullet points are you asking about?
Paul McGrady
01:03:49
Thanks!
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:01
Do we have any kind of proof that barrier not counted in Millions USD is going to be high enough ?
Alexander Schubert
01:06:59
$25k is less than the cost for a used three letter .com! You want to give away gTLDs essentially "for free"?
Julie Hedlund
01:07:10
@Paul: They were the 3 bullet points under the header “Comments on the scope of what should be included for cost-recovery” — all new ideas. There didn’t seem to be support for these ideas.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:07:10
I understand the rationale behind the concept, but is there an idea how to define the application floor price and then how to come to an agreement about the final fee? If not, why make it more complicated than necessary.
Jim Prendergast
01:09:10
on the Valideus comment - ICANN broke out the costs and demonstarted where the $185k came from. $100k for evaluation, $25k for "historical costs" and $60k for legal fund. One can certainly argue the legal fees but Im not sure about the others and I have no clue how you get to $50k
Paul McGrady
01:09:49
+1 Donna. Seems like ICANN could figure out the absolute minimum of what it would cost to process the ideal application from the ideal applicant.
Jim Prendergast
01:10:01
if you divided the excess funds by applications - does anyone know what the reduction in application fee might have been if it was truly cost recovery?
Paul McGrady
01:10:57
@Jim - hopefully, ICANN will be more efficient iin its evaluation efforts n the next round since it learned a bunch of stuff from the first round.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:11:27
@Jim, if you take our the $60K legal fund, which was a risk mitigation fee, from the application fee the costs are pretty close to aligned.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:12:03
@Jim: Also depends on legal fees - since not all applications have been processed yet, there might still costs occur.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:12:15
correct Katrin
Alexander Schubert
01:12:43
And withdrawal refunds:
Paul McGrady
01:13:13
Off topic
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:14
I think the real costs are case by case (depends on the complexity and I do not see how to predict that), so there might be an average of the past, not necessary applicable next time
Jim Prendergast
01:13:31
thats a good point - at the end of the day - we make a recommendation and ICANN sets the actual price. And based upon the assumptions document - looks like there is a lot of build up and staff they are going to have to cover the costs for.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:13:40
Agreed Maxim
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:41
I do not think that TLD warehousing is not defined
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:02
*do not think it is defined
Alexander Schubert
01:15:06
If we had 80% refund again - at 25k floor people could conduct "gTLD-tasting" at just US $5k. Like: Apply for .twitter or .facebook - and see whether you can try extorting the brand?
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:32
.bookface might be worse
Paul McGrady
01:17:32
@Maxim - LOL
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:20
Universal Acceptance seems to be something on which there is some kind of support
Jim Prendergast
01:21:04
thats a tough call to make o this one call
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:21:09
I wish I could scroll up
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:21:21
+1 Maxi
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:21:23
Maxim
Jim Prendergast
01:21:41
im cocnered that were making decisions on a call when at the beginning of the process we said there would be no one call decisions made due to rotating times
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:50
is it possible to share the GoogleDOC in read-only mode?
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:02
as a URL
Julie Hedlund
01:22:57
Here’s the link @Maxim: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11mtncTwPLPx6vpbunACToRZy1vWyls-MxVAb3wqEYsk/edit?usp=sharing
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:11
NOTE: for accounting reasons it might be better to have refunds (if any) in the form of discounts/NOTE
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:31
@Julie, Thanks!
Julie Hedlund
01:24:53
@Jim: Just to clarify — the reference should be to the zoom recording and transcripts, as the notes are necessarily incomplete. We will call out actions to the extent that they are identified.
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:14
addition to the note - if the money written off as final (according to the next_AGB) refund to the account , for example to the old consulting company (they tend to change after the app period) might be bad idea
Jim Prendergast
01:25:50
@Julie - yes agree. But where sense of the call questions are being asked by co-chairs - that should be sepcifically called out.
Kurt Pritz
01:26:28
If the application fee is cost based, then excess fees would have to be returned to applicants. No? Or else they are not revenue neutral.
Christopher Wilkinson
01:26:35
Before we discuss refunds etc. We should define the budget % for Applicant support etc.
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:59
@Kurt, I think for registries it might be better to have it in form of discunts to the annual fee
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:07
*discounts
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:19
bye all, I have to drop in 1 min
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:28:22
@Jeff, again, it may be because of the way the questions in the report were asked.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:28:25
Proposals how tu use excess funds should bear in mind that administrative costs are as minimal as possible.
Paul McGrady
01:28:59
@Jeff - would like to respond
Christopher Wilkinson
01:30:01
@ Kurtz. In my first comment, I queried the ratiionale for cost neutrality vis a vis applicant support,
Jim Prendergast
01:30:41
@paul - dont presumme anything....
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:30:47
@Paul, interesting assumption on what is baked into the floor cost.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:30:51
+1 Maxim
Julie Bisland
01:30:51
NEXT CALL: Tuesday, 23 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Julie Hedlund
01:30:51
@All: We’ll need to close up this call.
Alexander Schubert
01:30:56
if we have a low floor PLUS 80% refunds for withdrawals: "generic term based" brands (3 letter codes etc) will be FLOODED with attacks
Julie Hedlund
01:31:02
Tuesday, 23 July at 0300 UTC
Julie Hedlund
01:31:06
Thanks all!
Katrin Ohlmer
01:31:08
Thanks, Jeff