Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Fee waiver / reduction?

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

This is a view of mine that goes far wider than this group.

I think that most of the exorbitant fees that ICANN and its myriad business 
partners (aka dispute resolution organizations) charge for all the mechanisms 
to do with domain names should be subsidized for all sorts of groups.  That is 
why I poured so much blood sweat and tears into the Applicant Support program 
etc..

And I think that many groups and companies have gotten wealthy beyond my 
fondest dreams or imagination as part of the ICANN ecosystem.  So I have no 
issue with IGO/INGO, charities, developing economy NGOs etc being subsidized in 
their access to any and all ICANN mechanisms.  I understand the need for check 
and balances in administering these programs and with admission control to the 
benefits.  I was somewhat glib in saying let the GAC tell us who was worthy, 
and would probably ultimately support a mechanism similar to the SARP (Support 
Applicant review Panel) for admission control since I feel the GAC lists are 
probably too restricted in terms of who deserves subsidy.  Then again, I think 
the probability that we get agreement on subsidy is rather limited, and in this 
case it is not a cause to which  I am going to devote a year or more of my life 
- so the GAC lists are probably a good enough start.

avri

On 26 Apr 2013, at 01:46, Thomas Rickert wrote:

> 
> If we considered a fee waiver for listed organizations, that would in your 
> view cover all 4 mechanisms or just a subset (eg as Alan stated for 
> objections only)?
> 
> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 
> =============
> thomas-rickert.tel
> +49.228.74.898.0
> 
> Am 26.04.2013 um 01:02 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>:
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> We could start with the same list that people want to use for special 
>> privileges.
>> 
>> A fee waiver for anyone the GAC says is worthy.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 25 Apr 2013, at 16:34, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Doing that would then would require that we agree on criteria for who would 
>>> be eligible for fee waivers and that would put us into another process that 
>>> would be fairly subjective and possible require a mechanism for applying 
>>> the criteria.
>>> 
>>> Chuck
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:14 PM
>>>> To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx)
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Fee waiver / reduction?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> personal view
>>>> 
>>>> while I am loathe to agree to any a-priori special reservation privileges 
>>>> for
>>>> anyone,
>>>> 
>>>> I am supportive of fee wavers for everything so that the existing RPMs can 
>>>> be
>>>> used by qualifying charities and fellow public service organizations  
>>>> without
>>>> further expense.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> On 25 Apr 2013, at 14:13, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> All,
>>>>> thanks again for a constructive discussion yesterday. I would like to 
>>>>> obtain
>>>> some feedback from you regarding the question of a fee waiver for the
>>>> beneficiaries of protections.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Fee waivers (and standing) could be considered for:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Objections against applications for gTLDs / Top Level
>>>>> - Applications to the TMCH
>>>>> - URS
>>>>> - UDRP
>>>>> 
>>>>> As you know, we have structured our discussion yesterday along the 
>>>>> proposed
>>>> recommendations by the RySG. A fee waiver was not part of that set of
>>>> recommendations and I would like to better understand whether the WG
>>>> members wish / do not wish such recommendation to be added.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>> 
>>>>> =============
>>>>> thomas-rickert.tel
>>>>> +49.228.74.898.0
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>