ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-igo-ingo]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx)" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Fee waiver / reduction?
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:44:55 -0500

Hi.  

I would suggest that as was done for the Applicant Support Program a portion of 
the excess funds (aka profits when accumulated by a non profit) accumulated by 
ICANN and the Dispute Resolution providers could be applied to such a purpose.

There has long been a discussion of how the massive excess funds and profits 
accumulated by all in the process of creating and managing new gTLDs should be 
distributed.  Let alone how funds from auctions would be used.  There have been 
periodic discussions of establishing a fund management  entity of some sort to 
manage and distribute such funds.  Given the public service obligations of a 
corporation in the public interest, I would suggest that this is an avenue that 
could be explored.

avri

On 26 Apr 2013, at 10:31, Novoa, Osvaldo wrote:

> 
> All,
> On principle we would object any waiver, since the cost should then be cover 
> by ICANN, but could accept a fee waiver only for the first case, Objections 
> against applications for gTLDs / Top Level.  It should be clearly stated who 
> would be responsible for the fee.
> Best regards,
> Osvaldo
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] En 
> nombre de Thomas Rickert
> Enviado el: Jueves, 25 de Abril de 2013 16:13
> Para: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: [gnso-igo-ingo] Fee waiver / reduction?
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy