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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,
thanks for this. Would it be possible to transform your thoughts into a 
recommendation that we could present to the group for discussion and a test of 
waters in terms of support?

Thanks,
Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 26.04.2013 um 17:44 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>:

> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
>