[gtld-council] coments from New gTLD call today]

["GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Subject:        coments from New gTLD call today
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:26:37 -0400
From:   Ray Fassett




All:



Sorry I was unable to attend the call today but was able to listen to
the MP3 recording.  I have some comment for your consideration to parts
of the discussion, contained below:



A) I propose this change to Term of Reference 2 (i.e. the discussion
that entailed about a “sound business plan”):



“It was clear from discussions that provision of a sound */operational/*
plan which demonstrated an ability to comply with ICANN policy (where
appropriate) and meet minimum technical standards was important.”



I view both of the examples provided in the sentence of 1) compliance
with ICANN policy and 2) meet minimum technical standards to be more
appropriately part of an “operational plan”.



B) There was a discussion about "first come, first served".  The draft
document notes that there is strong support for FCFS across the
constituencies.  The issue was raised today that it was reasonable to
incorporate a batch process into the FCFS process.  Assuming there is
broad constituency support to include a batch process into the FCFS
process, I believe then it would also be reasonable to recommend:



1)    That the length of the batch process be of sufficient length to
allow for sound preparation of applications.

2)    That the length of the batch process does not excessively delay
the introduction and launch of new gTLD’s.



I think this is where the balance of the recommendation rests vs. our
trying to exact out what the amount of time is that can achieve the
recommended balance (other than as a “for example”).



C) The fees to file an application were broached in today’s call.  We
should be cognizant of ICANN's operational plan/budget that intends for
any new TLD application round to be self-funded by the applicant(s) and
that ICANN staff has taken the effort to preliminarily quantify the fee
amount.  I think it is reasonable for us to offer guidance on this
approach (i.e. strong support for or not strong support for).  I think
it also raises a consideration about the idea (brought up on the call
today and in previous meetings) that different categories of TLD's may
have a different application fee (i.e. hints to an approach of
subsidization under a self-funded model).



Ray Fassett

.jobs




--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org