Comments and Questions from gTLD Registry Constituency

[Craig Schwartz <craig.schwartz@xxxxxxxxx>]

The following questions and comments were raised by Registry Constituency 
members during the consultation conducted on 11 June 2008, and in writing prior 
to call. This posting has been submitted on behalf of David Maher, Chair of the 
gTLD Registry Constituency.



1.    Regarding the $1.55M increase the Policy processes key initiative, how 
much of this is for GNSO improvements?


2.    Regarding the $1M increase for the At-Large summit and community travel 
support:

a.    What is the amount for community travel support and how much of that will 
be allocated?

b.    Is this increase included in the key initiatives table on page 8? If so, 
where?


3.    Is it a correct statement that, "Applications and dispute fees for new 
gTLDs will be designed to cover associated costs so the revenue and costs 
should be a wash which is why revenues and expenses are not in the budget?"


4.    Regarding the new gTLD application fee:

a.    Can it be assumed that all costs required to design and launch the 
process will be included in the application fees?

b.    If not, what design and launch costs will be factored into the new gTLD 
application fees?


5.    Regarding the new gTLD budget, is it accurate to conclude that the 
revenue and costd associated with the application and evaluation processes will 
be a wash?


6.    Regarding progress on IDN activities, will completion of the protocol 
revision efforts be a prerequisite for the introduction of fast track ccIDNs 
and IDN gTLDs?


7.    What are the major elements of the 87% projected increase in 
administrative expenses?


8.    FY08 forecasted revenue from ccTLDs is predicted to fall $0.5M (27%) 
short. What is the basis for budgeting a $0.5M increase over the FY08 budget 
(27%), which amounts to more than a $1M (54%) increase above the FY08 forecast?


9.    If the GNSO recommended domain tasting consensus policy is implemented 
and/or the ICANN registrar transaction fee is applied to AGP deletes as is 
being considered, it seems that more registrars with less than 350,000 names 
may qualify for fee forgiveness. If so, would this have any impact on registrar 
revenue or would the fees simply be spread across all other registrars?


10. With the increasing work needed regarding IPv4 and IPv6 issues, will 
ICANN's costs for supporting the ASO increase in FY09?


11. Will the RIR contributions fully cover ICANN support costs for the ASO? If 
not, what will the shortfall be?


12. Regarding the new gTLD separate budget, there is a reference to personnel 
costs including, "Positions for IANA project specialists, an information 
officer, policy support, regional liaisons, IT support, registry/registrar 
liaisons and IDN managers."

a.    Should it be concluded from this statement that each of the positions 
listed will be full time positions in support of new gTLDs?

b.    If so, what is the basis for projecting that full time positions will be 
needed to support new gTLDs?

c.    Isn't it possible that some of the positions will be able to support 
other ICANN functions besides new gTLDs? (e.g., IANA project specialist(s), 
information officer and IDN manager)


13. The administrative costs shown in the Budget Summary for FY09 are 
$7,566,468 while those shown on page 21 are $6.5M, why the difference?


14. The trend seems to be going in the direction of more subsidization of the 
ASO and ccNSO by the GNSO. Is anything being done to reverse this trend?


15. In last year's budget process, questions were asked about the amount of 
ICANN costs related to support for the RIRs and ccTLDs.

a.    Has any effort been made to do this?

b.    If not, when will it be done?

General Comments:


1.    Regarding ccTLD contributions, gTLD registries continue to be concerned 
about the resources being spent on ccTLD activities relative to their 
contribution (estimated at less than 4% of the total budget in FY09) to ICANN.  
What is ICANN doing about the current parity inequities and what will happen in 
the future?


2.    Regarding the AGP and the Budget, a comment was raised that the ICANN 
budget language on modifications to the AGP is not consistent with the GNSO 
Council motion on this issue. The GNSO Council motion contains language that it 
is at the registries' discretion to grant an exemption in addition to the 10% 
or 50 rule and that they would be only be billed for what they report to ICANN. 
There is concern that the budget does not account for special exemptions that 
may be granted by registries to registrars that could result in legitimate 
deletion numbers that exceed the 10% or 50 rule. Registries want to be sure 
they and their registrars are accurately billed. This section of the budget is 
found on page 15 and could be easily amended to include language that addresses 
the impact of special exemptions on reporting.


3.    On the subject of new gTLD revenue, a comment was raised about whether 
ICANN needs to identify in its separate new gTLD budget how proceeds from the 
round will be allocated.


4.    On the GNSO Travel Support Policy, comments were made that the proposed 
travel support policy seems to be a major change in approach. The question was 
raised about the need for such drastic changes and what is driving it - is it 
because there is not enough participation or the quality of the participation 
isn't good? There is concern that some of the money may go to those who are 
already paid policy advocates and that ICANN should not be subsidizing 
lobbyists. There is a general concern and interest is assuring that monies are 
allocated to the people most in need.


Craig Schwartz
Chief gTLD Registry Liaison