Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] First JAS WG call - follow-up
- To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] First JAS WG call - follow-up
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:46:30 -0400
(originally sent from wrong address)
I assume that even though we will try to get lower rates, there will still be
those who need help. So perhaps we have several threads in the group:
- finding a way to adjust the fees so that that they are more appropriate for
the user - assuming one price does not fit all and establish some sort of
sliding scale and a basis for that scale.
- finding a way to fund those who need financial
- finding ways to provide technical and other application related help
We don't, probably, have time to do this all sequentially, so may we need to
find a way to do some of these consideration/recommendation tasks in parallel.
As for using the funds from auctions, I agree it is uncertain how much income
that will generate. What is for certain is that those funds would not be
available until after the round and would do nothing for helping people pay
round first application fees. It might still make sense to think of suggesting
the creation of a foundation that can aggregate funds, and manage the
distribution based on criteria yet to be determined. But that is a detail for
On 29 Apr 2010, at 12:46, Elaine Pruis wrote:
> Thanks for the opportunity to participate.
> As there have been several expressions from the community requesting a
> lowered application fee for certain applicants, we could make that a priority
> objective in the short time we have. Since our time line is so short
> focusing on the one request we have heard repeatedly from many parties (for
> reduced application fees and lower or no annual fees paid to ICANN) would
> allow us to make the the greatest progress.
> I concur with Tony and reiterate that there are people and organizations in
> the community willing to provide technical & administrative support through
> the application process and reduced/free registry services.
> I see our greatest opportunity to at least partially fulfill the mandate as:
> 1. Decide if offering a lower application fee is feasible
> 2. Create the criteria for who may request a lower app fee
> 3. Find a way to offset the loss of fees to ICANN
> With regards to funding sources for offsetting application fees, auction
> revenue may not be a reliable source. Parties expecting to apply for
> contended strings may prefer to pay the other party over ICANN.
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Anthony Harris wrote:
>> Thanks for this quick summary.
>> First of all my apologies to you for my comments
>> on the call today on the text of the objectives.
>> No criticism of the charter intended! As you
>> said, it has served to start the discussion...
>> In line with what I expressed on the call, and if
>> as I interpret the charter is open for editing, I
>> would suggest the following objective be
>> Objective 5 - To identify how the application fee can
>> be reduced to accomodate applicants that fulfill
>> appropriate criteria to qualify for this benefit.
>> With regards to some comments on the call today:
>> External funding support:
>> I would urge all participants to avoid excessive
>> optimism as to easy access to funding from
>> donor organizations, for an objective such as
>> obtaining delegation of a new gTLD.
>> I sit on the Board of GKP - Global Knowledge
>> Partnership - an international alliance of 130 NGOs,
>> donor organizations and corporations worldwide,
>> and securing donor funding is not all that simple
>> nowadays. ICT as a priority has vanished, and it
>> has been "mainstreamed" into donor organizations'
>> radar screens. The new buzzwords are "global warming".
>> Of course, an NGO with suitable track record and history
>> in working with a donor organization, might be successful
>> in securing funding for an application from that party, but I
>> would wonder if such a mechanism could be articulated
>> within a "New gTLD support package" for all and sundry.
>> Support with filing applications:
>> Completing the application template should not be
>> an insurmountable obstacle for a non-profit NGO.
>> Such organizations normally have available support
>> from academic institutions, and experience in
>> completing complex online funding and programme
>> applications related to their activities. However, should
>> there be a need to foresee such a contingence, one
>> way might be to source volunteers from the ICANN
>> and academic communities, who might make
>> themselves available on a voluntary non-paid
>> basis for appropriate needy applicants.
>> Co-chairs would seem appropriate for this WG
>> Tony Harris
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Olof Nordling
>> To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:40 AM
>> Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] First JAS WG call - follow-up
>> Dear all,
>> Action items from our call today:
>> 1. If you haven’t filed a Statement of Interest with Glen, please do
>> so (see separate mail from Glen on this)
>> 2. Volunteers (and/or nominations) sought for chair(s) or co-chairs
>> for the WG, to be appointed at a future meeting. Please consider this and
>> send an email to the list if interested.
>> 3. The draft WG charter distributed earlier is now also available for
>> editing on the Wiki – it generated much discussion (on focus, sequence,
>> priorities, language…) and the conclusion was to continue on the list and on
>> the Wiki to get it agreed by the end of next week. The Wiki is
>> athttps://st.icann.org/so-ac-new-gtld-wg/ .
>> 4. It was resolved to have 1.5 hour weekly calls, starting next week.
>> A Doodle poll will be set up to find the most suitable time – expect a
>> separate mail on that.
>> Very best regards
> Elaine Pruis
> VP Client Services
> +1 509 899 3161