ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG - just a thought...

  • To: "Richard Tindal" <richardtindal@xxxxxx>, "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>, <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Anthony Harris" <anthonyrharris@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG - just a thought...
  • From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 12:19:56 -0300


Thanks for your comments and questions.

I would refer to the attached public comment that I
sent to ICANN shortly after DAG 1 was presented
to the ICANN community.

You may note that shortly after, the "Annual Registry
Fee" minimum charge was reduced from U$S 75.000,
to U$S 25.000.

I remain unconvinced that the application fee is either
reasonable or justifiable as it stands today.

With regards to your two questions, IMHO the answer
could be a mixture of both. I would suggest the
following might be one possible approach:

  Non-profit entities with at least 2 year status of registration
  in one country at minimum, be awarded a reduction of the
  application fee, say for example - 30%. If the application
  during evaluation process becomes entangled, i.e. is
  contested and results in a conflictive situation, then the
  discounted amount could be demanded from the applicant,
  to compensate for the costs that then ensue.

Whereas I support the enthusiasm expressed on the list for
establishing a "Foundation" to support underprivileged
applicants, if the funds this entity will have in trust are to
be provided from "surplus" income resulting from the
round of applications, then of course implicitly those
who would have access to these funds, and be thus
assisted in stepping up to the new gTLD application
window, would have to wait for the next round. Having
seen the way the current round was successfully
"lobbied" into the receding future, and is already
about two years off original estimated initiation
dates, this might not be an equitable solution for
the parties envisaged.

I am sure other participants of this list must have
much better ideas, and remain expectant to
support them as they emerge.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Tindal 
  To: Olof Nordling ; soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx ; Anthony Harris 
  Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:14 AM
  Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG - just a thought...

  Tony/  All,

  Let me start by saying how glad I am this WG is now up and running.   I look 
forward to us finding ways to assist certain applicants in obtaining and 
operating TLDs.

  Per the referenced 'Cost Considerations' paper (below)  the $185K evaluation 
fee is a fairly detailed estimate of the costs of setting up and administering 
the various policies and processes needed to take applications from submission 
stage to root entry stage.    

  The $185K is an average based on costs divided by 500 applications.  As most 
costs are fixed,  the real cost per application will go down if there are 
substantially more than 500 applications and will go up if there are 
substantially less than 500 applications.     As the paper states, when the 
first round is complete, ICANN will assess actual costs and,  if there is a 
surplus from the $185K:   "ICANN will engage the community in how that excess 
is to be used".       A subsidization/ refund for certain applicants is one 
possible use of any surplus.

  Tony - From your comments on the first call I can't tell if you're proposing 

  A.    the $185K is inaccurate (much too high) and should be reduced for all 
applicants;  or

  B.    we should try to pre-determine which applications will be cheaper to 
process and charge them less than $185K at the time of application submission.

  Can you clarify?

  Many thanks


  On May 3, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Olof Nordling wrote:

    Tony and all,
    Indeed, those interested can find it here: 
    All the best

    From: Anthony Harris [anthonyrharris@xxxxxxxxx]
    Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 10:02 PM
    To: Olof Nordling
    Cc: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
    Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG - just a thought...

    Dear Olof,

    For our next call, it might be useful for many, if you could
    point the WG to a document from the days of DAG 1,
    wherein ICANN staff explained the rationale that went
    into setting the application fee. Perhaps some WG
    participants may not have read it, or indeed if they
    have it's been a long time...This would be useful
    material to add to our discussions.



    On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx> 

      Dear all,

      Pondering how I could assist at this point, I started to look for

      potentially informative background information – see a sample below. Yes, 

      was inspired by Tony’s mentioning of GKP – I just had to look that up for 


      Do you find it useful to put such links (without trying to catch all –that

      would become unwieldy) in the Wiki?

      All the best



      Support organizations/programs

      Special Programs and Funds for LDCs at http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/178/

      UN and civil society/NGOs cooperation regarding LDC at


      GKP, Global Knowledge Partnership at


      Which applicants may need support?

      Based on country origin?

      LDC (Least Developed Countries) at


      LDC criteria at http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/related/59/

      LLDC (Landlocked Developing Countries) at


      LLDC description at http://www.unohrlls.org/en/lldc/31/

      SIDS (Small Island Developing States) at 

      SIDS description at http://www.unohrlls.org/en/sids/43/

      Based on legal form?

      Non-profit organizations - structure overview at


      Non-governmental organizations - structure overview at


      Based on orientation, goals?

      Philanthropy, public interest......

Attachment: AAA-DOT.LAT-COMMENTS I.doc
Description: MS-Word document

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy