Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

The wording is a step in the right direction, but
it doesnt retain the concept of "applicants that
qualify for this benefit", and I beleive the WG
might want to keep the concept of a potential
differential fee structure for not-for-profit
applicants highlighted in the wording.

Tony

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Tindal" <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language


> I think Avri's amendment better reflects the discussion we had in the 
> meeting.
> RT
>
>
> On May 10, 2010, at 11:20 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > On 10 May 2010, at 23:12, Elaine Pruis wrote:
> >
> > > I do have a comment on the charter, specifically Objective 2: To 
> > > identify how the application fee can be reduced to accommodate 
> > > applicants that fulfill appropriate criteria to qualify for this 
> > > benefit.
> > > The term "reduced" indicates that the applicant would not have to pay 
> > > their fair share of the cost of the program.
> > > Objective 2: To identify how the application fee can be reduced to 
> > > accommodate applicants that fulfill appropriate criteria to qualify for 
> > > this benefit.
> > without getting into possible solution spaces, would the following 
> > wording help any?
> >
> > Objective 2: To identify whether and, if so, how the new gTLD fees can be 
> > reduced while maintaining a genuine application cost recover basis for 
> > the round and taking into account fair allocation of costs.
> > This should leave notions like 'what is a genuine cost recovery basis?' 
> > and 'what does fair allocation entail?' as discussion items without 
> > prejudice on the approach to be taken.
> > thanks
> >
> > a.