Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Is it correct to say that in your view Objective 2. covers two concepts:

1.    Applicants whose fees should be reduced because the current fee is higher 
than the real cost of processing their application;  

and

2.    Applicants whose fees should be reduced regardless of the cost of 
processing their application.

Is it also correct to say that in order for 2. to be consistent with the Board/ 
GNSO cost recovery mandate it would be necessary for the applicants who don't 
meet our qualifications (the Who and What)  to pay a higher, offsetting fee?

RT


On May 11, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Anthony Harris wrote:

> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>