Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

Concept 1 is correct.

Concept 2 is not what I have been trying to convey.
If the fee structure is justified (perhaps the WG will
develop an opinion on this), then demanding a fee
reduction might not seem an appropriate way to go
about things.

With regards to applicants that dont meet the qualifications
having to pay a higher, offsetting fee, that was never suggested
and would not be an equitable approach in my opinion.

Simply put, it may be that items such as a $ 60.000 risk charge and
a $ 26.000 pre-launch recovery fee might merit some reconsideration,
particularly for applicants with simple, non-profit and non-conflicting
applications.

Obviously a potential solution for this type of applicant, would not
be totally predicated on a fee reduction, but could well be a combination
of that with additional support from other sources, as has been correctly
pointed out by participants of this WG.

Hope this helps,

Tony

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Tindal" <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
To: "Harris Anthony" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language


> 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.