Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Tony,

I was looking at it the same way as Avri (per below),  but from your recent 
note it's clear what you're saying.

I think we're on the same page.  We're looking at ways to potentially reduce 
fees based on a logical analysis of actual costs for a type of applicant/ 
string  

PLUS 

We're looking at ways to subsidize,  rather than reduce,  fees for those same 
applicants.       (note:   if such subsidization was to come from ICANN I think 
it could only come from any funds that were surplus after the first round was 
complete   (i.e.  funds from applicant fees + funds from any auctions -  actual 
costs) 

RT

PS.   ......I also agree with Avri that we need more criteria for qualifying 
applicants than non-profit status.   there are many non-profits with millions 
of dollars in net assets 


On May 11, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Isn't that noton contained in the 3rd objective?
> 
>> Objective 3: To identify what kinds of support (e.g. technical assistance, 
>> organizational assistance, financial assistance, fee reduction) and support 
>> timelines (e.g. support for the application period only, continuous support) 
>> are appropriate for new gTLD applicants fulfilling identified criteria.
> 
> I was thinking fee reduction referred to differential fee for those that meet 
> the TBD criteria.
> 
> (though the criteria probably has to be more stringent than just that - ICANN 
> is a non-profit and they have enough money to build TV studios.)
> 
> a.
> 
> On 11 May 2010, at 17:25, 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>