Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

Yes we are on the same page. Your points
are pertinent.

Tony

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Tindal" <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
To: <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language


> 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.