ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language

  • To: "Richard Tindal" <richardtindal@xxxxxx>, <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language
  • From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 15:06:55 -0300


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


----- 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


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


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)


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:


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.)


On 11 May 2010, at 17:25, Anthony Harris wrote:


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.


----- 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.


On May 10, 2010, at 11:20 PM, Avri Doria wrote:


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.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy