Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

I think I am being slow and I apologize.

But if what Richard wrote is correct, would an acceptable objective state:

Object 2: look at ways to potentially reduce fees based on a logical analysis 
of actual costs for a type of applicant/ string

and leave Objective 3 alone?

a.


On 11 May 2010, at 20:06, Anthony Harris wrote:

> 
> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>