ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language

  • To: Anthony Harris <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language
  • From: Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 19:19:50 -0700 (PDT)


I think we're making two assumptions here if I'm understanding correctly:

1) That the $185k is a good number -- i.e. what it needs to be for cost 
recovery.  We've already asked whether cost recovery should include past costs 
but that issue doesn't seem to have been addressed.  I think there is a 
legitimate argument that these costs are sunk costs, which -- if we were to 
write them off -- should lead to lower application fees across the board.  
Please tell me if I'm getting that wrong, but that's the way it seems to me.

2) We're making the assumption that everyone should pay the same fees -- which 
is what is implied in the idea of a "subsidy" versus a two-tier pricing 
structure.  I recognize the gaming risk in a two tier system but am a bit 
concerned that if we argue for subsidies we may be effectively saying to groups 
that need help (that we agree deserve it)  "once we raise some money we'll get 
back to you".  This seems a bit outside of the spirit of the Nairobi meeting.  

Should we assume that everyone pays the same fees?  I'm not sure.  As Baudouin 
and others noted, non-English speakers (who need translation) and Emerging 
Markets applicants and NGOs (who may have less access to/budget for legal fees) 
are already at a disadvantage, as these challenges function to some extent as a 
tax on them.

Just want us to be mindful of our assumptions.

Cheers, Andrew

Andrew A. Mack 
AMGlobal Consulting

From: Anthony Harris <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>; Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Cc: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 11:25:12 AM
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language


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.
> 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.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy