RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Andrew,


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.



You are right Andrew, the spirit of Nairobi was to find ways to support
people who need assistance to apply for and to operate new gTLD. And since
the beginning, it was agreed in this WG that fees reduction is one of the
possible kind of support. The support meant by the Board resolution is for
the applicants of this round, not those of the next rounds. Subsidies can’t
be a solution.  

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director 

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations

Phone : + 216 71 875 761

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 860 861

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  _____  

De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Andrew Mack
Envoyé : mercredi 12 mai 2010 03:20
À : Anthony Harris; Richard Tindal; Avri Doria
Cc : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language

 

All,

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 

Principal

AMGlobal Consulting
+1-202-256-1077  

 <mailto:amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx  

 <http://www.amglobal.com/> www.amglobal.com

 

 

  _____  

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


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.
>> 
>> 
> 

Ce message entrant est certifié sans virus connu.
Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr
Version: 9.0.819 / Base de données virale: 271.1.1/2868 - Date: 05/11/10
19:40:00