ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language

  • To: Anthony Harris <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] charter language
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:08:12 -0400

Two replies to Tony.

At 12/05/2010 10:49 AM, Anthony Harris wrote:

The rationale was that the gTLD process development costs reduced ICANN's ability to build its reserve, and that when received for new applications, would go into the reserve. There was a strong negative reaction to this at the time it was first introduced, and no change was made. I am not optimistic that at this point, where the projected FY11 budget is rather constrained and the contribution to the reserve has been reduced, that this is a productive path to follow. Obviously any proposal we come up with may well be rejected, nonetheless as far as budgets go I have difficulty in feeling concerned about them, when on page 3 of the ICANN explanation document we are told that if 500 applications are presented, this will mean a total intake of U$S 92.5 million !!!

True, but the majority of this is aimed at paying the cost of processing (using the one-fee-fits-all formula). It may also be interesting to question whether the 500 is still a "reasonable" number, but I am afraid that my crystal ball is in for repairs today.

One possibility is that we do not argue against recovering these sunk costs in general, but that we do recommend that they be waived for whatever group of applicants meets the criteria developed under Objective 1. That will be a moderately small percentage of the overall applicant group and may be palatable. A very good suggestion. But what about the U$S 60.000 "just in case" risk contribution that is part of the application fee?

When I first heard about the $60k "risk" component, my reaction was exactly the same - why assess this for applications that are far less likely to be "risky" (that is, risky during the applications process, not whether it will succeed of fail once deployed). But on re-reading the description, that is not what the primary rationale is. It is considering the risk that they have far fewer or far more than 500 applications, or that they botched the cost estimate for some of the tasks, or that they completely forgot or ignored some aspect of the process and thus did not cost it at all. As mentioned, it was derived through a complex process that will be difficult or impossible to audit and its validity is based solely on the confidence level in the input into the process, the theoretical soundness of the process that was used, and the correct implementation of that process. I fear that we have the ability to judge none of that.

One could argue that the process for sponsored or not-for-profit TLDs will inherently be smoother and not as subject to all of these worries, but that attacks the one-fee-fits-all principle.


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy