<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WT 1 Fees-lower up front fee
- To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] WT 1 Fees-lower up front fee
- From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:36:20 -0700
An argument that some parties may use against this will be the same argument
used against the Expression of Interest proposal --- that only requiring a
portion of the fees up front will encourage speculative applications. This
was discussed at some length in Nairobi and there were a lot of concerns
expressed about the 'gaming' possibility.
Our solution to this is limiting the phased fee approach to only our applicants.
RT
On May 18, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
>
> On 18 May 2010 12:45, Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Continuing the thread from yesterday's call.
>
> Richard suggested that applicants that meet specific criteria for assistance
> may benefit from not having to pay the entire fee up front.
> The language from the cost analysis paper is
>
> "– ICANN will collect the entire application
> evaluation fee at the time an application is submitted. This approach avoids
> a situation
> in which the applicant partially completes the application process, then may
> not have
> the resources to continue. It also ensures that all costs are covered.
>
>
> The ALAC response to this (which I reproduce verbatim from within the
> gTLD-related statement produced at the At-Large Summit in Mexico City) is:
>
> In the place of the proposed system of refunds, we recommend a phased fee
> system under which an applicant would pay a portion initially and additional
> fees as each milestone is
> achieved. While ICANN will still be paid up-front for its evaluations,
> applicants only need pay for the stages which they are eligible to pursue.
>
> (Page 14 of
> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf)
>
> I don't see why this approach is any less valid now than it was at the time
> of the Summit. Each application will already be subject to review regarding
> its financial stability and sustainability. There is no need to use the fee
> structure to impose a crudely Darwinistic barrier to all but the best-funded
> applicants.
>
> Besides the benefits Elaine mentions, a graduated payment system also
> eliminates the bureaucracy needed to evaluate and process refund requests.
>
> - Evan
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|