Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] TEXT FOR DISCUSSION WT-1

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Tony,

Thanks for this document.  I'm sorry I missed the call yesterday.  

Perhaps the two points I make below were discussed during the call,   but in 
case they were not here they are.

Point 1.   Risk Component

The document contains this:

If application passes evaluation phase successfully, and there are no 
contending objections to it, then Risk cost could be waived or reduced since 
ICANN will not be burdened with a conflictive situation.
As we discussed during one of our early meetings the 'Risk' component of the 
Evaluation Fee is not so much about objections and conflicts with specific 
applications.  Rather, it's about the risk that whole processes in the new TLD 
program might fail and have to be reworked  (e.g.   the risk the Community 
Evaluation vendor does not perform adequately).     Alan gave a fairly detailed 
explanation of this during that earlier meeting.     Also,   I sent a note 
explaining that Objections are separately funded on a loser pays basis and 
therefore specific Objections are not funded from the $185K ---   
http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg/msg00111.html

Given the above,  I don't think the argument for a waiver of the 'Risk' 
component is a good one.   I welcome any data that would change this 
assessment, but for now I don't see this as a strong argument for us.

Point 2.   Gaming

The document contains this:
Concern has also been expressed that even well-intentioned fee reductions or 
aid programs offered directly by ICANN could well be the subject of gaming in 
which a commercial entity could put a token presence in a locale where fees 
were reduced, or portray a new registry as an expression of some community 
interest where none in fact exists. 

I think if we carefully define our 'Who can receive support' criteria we will 
see little or no gaming.  In particular,  I believe one of our criteria should 
be something like this  --- "Applicants who receive support must apply for a 
string that is closely reflective of the identity of the group they represent". 
    I believe a criteria of this nature will inhibit or eliminate gaming.

As always,  comments welcome.

RT








On May 31, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Anthony Harris wrote:

> Dear all,
>  
> Please find attached text that may serve as a springboard
> for our discussion tomorrow.
>  
> Regards
>  
> Tony Harris
> <AAA-New gTLD Applicant Support.doc>