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

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

Thanks for these timely observations.

With regards to risk component, your point is a 
good one. Nonetheless, even if this is not for
conflicting situations, but as a "safeguard"
for the unforeseen events that may increase
the costs involved, I would venture to suggest
that the evaluation cost of almost 100K is
quite "padded" enough to accomodate for this.

The risk component accounts for one third of
the total application fee. Is it reasonable to
assume that the undoubtedly expensive
calculation-of-fee process, could be so 
potentially off-target to justify such a 
significant precautionary amount?

Your comment on gaming is good, and
I endorse it.

Regards

Tony


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Tindal 
  To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] TEXT FOR DISCUSSION WT-1


  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:


    a.. 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:

    a.. 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>