Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Some comments/questions for our call

[Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The continuity cost should be addressed; as Eric implies several comments on 
DAG4 were posted on this issue.  Clearly defining the expectations and lowering 
the burden is necessary for all applicants- I believe that is why we did not 
specifically call out this particular barrier for only the disadvantaged 
applicants.
Elaine


On Aug 2, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> 
> There was another area of unstated cost to the applicant, the three years
> continuity of operations funding requirement.
> 
> I commented on the issue to the DAGv4 comments [1] but in a nutshell, for
> each 1k of registrants, on the order of 10 or fewer transactions against the
> SRS is an estimate of "load" when a registry has ceased operations and is just
> servicing renewals and other ancilliary traffic. The requirement to for the
> SRS to be capable of continuity operations with a density of one complete
> database transaction per minute is a registration base the size of the .cat
> registry at present, or about 40k registrants.
> 
> Therefore the upper bound on contunity cost for registries which convert to
> continuity operations having fewer than 10^^6 registrations is ICANN's own
> annual per-registry oversight labor staffing, now on the order of USD 25k/yr,
> with negligible platform cost.
> 
> I think putting a number on continuity is important, particularly where the
> "fails at" expectation for the revenue an expense projections of applicant
> operators is consistent with linguistic and cultural communities lacking
> state support.
> 
> I only mention this because in reading the 1 & 2 papers I'd not come across
> a treatment of the continuity cost as an undefined risk to applicants.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-base/msg00007.html