RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] continuity of operations funding requirement

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Simply because they can't bear the too heavy load of 3 years operation
financial provision. This issue is as prohibitive as the others we are
addressing in our WG.

We are not in charge of making proposals for the DAG 4 modification and the
general case is not in our scope. We make recommendations for the eligible
applicants to the support.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director 

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria
Envoyé : jeudi 12 août 2010 22:32
À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] continuity of operations funding
requirement

 

 

Hi,

 

Do you specifically mean that 6 months is OK for those who have financial
hardship or do you mean it should be enough for any applicant?

 

If you are referring this only to those with financial hardship, why are
these applicant special in this regard?

 

thanks

 

a.

 

 

 

On 12 Aug 2010, at 16:59, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

 

> Richard,

>  

> I still think that 6 months is a sufficient period, taking into account
the failover plan prevision of 1 to 3 months.

>  

> ------------------------------------------------------------------

> Tijani BEN JEMAA

> Directeur exécutif

> Fédération Méditerranéenne des Associations d'Internet

> Phone : + 216 70 825 231

> Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

> Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

> ------------------------------------------------------------------

>  

> De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Richard Tindal

> Envoyé : jeudi 12 août 2010 18:27

> À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx

> Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] continuity of operations funding
requirement

>  

>  

> The actual Q50 on page 107 provides a fairly detailed explanation of the
Continuity Instrument.  The amount does have to be designated in US dollars
but it doesn't have to be issued by a US bank: 

>  

> "The LOC must be issued by a reputable financial institution insured at
the highest level in its jurisdiction. This may include a bank or insurance
company with a strong international reputation that has a strong credit
rating issued by a third party rating agency such as Standard & Poor’s (AA
or above), Moody’s (Aa or above), or A.M. Best (A-X or above)."

>  

> I think the main point is that reducing the requirement from 3 years to,
say, 2 years would provide important cost savings to applicants while still
protecting registrants.

>  

> RT

>  

>  

>  

> On Aug 12, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 

> 

> Hi Richard,

> On 8/12/10 11:10 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 

> 

> My understanding of the Financial Continuity Instrument is an amount

>> of cash, or an irrevocable cash instrument, which the registry places

>> under the control of ICANN.

> 

> The term is defined in the evaluation criteria, p94 of 312 in the
draft-rfp-clean-28may10-en.pdf, para 2, which reads:

> 

> "In the Continuity question in the financial section (see Question #50),
up to 3 points are awarded if an applicant provides, at the application
stage, a financial instrument that will guarantee ongoing registry
operations in the event of a business failure. This extra point can serve to
guarantee passing the financial criteria for applicants who score the
minimum passing score for each of the individual criteria. The purpose of
this weighting is to reward applicants who make early arrangements for the
protection of registrants and to accept relatively riskier business plans
where registrants are protected."

> 

> What is being provided, and where, is not defined.

> 

> Assume an application by a cooperative located in Korea for an IDN string
related to agriculture and rural food marketing which creates

> a financial instrument denominated in KRW at the (Korean) National
Agricultural Cooperative Federation, NH Bank [1].

> 

> The proposed facilities-based registry operation is in Korea, and the
proposed operating costs, the costs that are the actual expense to be
continued by some instrument, are proposed to all be paid in KRW to Korean
accounts, individual (staff) and corporate (vendor).

> 

> I think it is difficult to conclude that the financial instrument only
meets the continuity purpose if it is in dollars in a bank in Los Angeles.

> 

> At p186 of 312 there is a prior to or concurrent with the execution of the
registry agreement reference, and the definition refers back to the quoted
text above, from p94.

> 

> At p200 there is "... Registry Operator ... has duly executed and
delivered to ICANN an instrument that secures the funds required to perform
registry functions for the TLD in the event of the termination or expiration
..." Here the language addresses the instrument, what the currency
instrumentalized is, and what institution the instrument is drawn upon, is
undefined.

> 

> That's all we know from draft-rfp-clean-28may10-en.pdf.

> 

> Eric

> 

> [1] http://www.nonghyup.com/Main/main.aspx

>