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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I understand that we are not responsible for the larger problem.  Part of the 
reason I was asking and looking for what made this a special case.

As for the financial burden, since the operating cost are lower, 
proportionately, so would be the cost of a  bond.  This is different than 
dealing with the costs that are based on US prices, as these costs would be 
proportional to the local cost of maintaining the operation.

As I said, I still do not understand what would make this a justifiable 
exception, and with the little bit of time the group has left, I think we need 
to have good reasons for anything we add to the list orfremedies at this point.

Do other people support this as one of the exceptions that the groups requests. 
 If so, can anyone offer suggested text explaining it?

thanks

a.


On 12 Aug 2010, at 18:49, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

> 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
> > 
>  
>