Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Financial instrument

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Eric,

Yes, I understand it it the Continued Operations Instrument.  


a.


On 1 Oct 2010, at 19:41, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> On 10/1/10 3:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> thanks.
>> 
>> This would be really good material for one of the FAQ entries.
>> 
>> E.g. Why should the security period be lowered from 3 years
> 
> 
> It is not a "security period", it is a "continuity period", and the purpose 
> that requires 36 months is not clearly identified. Richard made a guess at it 
> -- time required for a registrant to re-brand in some other name space. I was 
> unconvinced since there is no possible alternative to re-brand from one 
> community's associated name space to another community's associated name 
> space.
> 
> 
>> I think it might make the recommendation more complicated and make the 
>> recommendation would get lost in the discussion.
> 
> 
> We all have our thoughts. If you prefer to offer a simple alternative to the 
> continuity instrument as-is, fine. What I wrote was to recap the mail and 
> vacation-interrupted conversation I had with Karla, and to explain that 
> "continuity" is quite different for applicants in-isolation than for 
> applicants in-cooperation.
> 
> One of our fundamental issues is whether our framework assumes (and promotes) 
> needs-qualified applicants acting in isolation from each other or assumes 
> (and promotes) needs-qualified applicants acting in cooperation with each 
> other.
> 
> CORE, Afilias, CoCCA, are all instances of cooperation in the registry and 
> registrar markets, as are ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, and LACNIC, and at some level of 
> abstraction, ICANN itself, as cooperation among the SOs.
> 
> If there is consensus to offer a continuity instrument related proposal, then 
> all the rational drops away and one of us, you or me or someone else, simply 
> writes the declarative prose proposal.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 1 Oct 2010, at 15:02, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> 
>>> Tijani, Avri,
>>> 
>>> This (Tijani's variation on Richard's suggestion) lowers the months at some 
>>> cost per month from 36 to 6.
>>> 
>>> What this doesn't do is provide a rational basis for the cost per month.
>>> 
>>> There is a fixed costs, the monthly reports to ICANN being one.
>>> 
>>> There are the variable costs, the minimum power, cooling, connectivity, 
>>> computational capacity, office space and staffing, for operations "during 
>>> continuity".
>>> 
>>> My first claim (really a CORE operational observation) is that both the 
>>> fixed and variable costs are so small that an operator providing back-end 
>>> services to a very few registries would write off the overhead of both 
>>> costs.
>>> 
>>> So, where a few applicants share facilities (line 253 Avri), the proper 
>>> amount the applicants should deposit as a continuity instrument is zero.
>>> 
>>> My second claim is that where two or more registries being "continuity", 
>>> there is only nominal cost for each additional registry being "in 
>>> continuity". The incremental cost of doing the N+1 monthly report to ICANN 
>>> is nominal. The incremental cost of operations is nominal.
>>> 
>>> So, as long as some of the applicants who form shared facilities (again, 
>>> line 253) are not "in continuity", there is no additional cost from sharing 
>>> applicants going "into continuity".
>>> 
>>> Now suppose the Board rejects this too, and the applicants must all set 
>>> aside some amount representing N months (possibly 36) at a burn rate the 
>>> Board finds credible.
>>> 
>>> What happens when an registry commences "continuity" operations?
>>> 
>>> Does the current operator draw from the fund or does the fund go to some 
>>> other operator, who will then draw from the fund, until the fund is 
>>> exhausted, or possibly until the operations are profitable, and the 
>>> operator (original or subsequent) replenishes the continuity fund?
>>> 
>>> Is this a "contingency" capability, or is it a transfer of resources from 
>>> an applicant meeting the "needs" criteria to an operator, perhaps one of 
>>> VGRS, AF, NS, CORE, ... that does not meet the "needs" criteria, which is 
>>> triggered at any time ICANN, or a market dominated by VGRS, AF, NS, CORE, 
>>> ..., causes small registries early in their operational history to have 
>>> revenues that don't meet expenses for a quarter?
>>> 
>>> Eric
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>