[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Tijani's updated draft 2.19-4

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tijani, Sebastian, Dave,

At lines 271-273 you've added comments (in green), suggesting the word 
change from "Program Development" to "Program Support".
In the American English usage, organizations that ask for 
contributions call that "Development".
At line 393 you identify a duplication at line 391. I agree with the 
deletion at 391.
At lines 397-406 you propose an exception for brands meeting some 
condition.
There is no ".brand" type of application in the DAG.

The issue of local entrepreneurs and market constraints is addressed 
in 2.8(e), so the only content in lines 397-407 is .brands, which 
don't exist, and local entrepreneurs and market constraints, 
duplicating lines 389-391.
My preference is to cut lines 397-407.

At lines 456 and 457 you propose something the meaning of which I 
don't grasp. What is the difference between a program described in the 
DAG, here proposed as an appendix, and a program having the same 
weight as the DAG?
See also lines 479-482, where the program definition is discussed.

At line 468 you observe that you don't understand the text at line 
466. Neither do I.

Sebastian Bachollet observed at 173 that the amount is small, and I 
_think_ the net profit reference is to a budget prior to the October 
22nd budget, but what stands out is the opinion of the editor that 
"every thousands of dollars would be significant to some applicants"
Sebastian's point is that some amount is small, and presumably does 
not meet a significant effect test to be included in this document. 
Whether as a personal opinion, or as a change rejection by the editor, 
the counter point is a thousand dollars is sufficient to meet the 
significant effect test to be included in this document.
I prefer a document that makes a couple of points, not one that makes 
184 points.
I agree with Sebastian.

Dave Kissoondoyal observed at 206 that the contingency fee should have 
a number if the number isn't zero. Looking at the October 22nd budget, 
page 6, I see that Staff currently estimates that "A small percentage 
of applications will be considered “highly complex” and will require 
at least one additional procedure after Initial Evaluation (i.e. 
Extended Evaluation, String Contention, Objection/Dispute Resolution)."
If applicants meeting the qualification standard have lower per 
applicant risk / contingency cost, then under cost recovery principle, 
the associated contingency fee should reflect that lower per applicant 
risk.
As Staff estimates 15% of the applications will be withdrawn or fail 
evaluation (page 7, paras 1, 2 & 3), I suggest we use 15% as the best 
estimate of the true per applicant risk and therefore contingency 
cost, giving $9,000 as the best estimate of the contingency fee for 
qualified applicants which are not "highly complex", for a 
per-application fee reduction of $51,000.
I agree with Dave and offer the Staff risk estimate times the proposed 
fee for qualified applicants.
Random typos and text errors:
line 408 delete "the"

Eric