Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Some definitions: capability

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Elaine,

The idea that applicants have to have some resources has been around 
in the JAS WG for some time. How much, what percentage, is something 
the JAS WG can agree to define.
There are several sources of cost, not all necessarily present to all 
applicants, and not all identical. The "scheduled fee" cost is 
different because it is the sum of several fees, all conditional, and 
some not fixed or the subject of bylaws consultations between the 
Board and the GAC.
I think any contributor to the JAS WG with an idea about costs can 
improve on my estimates.
Eric

On 3/3/11 2:31 PM, Elaine Pruis wrote:
> What is the use of the designation is fee capable or Non capable? And why is 
> one definition different?
>
> Elaine
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2011, at 6:35 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams<ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
> wrote:
>
> > Colleagues,
> >
> > I propose a set of definitions for discussion.
> >
> > 1. Base Fee Capability
> > 2. Scheduled Fee Capability
> > 3. Facilities Capability
> > 4. Continuity Capability
> >
> > I propose the following:
> >
> > Base Fee Capable
> > An applicant is base fee capable if it can contribute USD $45,000 towards the 
> > ICANN base fee.
> >
> > Scheduled Fee Capable
> > An applicant is scheduled fee capable if it can contribute USD $TBD towards the ICANN schedule of 
> > non-base fees. ("TBD" means "to be determined")
> >
> > Facilities Capable
> > An applicant is non-fee capable if it can contribute USD $45,000 towards 
> > facilities-based registry costs.
> >
> > Continuity Capable
> > An applicant is continuity capable if it can contribute USD $45,000 towards 
> > continuity operations costs.
> >
> > Rational for types of capabilities:
> >
> > All applicants need to attempt to be capable of contributing all of the ICANN 
> > base fee, currently USD $185,000.
> >
> > Not all applicants need to attempt to be capable of contributing all of the 
> > ICANN scheduled fees for Extended Evaluation, Objections, etc.
> >
> > Not all applicants intend to offer a facilities-based registry for the 
> > performance and functional tests required for transition to delegation, and 
> > subsequent operation.
> >
> > Not all applicants intend to offer a facilities-based registry continuity 
> > instrument.
> >
> > Rational for thresholds:
> >
> > The USD $45,000 figure was what applicants paid in 2000 and 2004, and while 
> > arbitrary, and about one quarter of what ICANN wants now, for a variety of 
> > reasons few of which are germane to applications which are able to meet the 
> > criteria we are agreed upon, it is a number which ICANN has used in the past, 
> > and for which no substantial budget error has been claimed.
> >
> > The estimates I have for scheduled fees are:
> >
> > Extended Evaluation - USD $50,000
> >
> > Community Priority Evaluation (was: "Comparative Evaluation") - refunded if 
> > 14/16 achieved, as of DAGv2
> >
> > Response to formal objections - USD $1,000 to $5,000 or more
> >
> > Dispute resolution - $2,000 to $8,000 or more for string confusion and/or legal 
> > rights objections, $32,000 to $122,000 or more for morality and public order 
> > and/or community objections
> >
> > Still, objections and their costs are still "in flux", yet we must be able to 
> > express this variable, and conditional, cost risk, if only so the Board is aware that 
> > those likely to give rise to objections also have the ability to pay to respond, and not 
> > loose by default, but those that are unlikely to give rise to objections risk will loose 
> > by default if incapable of meeting these scheduled fees.
> >
> > The rational for $45,000 for registry operations is that this is more than what 
> > .museum (and .cat) started out with, though .museum was own-facilities-based 
> > and .cat used CORE's registry platform (built out for .aero). It is a number. 
> > It is sufficient for enough compute power and store to suffice, and for some 
> > staff, to start operations.
> >
> > The rational for $45,000 for registry continuity is that no capital expense, 
> > only minimal operating expenses, are necessary to provide services for the 
> > three year continuity period. An applicant may elect to join a continuity 
> > service pool, or to designate a contracted continuity provider, as alternate 
> > forms of a continuity instrument.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Eric