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

[Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
>