Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] New JAS WG members - welcome!

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>wrote:

> Thanks Alice.      For me one of the most difficult GAC requests to satisfy
> is their 10.1
>
> 10.1
>
> *Main issues***
>
> *1. Cost Considerations*
>
> *S*et technical and other requirements, including cost considerations, at
> a reasonable and proportionate level in order not to exclude stakeholders
> from developing countries from participating in the new gTLD process.**
>
>
> A primary reason the Application Fee is high ($185K) is that the Applicant
> Guidebook (AG)  has been crammed full of checks, reviews, studies,
> protections, certifications, security levels, operating requirements,  etc,
> etc.      At the request of many parties,  including the GAC and IPC,
>  selection of a Registry operator now involves an enormous number of steps
> and operating a TLD is now quite expensive due to the many security,
> trademark and consumer protections required.       I am surprised the $185K
> (set in 2009) has not increased as more and more requirements are loaded
> into the AG.
>
> I dont think the GAC is asking for a reduction in any of these
> requirements, in fact their February Scorecard asks for more, so I interpret
> 10.1 as requesting a fee discount for needy applicants (from developing
> countries) rather than a lowering of other requirements for those
> applicants.
>
> I'm not opposed to a fee discount, we just have to determine who qualifies
> and where the money comes from.
>
> Richard
>

The people that calculated $185K in 2009 arrived at that figure without
considering support for needy applicants especially from developing nations,
unlikely to ever match large commercial applicants in developed countries.
This need was realised later hence JAS-WG  formation much later. Had they
the power to read tea leaves, then perhaps they would have considered
differential applicant costs. The rich pay more while the needy poor pay
less.

GAC is justified is requesting "equitable" inclusiveness through reduction
of application fees i.e. the treating unequals, unequally. Can we expect GAC
to ask ICANN to increase the "flat" $185K fees in order to charge less for
needy applicants? perhaps not.

Furthermore, in past conversations questions were asked as to the
country/environment basis of arriving at those costs? Were they US-based
costs and would it cost the same in developing countries, for example, legal
fees of attorneys trained in developed countries but practising in
developing countries? In fact, are all the other costs equal or far less in
developing countries? Thus, must $185K be fixed for every applicant
regardless of their local costs?

This hitherto unseen costing inequality may as well be the root cause of the
problem in the way of JAS grounding its "cost reduction" recommendation - as
requested by GAC.

regards,

Alex