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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Alex,

I think we're agreeing with each other, but let me make sure.  I'm saying these 
things:

1.      The $185K Evaluation Fee was determined separate from anyone's ability 
to pay.  It is a cost recovery estimate based on the 100+ processes the 
community asked to be included in the AG.

2.      It is a US-based costing as that is where most of ICANN's costs are

3.      If the evaluation process proceeds perfectly as planned -- everything 
works and there are 500 applications (note:  500 applications not 500 strings) 
--- ICANN may eventually have a surplus from the Evaluation Fee (due to the 
$60K contingency).  If there are fewer applications, or evaluation processes 
need to be adjusted, they may not have a surplus

4.      As more processes are built into the AG costs per applicant may go up 
(e.g. another Economic Study would add more cost)

5.      The GAC is not asking for a reduction in any of the 100+ AG processes 
or requirements -- they're asking for a discounted fee for certain, needy 
applicants

6.      We support such a discount - but we have to work out the important 
details

Are those statements we can reasonably agree on?

Best

Richard


On Mar 25, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> Set 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
>