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

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Richards' summary.

It seems interesting that the GAC has targeted
the application fee for a discount, which was one
of the ideas we originally looked at...

Tony


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Tindal 
  To: Alex Gakuru 
  Cc: Alice Munyua ; Tracy Hackshaw ; Rafik Dammak ; Karla Valente ; 
soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx ; admin@xxxxxxxxxxx ; Mike Silber ; 
fouadbajwa@xxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 5:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] New JAS WG members - welcome!


  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