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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Not a bad thought,  and one you should suggest to ICANN's COO.  They may 
already have plans to contract independent evaluators from lower cost countries.

Generally speaking though, I think it would be more applicable to the second 
round.   Given that the new TLD processes are entirely new and untried, and 
some are quite complex,
I can see why they might want to operate the first round with more direct 
control than off-shore outsourcing.  After the processes are operationally 
tested I think
there'd be a stronger case for outsourcing.   

Richard


On Mar 26, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Dave Kissoondoyal wrote:

> Dear Richard,
>  
> I think ICANN should seriously consider Business Process Outsourcing to be 
> able to lower some of their fees.
> Companies regularly outsource their business process offshore, particularly 
> to developing countries filled with qualified and talented work force, such 
> as India, Philippines, Mexico, China and Mauritius. These countries offer 
> good quality services for the business process and they charge a very cheap 
> rate for these services.
> Companies like CISCO, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Microsoft (X-Box), Cardinal 
> Health, Direct Energy, EHarmony etc are already outsourcing to Mauritius. 
> These companies consider Business process outsourcing as one of the most 
> popular and the most cost-efficient business solution
> Thanks and best regards
> Dave Kissoondoyal MBA, ACMI
> CE0 - KMPGlobal Ltd
> From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 12:22 AM
> To: Alex Gakuru
> Cc: Alice Munyua; Tracy Hackshaw; Rafik Dammak; Karla Valente; 
> soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx; admin@xxxxxxxxxxx; Mike Silber; 
> fouadbajwa@xxxxxxxxx
> 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
>  
>