[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: URGENT Outstanding issues, mostly section 3.1

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Evan, Cintra,

To follow-up on today's call:

I don't see a utility for the confidentiality (para 3, first red 
section). The "Open and Transparent" meta-requirements should apply.
I enclose my note of 3/3, which addressed capabilities of the applicant:

On 3/3/11 6:35 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams 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.