[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Fwd: [council] Questions from RySG on JAS

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Everyone,

we got some questions about the milestone report and I think that we need to
work to answer them, we can work on answering on the feedback received from
gnso council and alac since now till the confcall in friday ( those from
gnso are urgent because the next gnso cuncil call will be next Thursday).
I will send the other questions in next emails.

Regards

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2011/5/12
Subject: [council] Questions from RySG on JAS
To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


All,


The RySG had a short discussion on the JAS Working Group Report this morning
and we want to reiterate our support for the principles and objectives of
the Working Group.  That said Stephane and Wolfe have raised some key issues
with the report and we have the following additional questions set forth
below.   We believe that it would be much faster and more efficient for all
of these questions to be answered by the JAS Working Group *prior* to the
document going out for community review and before being forwarded to the
Board by the GNSO.



Therefore, at this point we cannot support the motion as written.



Please let us know if you have any questions.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



*Comments on the Report*



*3.2 Notes on Financial Need*

The overriding consensus of the WG is that *financial need and capability is
the primary criteria for determining eligible applications.* Such need and
capability is to be demonstrated through the following criteria:

   1. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards ICANN's
   application fee, unless ICANN waives, or lowers application fees.
   2. Where applicants anticipate scheduled fees, such as for extended
   evaluation, the applicant must be capable of contributing a quarter of the
   scheduled fees.



*[RYSG] * How was this determined? Is it sufficient to demonstrate
viability? Some explanation of the WG thinking on this would be helpful.



   1. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards registry
   operational costs, if the applicant proposes to operate its own registry
   platform. If the applicant proposes to share registry operational costs with
   other qualified applicants, the applicant must be capable of contributing
   the pro rated proportional share of this cost.



*[RYSG] *Is the $45,000 amount an annual figure?  It might make up a very
small percentage of operational costs.



   1. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards registry
   continuity operational costs, if the applicant proposes to fund its own
   continuity operation. If the applicant proposes to share registry continuity
   operational costs with other qualified applicants, the applicant must be
   capable of contributing the pro rated proportional share of this cost.

* *

*[RYSG] It would be helpful to explain the basis for the $45,000 amount.*

*Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?*

The WG recommends a number of different kinds of support to be made
available for eligible applicants, which fall into the following categories:

*4.1 Financial support/relief from ICANN*

4.1.1 - Cost Reductions

The WG recommends the following fee reductions to be made available to all
applicants who are determined as meeting the criteria established for
support:

   - Waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report) the Program
   Development Costs (US$26,000)
   - Lower risk/contingency cost (US$60,000)



[RYSG] If these contingency funds are actually needed at the amount
estimated, where would the deficit come from?



   - Review Base cost (US$100,000) to see if reduction can be made
   - Cost reductions to encourage the build out of IDNs in small or
   underserved languages.



*[RYSG] *Does the WG believe that costs will be less for ‘IDNs in small or
underserved languages’?  If not, what is being suggested here?



   - Lower registry Fixed Fees



*[RYSG] * Assuming the fees are reasonable with regard to services provided
to registries, would other registries be expected to make up the deficit?
Or does the WG believe the fees are too high?  If the latter, was any
analysis done to support that position?



   - Exemption or deferment of IPv6 implementation requirements as possible



*[RYSG] * Could this put the registry at a competitive disadvantage compared
to registries that support IPv6?

Further reductions recommended

   - Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation to
   6-12 months



*[RYSG] * What if the registry fails?  Does the WG suggest a higher
tolerance for failure in exchange for a smaller continued operation
obligation?



4.1.2 - Staggered Fees

Instead of paying the entire fee upon acceptance of the applications,
applicants meeting the criteria established for support could pay the fees
incrementally. Staggered fees payment enables an applicant to compete for
strings that might otherwise have gone to the first and/or only group with
enough money to apply.



*[RYSG] * Staggered over what period of time?  What happens if progress
payments are not made on time?


*Part 5 - Evaluation process and relationship to the new gTLD Applicant
Guidebook (AG)*

The WG has determined, at this time, that best possible process to provide
support for such applications is to be done through a process that is
parallel to, and not a replacement of, the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. Thus,
even after the Guidebook is formally approved, this WG can continue its work
to refine those components of its mandate which remain unresolved. It is
important that the AG make mention of this program and refer interested
potential applicants to it, however it is not the WG's intention to
otherwise affect the existing application process. To qualify for support
applicants may be required to demonstrate that they meet this program's
criteria on financial need and public interest; however such activity is
intended to supplement, not replace, existing mechanisms in the AG.

The WG had full consensus that Applicants that receive support under this
program should repay that support as possible, and that such repayments go
into a sustainable revolving fund used to support the future
applications. Repayment is dependent on the gTLD Operator's financial
success and will take the form of either

   - a capital contribution or lump sum; or
   - an income contribution or annual instalment of until a lump sum is
   repaid; or
   - repayment of the full or a percentage of the reduced base cost fee
   expended by the Support Development Program.

The following broad steps *did not obtain thorough evaluation or full
consensus* by the WG, but have been suggested as a starting point to this
process and will be further refined by the WG based on the Parts 1 to 4
above. Note the process is meant to be to be in parallel with the AG-

*1.     *the Application is assessed using the criteria described in Part 3
and this Step takes place before the Application enters the AG process**

*[RYSG] * Is there enough time for this?





*Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy*
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
*Office:** *+1.571.434.5772  *Mobile: *+1.202.549.5079  *Fax: *
+1.703.738.7965 */* jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  */* www.neustar.biz

Please note new address:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166
------------------------------

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
delete the original message.