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

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, it's *way* too late for answering this before it goes out for comment,
considering the ALAC vote on it is already underway.

Perhaps if there were RySG participants in the group BEFORE it prodced the
milestone report, their issues would have been addressed before these
deadline came up on us.
I would also note that working drafts of the report, in the public wiki
area, have been around for some time.

Most of the questions asked are at a level of detail that the WG hasn't yet
achieved. Part of the response to Jeff is to encourage greater SG
participation going forward rather than staying away and being surprised at
the conclusion.

The questions and comments being received now are relevant and worthwhile
for our work going forward; indeed they affirm the need of the group to
continue its work past Singapore.But they're WAY too late to affect the
current document.

- Evan





On 13 May 2011 23:53, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56