Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Q&A RYC/JASWG - version 3

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karla,

Here is one area we discussed in today's call, though it was not the 
one which you asked me to provide clean copy. In today's call we 
agreed that the principle of a payment schedule, but not yet the dates 
or amounts, were to be determined at a later date.
NOTE THAT IN THE ORIGINAL THE "STAGGERED FEE" TEXT APPEARS TWICE. ONCE 
IS SUFFICIENT.
> Nearly a year ago the staggered fee schedule was discussed as an
> inverse of the refund schedule:
>
> The applicant submits the $5,000 filing fee, and then $50,000 at
> submission of application, $65,000 after the initial evaluation, and
> then the final $65,000 when they are approved for delegation.
>
> These figures might change if the applicants are not required to pay
> that entire fee, but it could still follow the reverse schedule of how
> the refunds would be issued.
>
> Here are few reasons the WG believes this helps the applicant:
>
> ·No need to raise the entire amount up front;
>
> ·If the applicant gets through the initial evaluation and then they
> see they might have a contention string, they wouldn't have had to put
> out the entire fee up front;
>
> ·If it's clear there is no contention set they could raise the final
> amount of money from their financiers.


This is the section which I pointed out mixes the v6 issue and the COI 
issue. A proposed clean copy, much shorter, is provided below the 
original.

> • Exemption or deferment of IPv6 implementation requirements as possible
>
> *[JASWG]*If ICANN is correct in the cost estimates, then cost increase
> will be transferred to other applicants. Lowering fees for few
> applicants automatically rises to others. These fees seem high.
>
> */[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
>
> *[JASWG]*In the WG’s opinion, no. IPv4 numbers are starting to be
> treated as an asset with financial value;e.g.Microsoft recently paid
> $11 per IPv4 address. These companies wait, or even find it in their
> interest to obstruct, while the underprivileged battle against the
> bugs in IPv6. It makes no sense for anyone to be a pioneer in
> transitioning to IPv6; it only makes sense to go there as and when
> others go there as well. At that point DNS providers who don't keep up
> with the market (which means IPv6 and DNSSEC in this context) will
> lose business to those who do.
>
> This will not, in our opinion, be relevant to new registries during
> the initial year(s) of operation, while the IPv6 requirement is deferred.
>
> In some countries the IPV6 infrastructure might not yet be
> there,implementation is likely to come with a host of problems and he
> cost of having their technology is high for some applicants. It is
> unconscionable to expect the developing world applicants to tackle
> these problems on their own, therefore it should be deferred or some
> form of special support be given(so thatIPV6 capability is offered to
> the applicants in need at advantageous terms).

Begin proposed clean copy:

• 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? /*

In the WG’s opinion, deferment of the IPv6 implementation requirement 
is unlikely to create competitive advantage.