Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] ALAC statement on the GAC scorecard

[Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Evan,

"Cost recovery" was again featured during our last call. Could anyone hlep
me understand if to conduct the historical work ICANN took a loan -
repayment now outstanding or if they merely used up monies collected from
global consumers and channeled through contracted parties? I need to
understand this to be clear whether or not the "cost recovery" principle is
not in fact a double collection argument that should not be used against our
applicants?

regards,

Alex

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello JASsers
>
> I will try to make it to the conference call in 10 hoiurs, but it will be
> difficult as I have a doctor appointment.
>
> Whether or not I can make it, I want to make the JAS group aware of the
> ALAC Statement on the GAC Scorecard, which was released this evening. The
> statement -- which is still subject to ALAC endorsement -- has been sent to
> the GAC and the ICANN Board at their requests.
>
> Of specific interest to this group is the ALAC response to GAC Scorecard
> Item 10, which refers to the JAS issue:
>
>> *Regarding applicants from developing economies requiring relief (#10):The 
>> ALAC has long been of firm belief that ICANN should offer a beneficial
>> pricing to applicants who meet rigid criteria regarding location, local
>> ownership, community service and financial need. We continue to charter and
>> encourage the "JAS" working group to explore ways to reduce barriers within
>> the ICANN application framework, and advocate cost reduction for eligible
>> applicants. The effort of ICANN to empower applications from all parts of
>> the world must not be one of charity; it must not pit applicants against
>> each other to demonstrate who is most "worthy" for a limited pool of subsidy
>> funds. ICANN staff's refusal to even discuss the concept of differential
>> pricing, reflecting an inappropriate philosophical approach to the issue,
>> has seriously impeded efforts to research potential areas of cost saving
>> within the current application framework. And while the Board response to
>> (#10) is to await the final work of the JAS, we note that it has already
>> explicitly rejected early JAS appeals for lowered pricing at the Trondheim
>> meeting. We are certain this posture is inimical to the global public
>> interest for an Internet ecology that is representative of the peoples of
>> the world, and we strongly endorse the GAC's effort to request the ICANN
>> Board to reconsider this regressive and anti-competitive position. We also
>> encourage ongoing monitoring of the costs to administer the gTLD program to
>> determine where price reductions may be enabled for these applicants while
>> maintaining general principles of overall cost-recovery*
>>
>
> - Evan
>
>