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

[Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Alex,

I do not know the history of funding of ICANN.

 I will however try to address the question of cost recovery in grantmaking
in general.

Cost recovery in grantmaking is possible and is done on occasion, but it is
not the most common grantmaking practice. Cost recovery however is an
integral part of Program-related Investments (PIRs) by grantmakers.

Cost recovery from the grantseeker/grantee is usually independant of how the
original endowment or grant capital of the grantmaker was assembled. Cost
recovery is simply based on a grantee giving-back to the granter in cases
when the grant turns out to be more funding that actually needed by the
grantseeker. By returning unused or unnecessary grant moneys, the grantee
recognises that other grantseekers will make a better use of these extra
resources. It is a fair play in cash flow, an efficient economic use of
funds or else the original grantee will actually generate an extraordinary
one time surplus equal to the unused net grant resources.

So I would argue that the grantmaker is not double-dipping by using cost
recovery but simply being a good financial and economic manager of
resources, redistributing grant money where it is most needed. It is a bit
like recycling extra assistance moneys to those in need now from those that
needed it once and/or for a period of time, but do not need it anymore.

In Program-related Investments (PRIs), the principle of cost recovery is
central. I would therefore suggest that ICANN considers granting financial
assistance for new gTLDs, in cases where financial assistance is needed, on
the basis of PRIs and not simply non-reimbursable grants.

I hope this helps!

Alain

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Vice-Chair, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas - www.focal.ca
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger