Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] The GAC weighs in on MR2

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

It'll be very interesting if there's a detailed review of the $185K Evaluation 
Fee.    The most current (I think) analysis of the fee is here:

        
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-04oct09-en.pdf;  
and

        
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-new-gtld-program-budget-22oct10-en.pdf

These documents spell out the three components of the fee:  (i) Development 
costs; (ii) Processing costs and (iii) Risk costs ---  though not in the detail 
the WG is looking for.

Since these analyses were done Development work has extended about eight months 
longer than anticipated, and the rules and procedures for the program have gone 
from about 145 pages worth (in the AG then) to about 215 pages now.    Each 
extra page of AG adds processing cost (for ICANN and/or the applicant).

I'm not recommending against further review/ analysis of the Evaluation Fee,  
but everyone should keep in mind that a possible outcome of review is an 
increase in the $185K baseline.

Richard


On May 29, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
> 
> I agree that we should give Karla a more detailed request. Obviously generic 
> questions will be met with generic responses.
> 
> I would like to start a brief discussion on what we will need from ICANN 
> staff in order to move ahead. Personally, I think that amongst the specific 
> details that we need is a detailed breakdown of the $185K. Such a detail 
> breakdown must indicate how much of the $185K is allocated to:
> 
> - cover the actual (ie, real time) cost to process the application
> - apply various tests and controls (ie contention) that may not be 
> appropriate to JAS-qualified applications
> - repay costs of historic policy work
> - replenish the reserve fund for costs incurred by previous applications (ie, 
> .XXX)
> - mitigate risk of lawsuits
> - fund any other relevant cost category (i'm quite sure I don't have them all 
> here)
> 
> I would also like to obtain a fairly comprehensive set of the assumptions and 
> formulas that have been made in order to deduce the current scheme.
> 
> I'm sure (and I hope) that others can contribute to build a specific request, 
> one that (if answered truthfully and completely) will result in information 
> that can better guide our ability to derive a suitable and  justifiable 
> amount for a reduced price.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> On 29 May 2011 13:19, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> We now have further justification for the additional resources requested in 
> the last JAS phone call
> 
> regarding the additional resources requested, it will be helpful to draft the 
> questions that JAS WG is asking and the exact nature/expertise that we are 
> looking for, especially about the legal knowledge, few questions and requests 
> which Karla can pass to legal staff and letting them ready in prior to 
> confcall.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
>