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

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 29 May 2011 19:29, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:


> 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.
>

I'm not suggesting that staff needs to "review" anything. That's the task of
the WG, and our members' labor in the service of ICANN is as cheap as it
gets.

The assumptions and calculations used to determine the $185K fee must
already be documented, somewhere. If not, I guess a photograph of the dart
board used to determine the fee will have to suffice.

Knowing the assumptions allows us to research and analyse ICANN staff
interpretation of the concept of "cost recovery" as mandated by the GNSO.
For instance, in my own interpretation of the term I believe that absolutely
zero from the fees of the future applications should be used to recover
costs of *anything* to do with previous applications. So, for instance, if
we find that part of the current fee is used to restore the reserve fund
because of the .XXX debacle, it's reasonable to assert that this is an
improper interpretation of "cost recovery" and that the fees (for
*everyone*) should not be inflated to recoup this.

Providing this information is a fundamental issue of transparency and
accountability, *especially* given the high visibility of this issue.

In any case, unsubstantiated threats -- intended to spread fear about
consequences of this Working Group's legitimate pursuit of its task -- are
unwelcome, speculative, and needlessly distracting. I would note that there
would be no extra cost incurred now had ICANN staff been fully open about
its assumptions and calculations from the start. And I consider
"transparency costs more than opaqueness" to be an exceptionally poor
rationale for ICANN to refuse to release necessary information that has no
legitimate reason to be withheld from its community.

I would go as far as recommending that denial of this WG's request for such
legitimate and necessary information, should that happen, be appealed
through the ATRT, the ICANN Ombudsman and even higher if necessary.

- Evan