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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Understood.  I'm suggesting that when the previously used data and assumptions 
are revealed it may become apparent that some are outdated.    

For example, the Risk component of the fee is based on assumptions about 
possible failure (and required rework) in any of the AG processes.    When the 
cost analysis was done there were about 90 discrete AG processes.  Now there 
are about 120.

My main point in raising this is encourage everyone to understand the 
relationship between AG content and cost.   The more 'things' get loaded into 
the AG the more the process costs.       

I'm not including JAS requirements in that -- as JAS is something that must get 
worked out.   I'm talking about the other new things that various parties want 
inserted in the AG.   The more of these are included in the AG,  the more 
likely the $185K baseline will go up.

RT
 


On May 29, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> 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
>