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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Cintra,

Could you be more specific about what you mean by auction fee estimate?

RT


On May 30, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Cintra Sooknanan wrote:

> Good day everyone, 
> 
> Just tracking back a bit here to specific questions that Karla is to send to 
> staff for clarification. I agree with the points raised by both Evan and 
> Tijani. I wish to add that:
> 
> 1. In addition to a breakdown of the fees detailed in Evans' email and yearly 
> Operation Cost amount; that we  get a similar breakdown Auction fees 
> estimate; and
> 
> 2. That the rationale for payment of the $185K upfront be revisited. Perhaps 
> it is felt that there are fewer administrative hurdles in the collection of 
> these funds upfront, but the result of this is an extremely narrow and 
> restrictive process putting some applicants under severe financial 
> constraints. 
> Instead we are strongly suggesting that the costs of each phase be unbundled 
> and broken down. 
> The main benefit of this is allowing financially weaker applicants a chance 
> to apply and giving them the benefit of raising the rest of the money during 
> the course of the process. 
> Also, it affords us the opportunity of seeing exactly what aspects of the 
> process require a greater financial injection than others. I am not exactly 
> suggesting that we attempt to find better costing mechanisms (though this may 
> be an outcome if the amounts seem inflated), but I am suggesting that this 
> will definitely give us an idea of where the costs lie and will open the 
> option of implementing a staggered payment scheme for Needy Applicants.
> If the costs are unbundled in this way and the situation arises (either by a 
> needy applicant or regular applicant) that payments cannot be made (by 
> bankruptcy or otherwise) then we may question why an Auction process was not 
> considered suitable in this scenario. Banks and mortgage companies employ 
> Auctions where there is a default and it actually works to their advantage as 
> they are able to recoup the amount to be paid as well as administrative 
> costs. 
> In summary, this gives applicants the benefit of coming up with this sum as 
> the process proceeds and if only applied to Needy applicants eases the burden 
> on the financial relief fund.
> 
> I look forward to your thoughts on the above. Please also note we have not 
> received many comments on the redline document and hope that evaluation and 
> input can be given before tomorrow's call.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Cintra
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 5:24 AM, <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Also, it would be great if they can give us the yearly continuity operation 
> cost that they will consider in their application evaluation.
> 
>  
> De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Evan Leibovitch
> Envoyé : dimanche 29 mai 2011 20:11
> À : Rafik Dammak
> Cc : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Objet : [spam] Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] The GAC weighs in on MR2
> 
>  
> 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
> 
>  
> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message.
> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr
> Version: 10.0.1375 / Base de données virale: 1509/3668 - Date: 29/05/2011
> 
>