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

[Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Richard,

In the DAG there is a referral to auctions as a mechanism of last resort in
the event of string contention. This is viewed by staff as an add on cost of
the $185K (as is the ongoing operating costs). But we have not gotten any
cost estimate of what the processing of the Auction is.

I am hoping that staff will be able to estimate the Auction cost and if it
is not significant or if it can be recouped easily from the winning Bidder
(at the Auction) then it may bolster the argument for unbundling costs. As I
stated in my previous email assuming the costs are unbundled and the
applicant can pay at each stage of the process, in the event that the
applicant cannot pay at any stage Auctions can be a feasible way of  the
gTLD application progressing and ICANN recouping administrative costs.

Please let me know if you require further clarification.

Regards

Cintra


On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
>