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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

The AG says the costs of the auction process will be paid by the proceeds of 
the auction(s) - i.e.  from the winning bidder's funds.   

Given this,  I don't think applicants not using the process will pay for it.  

Do you read the AG differently?

Regards

Richard


On May 30, 2011, at 6:17 PM, Cintra Sooknanan wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
>