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

[Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Not at all Richard,

But expected that such cost would be evaluated and estimated.

Given the outcome of today's call on this issue, I will not go further than
a auction cost estimate request from staff.

Regards

Cintra



On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>