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

[Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Richard,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to articulate this point better than
I did on today's call. In my opinion, Auctions may become relevant to us in
2 ways:

1. In the AG as a mechanism for costs to be recouped fully even where an
applicant is unable to pay during the process, this counters the idea that
it makes more economic sense to collect the full process fee at the start
and goes toward the unbundling the total $185K costs as well as the 'pay as
you go' arguments proposed; and

2. In our JAS process (part 5 of the Second MR) as a mechanism for costs to
be recouped fully and for the gTLD application to progress where a needy
applicant

   - fails our due diligence review,
   - receives no further Support (Support stops), and
   - cannot repay the funds already spent on the application or cannot
   proceed with the Application at this point at its own cost.

Obviously in the latter scenario, (due to the nature of gTLDs that we are
catering for) the bidders of any such Auction will have to meet particular
criteria (to be defined). In any event, we don't know if an Auction is a
viable mechanism unless we can evaluate its cost.
I hope this answers your questions.

Best,

Cintra





On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Cintra Sooknanan <
cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Can we have a chat? You may add me to skype, my id is CintraS1.
>
> Thanks
> Cintra
>
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> not following you
>>
>> if the auction processing cost (whatever that is) is not included in the
>> $185K then what is the interest in measuring it?
>>
>>
>> On May 31, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Cintra Sooknanan wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>