Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Request for financial data

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Alan, Colleagues,

The as yet partially defined recommended process for a as yet undetermined
entity to evaluate the applications by parties seeking to qualify their
applications as "needs qualified" (our full consensus primary qualification)
and/or "diversity qualified" (our partial consensus qualification) may not
qualify all such applicants.

N applications will be made "to us".

"We" will approve N-M of those, and decline to approve M applications.

Where the basis for accepting only N-M of the N applications tendered to "us"
relates to any of the identified risk factors in Staff's cost model, the risk
reduction for the "needs qualified" applicants could result in lower risk
related cost to the applicants.

An alternate form of approaching the issue is to look at the criteria for
eligibility in MR1 and MR2:

        o meeting one or more of five items from 3, starting with "cultural,
          linguistic and ethnic communities" and "under-served languages", and
        o meeting the financial capability, stated lower in MR2
        o not meeting any of six items from 3, starting with "government",
          and "brand"

and ask what risk, and non-risk costs are not applicable to these applicants?

The very short-form of this is, Recommendation 20 creates a distinct
process, dissimilar to the process of simply accepting some 500 applications
and testing only for string contention, and electively, for properties such
as the 14 of 16 community evaluation and any extended evaluation.

The Recommendation 20 proces is more like the 2004 round process of some
test for properties, and only those meeting that test, proceeding in that
process, to the elective evaluation only process.

Therefore, the risks, and costs, of the Recommendation 20 proces should also
resemble those of the 2004 round process, and this can be reflected in the
fee for Recommendation 20 proces qualified applications.

Eric