[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] status of COI costing (was: WG Scope?)

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Evan, Avri,

I believe the GAC communique contains a recommendation that a third form of
meeting the COI obligation be added to the the two forms of COI obligation
contained in DAGv5.

If so, and if this recommendation is acted upon, then applicants may be
able to designate the successor operator(s), upon the triggering of a
continuity condition, rather than the contractual counter-party (ICANN).

Additionally, if so, and again, if this recommendation is acted upon, then
applicants may be able to share the underlying service, reducing the cost
of the instrument to the sharing applicants. This is what we've discussed
in the JAS WG as "rsk pool" or "insurance", though I don't believe we've
yet had a consensus test as a working group on any aspect of the COI.

Still undetermined, as far as I know, are the specific services that are
to be continued, and hence the realistic cost estimate the applicants
must provide as the basis for their choice and cost of instrument. In
brief, some assert that the functions of "continuity" are a large subset
of all registry operational functions, others, and I fall into this camp,
assert that the functions of "continuity" are a small subset of all
registry operational functions.

It is possible that the admission criteria for assistance, enumerated in
MR2, may be relevant to Staff's concerns about continuity, and so a form
of support, independent of the GAC recommendation, may arise in the COI
requirement for qualified applicants.

I don't expect a firm answer to this before the Dakar meeting, simply
because the involved parties are ICANN Legal, ICANN's registry liaison
(staff transition), the New gTLD Program manager, the GAC and also ALAC,
and possibly the two names Supporting Organizations.

Eric