[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] The recurring annual fee, was $75k pre-Cairo, since $25k, as a support issue

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Colleagues,

At some point I'd like to have some discussion of the recurring fee.

Originally, Staff had set this at $75k/yr. At the Cairo meeting there
was a side-meeting with Doug Brent, then ICANN COO, Marcus Faure and I,
and Doug took the issue back to Staff and subsequently the number was
lowered to $25k/yr.

I remain concerned that the fee in the first years of registry operations
by a needs qualified applicant is a significant cost. For the benefit of
those who were not able to participate, in person or remotely, in the Public
Forum on the 23rd, Amadeu Abril i Abril spoke to this concern as well.

I am also baffled by the basic concept.

We have a single contract model, unlike the 2001 and 2004 round applicants,
each of whom which is not operational negociated an individual contract.

As the intent is that the per annum fees will cover ICANN's staffing cost,
and if ICANN's cost is $200k for a staff attorney, all overhead costed in,
then the full-time job of the ICANN staffer amounts to managing 8 idential
contracts and reading 8 fairly similar monthly reports.

I suggest that where a qualified applicant embarks upon registry operations,
that if the registry reporting burden on ICANN is "managed", a term to be
defined, and if that burden is less than the "unmanaged" reporting burden,
that the registry fee is adjusted accordingly.

Restated, where any two or more qualified registries cooperate to provide
common reporting form and substance to ICANN, that ICANN waive the annual
fee, or charge no more than the pro-rata of the cost to ICANN of monitoring
the common reports.

The burden to ICANN, the rational for the $25k/yr, should be significantly
reduced, allowing a lower head-count on ICANN's side as an ongoing cost of
new gTLDs for which the applicants meet the qualifications, and as reigstry
operators seek to provide common format reports reflecting common policy
models and common operational condistions. Under the cost-recovery model,
this savings should be returned to the applicants-as-operators, in years
in which their conduct results in lower cost to ICANN.

I'd like to have 5 or so minutes on one of the concall agendas to take
questions and suggestions, not necessarily on Friday's agenda, but in the
near future.

Thanks in advance,
Eric