[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] The GNSO BC Consultancy Comments (was Second Milestone Report public forum closes today)

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Colleagues,

Karla will be providing a staff summary of the public comments. I've
gone through them and this is my reading of the BC comment.

There are 11 comments made by the BC:

1. Any reduction of scheduled fees, e.g., extended evaluation, should
be rejected categorically.

The basis offered for this claim is that reduced fees hinder inclusion,
is unfair and inequitable.

2. Any reduction in fees to an applicant which is found to be in a
contention set should be rejected categorically.

The basis offered for this claim is that reduced fees to a JAS-qualified
applicant is unfair and ineqitable.

3. Any reduction in fixed fees should be rejected categorically.

The basis offered for this claim is that reduced fees to a JAS-qualified
applicant is unfair and ineqitable.

4. Exemption or deferment of IPv6 requirements should be rejected categorically.

The basis offered for this claim is that exemption or deferral would
harm applicants.

5. Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation
should be rejected categorically.

The basis offered for this claim is that reduction is unfair and ineqitable.

6. Any scheduling of payments should be rejected categorically.

The basis offered for this claim is that reduction is unfair and ineqitable.

7. Any funding from auction proceedings should be rejected categorically.

The basis offered for this claim is that reduction is unfair and ineqitable.

8. Any assistance to applicants other than publication of the Applicant
Guidebook should be rejected categorically.

The basis offered for this claim is that such assistance is not within
ICANN's mandate, unfair and ineqitable.

9. Exemption or deferment of DNSSEC requirements should be rejected
categorically.

The basis offered for this claim is the usual "stability and security of
the interest". See my comment to the corresponding ISPCP claim in support
of its rejection of exemption or deferment of IPv6 and/or DNSSEC.

10. Any assistance in the areas of "logistical help", "technical support",
"awareness and outreach", "infrastructure for providing IPv6 compatibility",
DNSSEC consulting", "IDN implementation support", "possible technical
setups" should be rejected categorically.

The basis offered for this claim is that such assistance is unfair and
ineqitable.

11. Any intermediation other than introduction between qualified applicants
and third parties should be rejected categorically.

The basis offered for this claim is that such assistance is not within
ICANN's mandate, unfair and ineqitable.

Eric