Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Draft summary of public comment (second milestone report) ready for JAS WG review

[ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Karla,

I'm going to address one single comment in an attempt to point out a larger
issue.

Writing for Packet Clearing House, a corporate entity providing fee-based
network services, Woody opposes an exception to a condition we have some
basis for belief is significantly more difficult to satisfy in developing
economies than in developed economies -- the v6 requirement for transition
to delegation.

Woody claims it is harmful to applicants to associate a feasibility
condition to the v6 requirement.

Fine.

You've caught that in the recital, the summary, of Woody's comment. What is
lacking is the analysis, which as you point out in Actions needed, item #2,
needs to be drafted.

Woody's claim is that the applicant is _more_harmed_ by an exception to the
v6 requirement than the applicant is harmed by the loss of its investment
in applying. That is what "harmed by exception" really means as the basis
for opposition to exception to a condition over which the applicant has no
feasible means to satisfy.

So assuming the most generous scenario available, the applicant has invested
$45,000 USD in an application fee payment to ICANN, and at least another $1
USD in preparation cost, possibly more, but just to use round numbers, a sum
of $50,000 USD.

Woody's claim is that the cost to the applicant to meet the v6 requirement
at some later date is greater than the $50,000 USD, and all "good will" (the
usual form of expression of identity of a resource to its users) and use of
revenue, and net profit, from operations, from 1Q2013 to the date the v6
requirment can be met, some number of fiscal quarters.

This is a testable claim. What is the industry average cost for a small to
medium sized business to add v6 prefix advertizment, and v6 endpoints, for
its principal computer centered operational activities? If adding v6 costs
more than $50,000 for the average small to medium sized business, then Woody
has valid point.

If it costs less than that, then whatever "harm" Woody is arguing, is harm
to some other party, assuming there is a demonstrable harm eventually, and
not relevant to MR2.

Our analysis has to test the comments for their possible rational meaning,
and we may find that some resist finding any obvious rational basis for
being posed.

Eric