RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On staggered fees versus reduced fees

[<tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Evan and all,

 

I’m commenting on the whole document, and I made exactrly the same remark that 
it’s not one or the other (I will send my comments as soon as I finish the 
whole document).

 

So I strongly support your new wording: it’s exactly the spirit of the first 
milestone report.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

----------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Evan Leibovitch
Envoyé : mardi 23 août 2011 04:53
À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On staggered fees versus reduced fees

 

Hi all,

I have long had a hard time with -- one could even suggest that I agonized over 
--the notion that the JAS WG should advocate a "fallback" position of 
recommending the staggering of gTLD fees, in case the Board were to reject the 
primary recommendation of the WG (along with that of the GAC/ALAC advice) for 
fee reduction.

My quandry: how do we properly convey that the two recommendations are not 
equal, that they not be represented in a manner that allows for the Board to 
spin that fee staggering -- *instead of* fee reduction -- is keeping with the 
community direction. As far as I recall we also had good consensus that 
staggered fees would be advisable in case staggered fees were rejected, and it 
is prudent to ask for the staggering. All the same, it seems highly illogical 
and counter-productive to me to include a recommendation whose wording almost 
anticipates its being rejected.

Possible approaches:

*       Have the staggering proposal in a footnote, appendix, or secondary 
document
*       Create extremely strong wording to indicate staggering only as a "last 
resort" option
*       Leave out staggering entirely

But the one that I like best -- which also appears agreeable to Avri and the 
original drafting group -- is none of these. My preferred approach is to simply 
decouple the two proposals -- we recommend fee reductions AND we recommend 
staggered fees, and we remove all text that suggests that decisions made on one 
of the recommendations are based on another.

This impacts the wording for Section A.7 of the Draft document.

Original wording (from Robert):

For any Support-Approved Candidate who does not receive the fee reduction, the 
fees should be staggered. Instead of paying the entire fee upon acceptance of 
the application, a Candidate meeting the criteria established for support could 
pay the fee incrementally. Staggered fee payment enables a Candidate to compete 
for strings that might otherwise have gone to the first and/or only group with 
enough money to apply.

My original suggested change:

Should ICANN fail to implement the fee reduction as stated in Section 4 above – 
as explicitly recommended by this Working Group, the GAC and ALAC – Fees for 
any Support-Approved Candidate must be staggered. That is – instead of paying 
the entire fee upon acceptance of the application, a Support-Approved Candidate 
could have the option to pay the fee incrementally based on the stage of the 
application's processing. Staggered fee payment enables a Candidate to compete 
for strings that might otherwise have gone to the first and/or only group with 
enough money to apply.


Andrew modified it further to this:

Should ICANN fail to implement the fee reduction as stated in Section 4 above – 
as explicitly recommended by this Working Group, the GAC and ALAC – the WG’s 
strong recommendation is that fees for any Support-Approved Candidate must be 
staggered. That is – instead of paying the entire fee upon acceptance of the 
application, a Support-Approved Candidate could have the option to pay the fee 
incrementally based on the stage of the application's processing. Staggered fee 
payment enables a Candidate to compete for strings that might otherwise have 
gone to the first and/or only group with enough money to apply.

I am NOW recommending the wording be changed to this:

The WG recommends that gTLD fees for Support-Approved Candidates should be 
staggered. Instead of paying the entire fee upon acceptance of the application, 
a Candidate meeting the criteria established for support could pay the fee 
incrementally. Staggered fee payment enables a Candidate to compete for strings 
that might otherwise have gone to the first and/or only group with enough money 
to apply.



This makes the issue of staggering fees (a matter of payment timing) distinct 
from the issue of reduction (a matter of the amount to be paid). Furthermore, 
it eliminates the tactical quandries related to linkage.

Is this acceptable?






Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56

 

  _____  

Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message.
Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr
Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011
La Base de données des virus a expiré.