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

[Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Evan,

Thanks. Your proposal is highly acceptable to me.

Alain

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
http://www.jumo.com/ict4dk
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Vice-Chair, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas - www.focal.ca
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger