Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Bruce,

Thank you very much, I have enough materials to read these days :)

Regards

Rafik

2010/3/21 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>
> Hello Rafiq,
>
> > That is why I would like if possible that Bruce point to documents (if
> > they exist) explaining in details the why of such requested costs for
> > running a regisrty from ICANN perspective?but also for the application
> > fees as the explanation of cost recovery remains vague and abstract.
> >
>
>
> There are two papers available on the ICANN component of the costs.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en.
> pdf
>
> and
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-04oct09-en.
> pdf
>
> There is also a paper on a benchmarking study on what is involved in
> operating a registry.   This was conducted by KPMG and compared 7 gTLDs
> and 6 ccTLDs across 10 countries.
>
> See:
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/benchmarking-report-15feb10-en.
> pdf
>
> Note that there are also some letter of credit requirements etc to be
> able to provide funding to operate a registry for I think three
> additional years, if a registry operator chooses to cease providing that
> function.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
>