Fwd: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of discussion on application fees in Amsterdam

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Bruce,

My apologies for not having been able to actively participate in real
time in the Council discussions lately, and also in advance, for the
fact that this situation might last for another couple of months. 

I am not quite clear right now with the gTLD committee process as to
when would be the appropriate time to discuss my earlier suggestions
below, from Amsterdam. I tried to listen to the MP3 recording of the
call on Oct 5, but couldn't finish listening the whole thing
carefully. On the other hand, I haven't seen any transcript of that
call so that I could search it. Anyway, from the few of the recording
that I listened, I realized that could have been the opportunity for
this discussion. 

Nevertheless, as I've understood that the PDP recommendations for new
gTLD are being prepared for public comments, I wish to call your
attention to the fact I would like my fellow councilors to consider
these suggestions for discussions. I can live with that if they are
rejected after consideration, depending on the arguments put forward,
but I will not be Ok that they are simply ignored or silenced, so to
speak.

Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,

Mawaki

==== Below message forwarded, initially posted Aug 31, 2006 ====

[amsterdam, about 20 hrs later, out of wifi...]

Dear colleagues,

I'd like to suggest below two additions (paragraphs 5 [new] and 8) 
to the outcome to this discussion. I was hoping we would have the
opportunity today to review also the outcome of this part of our
yesterday discussion, but apparently we won't. I'm however hoping
that I will get a response from the committee on this - whatever that
is. Thank you for your consideration.


Mawaki

N.B. Some of the language is taken from .berlin public comment.
The recommendation is not that ICANN will necessarily need to
implement all the options put forward, but that ICANN takes heed of
the issue and consider the proposed options and, possibly, explore
some others it may think of.


--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip> 
> 
> 1. Principle - that ICANN recovers its costs of evaluation from the
> application fees
> 
> 2. That the fee will be set at the start of the process.
> 
> 3. Some applications may cost different amounts to evaluate.  
> Therefore
> there maybe different fees depending on the type of application.
> 
> 4. It is possible that applicants could pay different amounts
> depending
> on what stage in the process the application reaches.

5. It should also be noted that the possible extra-costs that may
result from the differences in the applicants' working languages as
well as legal systems (as opposed to a specific dominant language and
legal system) should not be held against them, and be left to the
expense to the concerned communities. After all, the Internet is and
must remain a global facility both from the user and demand side and
from the operation and supply side.
> 
> 6. ICANN should have a system of grants for applicants that would
> find
> cost recovery a barrier to entry.   This grant would only allow the
> applicant to apply, without any presumption that the application
> would
> be successful.   Grant applications would go through an evaluation
> process.
> 
> 7. ICANN should evaluate options for funding the grants.

8. In addition to considering the grant options, other options for
ICANN to address the same concern may include, but not limited to: 

-       Organizing periodic awareness and training workshops for interested
stakeholders on the issues of gTLD operation, with the possible
cooperation of relevant global and regional entities or fora;
-       reducing avoidable indirect costs incurred by the applicant
(including shorter and more predictable approval process with fixed
and reliable timelines, standardized contracts, public pre-evaluation
hearings of applications);
-       providing assistance during, and reporting with recommendations at
the end of, the pre-evaluation hearings.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>