[council] Questions from RySG on JAS

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

The RySG had a short discussion on the JAS Working Group Report this morning 
and we want to reiterate our support for the principles and objectives of the 
Working Group.  That said Stephane and Wolfe have raised some key issues with 
the report and we have the following additional questions set forth below.   We 
believe that it would be much faster and more efficient for all of these 
questions to be answered by the JAS Working Group prior to the document going 
out for community review and before being forwarded to the Board by the GNSO.

Therefore, at this point we cannot support the motion as written.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Comments on the Report

3.2 Notes on Financial Need
The overriding consensus of the WG is that financial need and capability is the 
primary criteria for determining eligible applications. Such need and 
capability is to be demonstrated through the following criteria:

 1.  Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards ICANN's 
application fee, unless ICANN waives, or lowers application fees.
 2.  Where applicants anticipate scheduled fees, such as for extended 
evaluation, the applicant must be capable of contributing a quarter of the 
scheduled fees.

[RYSG]  How was this determined? Is it sufficient to demonstrate viability? 
Some explanation of the WG thinking on this would be helpful.


 1.  Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards registry 
operational costs, if the applicant proposes to operate its own registry 
platform. If the applicant proposes to share registry operational costs with 
other qualified applicants, the applicant must be capable of contributing the 
pro rated proportional share of this cost.

[RYSG] Is the $45,000 amount an annual figure?  It might make up a very small 
percentage of operational costs.


 1.  Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards registry 
continuity operational costs, if the applicant proposes to fund its own 
continuity operation. If the applicant proposes to share registry continuity 
operational costs with other qualified applicants, the applicant must be 
capable of contributing the pro rated proportional share of this cost.

[RYSG] It would be helpful to explain the basis for the $45,000 amount.
Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?
The WG recommends a number of different kinds of support to be made available 
for eligible applicants, which fall into the following categories:
4.1 Financial support/relief from ICANN
4.1.1 - Cost Reductions
The WG recommends the following fee reductions to be made available to all 
applicants who are determined as meeting the criteria established for support:

 *   Waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report) the Program Development 
Costs (US$26,000)
 *   Lower risk/contingency cost (US$60,000)

[RYSG] If these contingency funds are actually needed at the amount estimated, 
where would the deficit come from?


 *   Review Base cost (US$100,000) to see if reduction can be made
 *   Cost reductions to encourage the build out of IDNs in small or underserved 
languages.

[RYSG] Does the WG believe that costs will be less for 'IDNs in small or 
underserved languages'?  If not, what is being suggested here?


 *   Lower registry Fixed Fees

[RYSG]  Assuming the fees are reasonable with regard to services provided to 
registries, would other registries be expected to make up the deficit?  Or does 
the WG believe the fees are too high?  If the latter, was any analysis done to 
support that position?


 *   Exemption or deferment of IPv6 implementation requirements as possible

[RYSG]  Could this put the registry at a competitive disadvantage compared to 
registries that support IPv6?
Further reductions recommended

 *   Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation to 
6-12 months

[RYSG]  What if the registry fails?  Does the WG suggest a higher tolerance for 
failure in exchange for a smaller continued operation obligation?

4.1.2 - Staggered Fees
Instead of paying the entire fee upon acceptance of the applications, 
applicants meeting the criteria established for support could pay the fees 
incrementally. Staggered fees payment enables an applicant to compete for 
strings that might otherwise have gone to the first and/or only group with 
enough money to apply.

[RYSG]  Staggered over what period of time?  What happens if progress payments 
are not made on time?


Part 5 - Evaluation process and relationship to the new gTLD Applicant 
Guidebook (AG)
The WG has determined, at this time, that best possible process to provide 
support for such applications is to be done through a process that is parallel 
to, and not a replacement of, the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. Thus, even after 
the Guidebook is formally approved, this WG can continue its work to refine 
those components of its mandate which remain unresolved. It is important that 
the AG make mention of this program and refer interested potential applicants 
to it, however it is not the WG's intention to otherwise affect the existing 
application process. To qualify for support applicants may be required to 
demonstrate that they meet this program's criteria on financial need and public 
interest; however such activity is intended to supplement, not replace, 
existing mechanisms in the AG.
The WG had full consensus that Applicants that receive support under this 
program should repay that support as possible, and that such repayments go into 
a sustainable revolving fund used to support the future applications. Repayment 
is dependent on the gTLD Operator's financial success and will take the form of 
either

 *   a capital contribution or lump sum; or
 *   an income contribution or annual instalment of until a lump sum is repaid; 
or
 *   repayment of the full or a percentage of the reduced base cost fee 
expended by the Support Development Program.
The following broad steps did not obtain thorough evaluation or full consensus 
by the WG, but have been suggested as a starting point to this process and will 
be further refined by the WG based on the Parts 1 to 4 above. Note the process 
is meant to be to be in parallel with the AG-

1.     the Application is assessed using the criteria described in Part 3 and 
this Step takes place before the Application enters the AG process

[RYSG]  Is there enough time for this?


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
Please note new address:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.