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

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Mon Oct 9 13:40:11 UTC 2006


I will leave it to Bruce to respond as Chair of the committee, but I do
have a few questions and comments that I have inserted below regarding
your suggested addition to paragraph 5.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 11:47 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Fwd: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of 
> discussion on application fees in Amsterdam
> 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 at melbourneit.com.au> 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.

Gomes: Mawaki - What do you mean by "should not be held against them"?
If you mean that the fact that extra costs to evaluate their application
because of legal and/or language issues should not be used in any
negative way to evaluate their application, I would agree with you.  But
if you mean that they should not have to bear the extra costs, then that
raises an additional question: who should bear the costs?  The RyC has
communicated that its members do no believe that any applicants should
have to subsidize application costs for other applicants.  Do you agree
or disagree with this position of the RyC? If you agree, then are you
suggesting that ICANN should charge the extra costs to such applicants
or that ICANN should find funds elwewhere in its budget to cover the
extra costs?
> > 
> > 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
> > 

More information about the council mailing list