[NA-Discuss] The TLD-less NYC

Avri Doria avri at ella.com
Sun Apr 3 23:04:52 UTC 2011


And there you touch upon the reason I have always guessed the GNSO Contracted parties have for not being in favor of the JASWG and its recommendations.  It has always been a logical conclusion of lowering the prices for one  set of applications in the case where we don't find a reasonable explanation for why ICANN does not need to rake in as much excess funds, i.e. a non-profit's profit, as it currently intends to rake in.


On 3 Apr 2011, at 17:53, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> On 3 April 2011 18:29, John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>>> - I believe that there are Board members who are more likely to
>>> reject our entire package if questioning the $100k is a major component.
>> Since one of the goals of the new TLD program is to maximize ICANN's
>> revenue, how about suggesting that they raise the price to $250K, and use
>> the extra to subsidize the impoverished worthy groups who can afford all
>> of the other expenses of running a TLD but don't have $185K lying around?
> I've actually been wondering about this,
> If the GNSO policies demand "cost recovery", and staff has determined via
> statistics and  magic that it costs $XXX to process an application, and we
> want to cut a break for certain applicants, then it's not unreasonable to
> charge the needy XXX-something and other applications XXX+something. If $XXX
> is truly $185,000 -- and staff is adamant not a penny less... then John's
> logic is reasonable.
> Since the number of applications meeting the subsidy requirements are surely
> to be a fairly small proportion of the total, raising the general price to
> $200,000 would certainly allow the price for less advantaged applicants to
> $100,000 while still maintaining cost recovery goals.
> That's one approach. My own has been to dispute that the entire cost to date
> of the TLD policy development process -- including the grief ICANN had with
> .XXX -- should not be amortised into the cost-recovery calculations of
> applications going forward, and as such the price for everyone should drop.
> The two approaches are not mutually exclusive.
> - Evan
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list