[NA-Discuss] Summary Minutes NARALO Call 14 February 2011
avri at ella.com
Tue Feb 15 21:46:29 UTC 2011
On 15 Feb 2011, at 15:37, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> In its response to previous work done by the JAS committee (that was
> endorsed by ALAC but not even "received" by GNSO), the Board said that the
> financial barrier to entry for new gTLD applications is untouchable in this
> round. This is based on a core GNSO requirement that all gTLD activities be
> done on a cost-recovery basis, combined with ICANN staff's risk assessment
> which has demanded that the fee of $185 be maintained and cannot be waived
> or lowered based on the status of the applicant.
I will point out that the GNSO was quite specific about not requiring that all applicants pay the same fee.
Implementation Guideline B
> Application fees will be designed to ensure that adequate resources exist to cover the total cost to administer the new gTLD process.
> Application fees may differ for applicants.
Also, one could also argue that the risk costs built into the fee are not part of the administrative costs of the new gTLD process.
It is also intersting to note
Implementation guideline N
> ICANN may put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD applicants from economies classified by the UN as least developed.
So yes, cost recovery for the entire program, but not necessarily cost recovery application by application. And where is the fee reduction program?
> Restricted this way, the JAS is now primarily in a role of determining
> external fundraising activities, a field in which I have next to zero
> expertise (and why my participation in the group has plummeted despite my
> ongoing attendance).
> Of course, the JAS could stand on principle and insist -- despite the
> Board's existing refusal and against GNSO policy -- that the price be
> lowered for economically challenged applicants.
I do not think it is for the JAS to so insist. The JAS make the recommendation to its chartering bodies. If anything it is for the ALAC to insist. And GNSO, of course, but good luck with that.
It can also be used by the GAC as an argument.
More information about the NA-Discuss