I think we should clarify and differenciate the finantial initial delegation contribution ("setup fee") from the finantial ongoing (annually) contributions I guess everybody would agree to treat IDN ccTLDs and ASCII ccTLDs in similar way in respect to the annual contributions. Although, I have doubts regarding the "setup fee". I don't think ICANN current administration staff would agree to not charge for the historical costs of the IDN program implementation, and for the contrary will try to recover most of those expenses. Whether they choose to do it in a one time fee, or in several annual payments, that is up to the parties involved, but certainly will be different to the ASCII ccTLD, since ICANN didn't have any program costs for ASCII ccTLDs introduction. Oscar ________________________________ From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 3:32 PM To: ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members Subject: [ccnso-council] agreements and money - idn cctlds All, Below are the relevant words from the GAC. Our goal would be for the council to pass a resolution tomorrow in similar or the same terms and present this as part of our report to the Board on Thursday morning. If anyone has any comment please send to the list before the council meeting tomorrow. Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/> Relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD Operator * IDN ccTLDs should be similarly treated as ASCII ccTLDs. * A documented relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD operators should be kept voluntary. * A documented relationship on the basis of the proposed "Documentation of Responsibilities", either as it stands today or in a modified format, may be encouraged but should not be a condition for IDN ccTLD delegations. * As it has always been the case, it's in the best interest of ccTLDs operators and the entire IDN community to adhere to all relevant IETF standards including IDNA protocol, IDN Guidelines and commit to complying with future protocol updates. Financial Contributions * IDN ccTLDs should be similarly treated as ASCII ccTLDs. * Financial contributions should be calculated on a cost recovery basis. Full disclosure and breakdown of the costs involved in the IDN program would be desirable for better understanding of possible cost recovery models. * Financial contributions should be kept voluntary and should not be a condition for IDN ccTLD delegations. * Further information, from ICANN staff, on the different possible cost recovery mechanisms and concrete proposals would help advance positions on the subject.

IMO, we shouldn't say the last paragraph. This is because once we (ccTLDs) know the over all cost used for ICN ccTLDs and breakdown of the cost, we should have initiative to think about how ccTLDs as a whole would cover the costs. Last paragraph sounds like giving this initiative to ICANN. For example, if cost breakdown says "all aspects of the cost have little of nothing to do with the TLD size" (this is very possible), we (ccTLDs) should be the first one who think about how to cover it in order to avoid one-to-one negotiation with ICANN. Hiro On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 08:31:40 +1100 (EST) "Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:

All,

Below are the relevant words from the GAC. Our goal would be for the council to pass a resolution tomorrow in similar or the same terms and present this as part of our report to the Board on Thursday morning.

If anyone has any comment please send to the list before the council meeting tomorrow.

Cheers,

Chris Disspain

CEO - auDA

au Domain Administration Ltd

<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> ceo@auda.org.au

<http://www.auda.org.au/> www.auda.org.au

Relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD Operator

. IDN ccTLDs should be similarly treated as ASCII ccTLDs.

. A documented relationship between ICANN and IDN ccTLD operators should be kept voluntary.

. A documented relationship on the basis of the proposed "Documentation of Responsibilities", either as it stands today or in a modified format, may be encouraged but should not be a condition for IDN ccTLD delegations.

. As it has always been the case, it's in the best interest of ccTLDs operators and the entire IDN community to adhere to all relevant IETF standards including IDNA protocol, IDN Guidelines and commit to complying with future protocol updates.

Financial Contributions

. IDN ccTLDs should be similarly treated as ASCII ccTLDs.

. Financial contributions should be calculated on a cost recovery basis. Full disclosure and breakdown of the costs involved in the IDN program would be desirable for better understanding of possible cost recovery models.

. Financial contributions should be kept voluntary and should not be a condition for IDN ccTLD delegations.

. Further information, from ICANN staff, on the different possible cost recovery mechanisms and concrete proposals would help advance positions on the subject.