RE: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of discussion on application fees in Amsterdam
Mawaki, 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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@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
Hi Chuck, my responses in line below. --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
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,
I mean both, actually. I'm glad to see we are totally in agreement on this first part.
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,
Yes, my turn to agree with you (and the RyC) here.
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?
The latter, and let me clarify again. What I'm saying is the whole ICANN as the Internet coordination and governance (or some say regulatory) body could try to secure resources to make these processes as even as possible to all potential players. Or to work harder, and with good will, towards equal real chances (as much as possible, I know it's never perfect) of market entry for those potential players. It clearly has a benefit as well as a cost, either symbolic, material or both, to be the authority that everybody in the industry looks at and often relies on, at one level or the other. We, as ICANN, need to accept to bear that cost toward the whole community, and it may have different flavors depending on the specificties of the various groups of participants, the regions, their top issues and priorities, etc. in connection with ICANN business. To exemplify, let me take the case of a developing Non-English speaking country (and there are many, so I'm virtually talking of regions size-wise). We need to realize that it already has a cost, rather enorm, for them that this whole business is conducted in a language that is not theirs. For many, this will result, among other things, in 8, 10 or more years lagging behind and even locked out of the business. Their poor institutional and economic development doesn't help either, of course, and that's not ICANN's fault. But the result is that it is again those who have less who still get less, falling deeper behind, while paying the same market price as every one if not more because of their poor organization (access, international bandwidth and interconnections, etc.) So are we going to tell them, not only they have to pay the same fees (in absolute value) that is required from their counterparts from markets and economies much much more developed than theirs where the relative value of those fees are unbearable, not only that, but also they will need to hire lawyers with international competence to translate the legal and contractual instruments as well as prepare their application to ICANN in English before they have one slight chance to compete? We in fact don't need to utter or write a word; by just choosing not to address this issue, we may be meaning that in the eyes of people who are concerned, and in the long run (meaning right now, already) the result is the same. Thanks Chuck for asking, and thank you all for your attention; sorry for the lengthy posting... it's been some time, eh? Mawaki
participants (2)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Mawaki Chango