[governance] Details on the ICANN JAS WG MR2 report was Re: [] Can Icann really be necessary?

Avri Doria avri at ella.com
Mon Jun 27 11:09:30 EDT 2011

On 27 Jun 2011, at 09:34, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:

> Hi, Avri Thanks you for your support.

Support? You are welcome, but I do not know what support I have offered.

> 1.    First of all, would you please select the any subject proposed in my previous email or any other topic to replace the current one, as our discussion is relating to give benefit to Developing Economies, Reduction of Overall Cost (incl fee) for non-Commercial applicants as well as non-commercial namespace.
> >In all seriousness - to the extent that is possible after a flight from Singapore, as a member of the JAS WG which is trying to get the fees lowered for qualified applicants from developing economies and to get other assistance since the application fee is, as you indicated, just the tip of iceberg,  I would appreciate assistance and comment from the IGC community.
> 2.    Would you please share the information / basis of the following fee structure defined or proposed by JAS WG?
> a.    Applicants must be capable of contributing $45,000 towards ICANN's application fee, unless ICANN waives, or lowers application fees.
> b.    the applicant must be capable of contributing a quarter of the scheduled fee.
> c.    Applicants must be capable of contributing $45,000 towards registry operational costs, if the applicant proposes to operate its own registry platform
> e.      Waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report) the Program Development Costs (US$26,000)
>        	  Q:           {is it reduced cost, or after reduction? Or the cost which is proposed to be waived off}

The Development and Contingency fees were recommend for waiver.  There was also an open question of whether any of the100 KUSD the ICANN new gTLD Budget says will be spent on direct applications costs can be waived.

> f.       Lower risk/contingency cost (US$60,000)
> g.      Review Base cost (US$100,000) to see if reduction can be made
> Q:	{And Finally, the figure of 76% and capability of $45,000 came from where? Is it any estimation of by JSA WG that a standard organization from developing economies has surplus budget about this? to invest for the Internet Community welfare scheme like participation of new gTLDs?}

The Joint Advisory Group & Supporting organization Working Group on support for gTLD applicants from developing economies (JAS WG) had recommended 2 fee reductions in the first milestone report (MR1):
- removal of the development cost ($26KUSD) for all qualified applicants
- removal of the contingency fund cost ($60KUSD) for all qualified applicants
- The MR1 also recommended that all applicants had to produce some percentage of the application fee in order to show that there was some investment from the local community
- the Government Advisory Group has recommended the 76% figure.  Of $186KUSD, this is approx $44.6KUSD, ergo $45KUSD.

So that gap between the GAC recommendation for fee reduction (186-45=141KUSD) is greater than the current JAS recommendation by (141-66=75KUSD).  This still needs a recommendation in the FInal Recommendation that the JAS WG is currently working on.

Whether this is an Internet Community Welfare Scheme (ICWS), as you call it,  is an evaluation I leave to you, but the ICWS meme is a cool piece of rhetoric and I love cool rhetoric.

As for studies of the 'surplus budget' capacity of developing economies, I do not think any were done.  I assume each of the GAC members has some idea of what is possible in their countries and they are the ones recommending the reduction levels.  They were requesting a 100% reduction for the Least Developed Countries, but I think they may have dropped this requirement.  I don't think that the JAS WG can't really require more than even the GAC would require.

>  P.S. Hopefully the next communication would be with the new subject.

You can change subject lines anytime you want.  You don't need anyone's permission of for anyone else to do it.  Just do it, if you feel it needs to be done.  People who are tracking on subject may miss your email, but it is a choice that remains to the individual email sender.  As far as I know the IGC has no rules anywhere of email subject lines (except maybe the principles of netiquette)

> Thanks
> Imran Ahmed Shah
> From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
> To: IGC <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Sent: Sun, 26 June, 2011 4:35:17
> Subject: Re: [governance] Can Icann really be necessary?
> On 25 Jun 2011, at 14:25, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:

Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock!

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:

For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list