<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
RySG's proposal is the flat 50k?<br>
<br>
seems "<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"
lang="EN-US">neither
holistic nor prudent" to me.</span><br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
#######<br>
PS<br>
Some crazy thoughts:<br>
<br>
<br>
How about ICANN sets-up the infrastructure needed to support
registry failures ― perhaps by running, <i>itself</i>, a newTLD
like .innov (as a non-profit, of course) ― and then split the cost
of registry operation (coro) + [anticipated infrastructure expansion
to support large scale failures] on all registry. Split it based on
their previous year DUM which make all registry assume their own
risk - minus a year's expansion. No need to keep collecting more
money than would be needed to support x% of failure (how about 40%).
Contribution should decrease with .innov's growth b/c coro cost goes
down. <br>
<br>
This would protect registrant from risks of failure, eliminate
barriers to entry (b/c of progressive contribution depending on
achieved size, not projected size), and would prevent DUM gaming.
Established registry should contribute. ICANN's .innov could also
serve as a R&D department. <br>
<br>
Just thinking out loud.<br>
<br>
On 08/09/2011 1:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:01DBE269-B2DF-4CD7-BE71-F2976B1D5511@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Apologies for breaking into the election process with a policy issue.
David Maher, Chair of the RySG, has asked me to see if there is NCSG support for their recommendations concerning the creation of an alternative mechanism for the Continuing Operations instrument to create an escrow account as opposed to having each new registry to cover this independently. Their proposal is explained in the attachment.
Within the JAS WG, several of us argued that something like this should be instituted for JAS qualified applicants. I have told David that I support it in my personal capacity, but that - of course - I could not speak either for the NCSG or for either of its constituencies.
As ever it is up to each of the constituencies to decide for themselves if they support this. And if both constituencies can support it, up to the Policy Committee with the advice of the community to decide whether to make it an NCSG position. I beleive they intend to present this to the Board with a request for consideration. I do not have a deadline for this, but will check. In the meantime I wanted to get the ball rolling.
thanks
avri
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>