ICANN Responds to GAC

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I have no real issue with the GAC being able to object without paying a fee as long the applicant does not have to pay a  fee to respond to the objections.

The application fee is so obscenely high and padded with a fortune in 'insurance' against possible litigation (i guess close to 100K or the 185K ) that I think the program in general can cover the fees for the making of and responding to Government objections and still be well within the guideline to be cost neutral to ICANN.  In fact I think ICANN is going to have to work had to have the program be cost neutral as opposed to profitable.

a.

On 6 Mar 2011, at 20:54, Andrew A. Adams wrote:

> It really does strike me as utterly bizarre that GAC is suggesting that 
> governments not be liable to pay any fees when they raise an objection to a 
> gTLD proposal. There are costs involved in the processing of such objections 
> and while efforts need to be made to try and ensure that objection fees are 
> not ridiculous (as I believe the fees proposed for arranging a new gTLD 
> already are) the claim that governments should be able to object across the 
> board and not pay any of the costs of of ICANN in processing such objections 
> seems very strange.
> 
> -- 
> Professor Andrew A Adams                      aaa at meiji.ac.jp
> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/