Policy Issue: Continuing Operations Instrument in the Applicant Guidebook

[Nicolas Adam]

RySG's proposal is the flat 50k?

seems "neither holistic nor prudent" to me.

Nicolas

#######
PS
Some crazy thoughts:


How about ICANN sets-up the infrastructure needed to support registry
failures -- perhaps by running, /itself/, 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.

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.

Just thinking out loud.

On 08/09/2011 1:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110908/e9c4b9fd/attachment-0001.html>