i apologize if mistake in using the new acronyms refers instead to diseases of passion......
I agree with Michael the strategic positioning of request for comments in the "March" section, and not in the "NEW" section, the seems like the same old game......also public forum on criteria is not part of agenda.... maybe new CEO can set blackout of new posting to ICANN site for public commnet in the 48 hours before a meeting.
I have submitted the follwing comments to the ICANN thread and will submit it here also in case it doesnt get published by ICANN due to time contraints, which they brought upon themselves.
The welcome date on the public thread is March 21, as if anyone knew about the darn thing until it was published... yet it still seems like it was open before people left for Rio... which is wasnt.
anyway, enough whinning. heres my comments on fairer fees and staff access
In an effort to more equitable apply the fees collected to the cost of evaluating the new sponsored TLD's, i beleive the community can learn from the first "Lottery" in 2000.
The Lottery aspects occurred when the costs of evaluating, negotiating and "examining after the fact" were lumped together an charged to the application fees of all applicants.
In this manner, the fees of those rejected were used to pay the expenses of the select few that were approved...creating a subsidy for the winners.
I propose the board examine a possibly fairer treatment where the cost of evaluating alone is covered by the initial fee and only accepted applicants pay the total costs of negotiating final agreements, pre relaease ICANN allocated expenses, and the costs of a continual evaluation of this second stage process.
In essence, there would be a separate allocation of post selection expenses paid by those groups who are to receive the new STLD's. Those accepted will already have to start paying their fixed allocations of the ICANN budget before launch. The additional costs ICANN incurs to reach final agreements should be paid by those who directly benefit.
Secondly, I would ask the board to consider a partial refund of fees, to those groups whose applications are denied "at first glance" because of a failure, possibly in the minds of the evaluation teams based on interpretation, to reach a minimum aspects of the criteria.
Perhaps, if this automatically rejected applicants fee refund does not take place, the ICANN or evaluation staff should be available for a sort of pre-review where groups could gain a clearer understanding of the possible prima facie rejections of applications before spending time and money to never make it pass the first day's evaluation.
I submit these two additions to the criteria in an effort to provide a more equitable and less contest/lottery process.