Danny, 
following up on my previous post, below are the changes I suggested to the  new gTLD policy interim oucome. as you can see, they are rather "development" oriented. I believe they have been taken into account for the next iteration of the report.

Mawaki 

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]>
To: Liz Williams <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: Bruce Tonkin <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2006 7:07:07 PM
Subject: Re: [offlist]    Outcome of discussion on application fees in Amsterdam

Liz,

Below is the my adds inline of the original outcome posted by Bruce,
thanks, Mawaki.

==== Below excerpts of initial post to the GNSO Council list on Aug 31, 2006 ====

Dear colleagues,

I'd like to suggest below two additions (paragraphs 5 [new] and 8) 
to the outcome to this discussion. <snip>

N.B. Some of the language is taken from .berlin public comment.
The recommendation is not that ICANN will necessarily need to
implement all the options put forward, but that ICANN takes heed of
the issue and consider the proposed options and, possibly, explore
some others it may think of.


--- Bruce Tonkin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

<snip> 
> 
> 1. Principle - that ICANN recovers its costs of evaluation from the
> application fees
> 
> 2. That the fee will be set at the start of the process.
> 
> 3. Some applications may cost different amounts to evaluate.  
> Therefore
> there maybe different fees depending on the type of application.
> 
> 4. It is possible that applicants could pay different amounts
> depending
> on what stage in the process the application reaches.

5. It should also be noted that the possible extra-costs that may
result from the differences in the applicants' working languages as
well as legal systems (as opposed to a specific dominant language and
legal system) should not be held against them, and be left to the
expense to the concerned communities. After all, the Internet is and
must remain a global facility both from the user and demand side and
from the operation and supply side.
> 
> 6. ICANN should have a system of grants for applicants that would
> find
> cost recovery a barrier to entry.   This grant would only allow the
> applicant to apply, without any presumption that the application
> would
> be successful.   Grant applications would go through an evaluation
> process.
> 
> 7. ICANN should evaluate options for funding the grants.

8. In addition to considering the grant options, other options for
ICANN to address the same concern may include, but not limited to: 

-    Organizing periodic awareness and training workshops for interested
stakeholders on the issues of gTLD operation, with the possible
cooperation of relevant global and regional entities or fora;
-    reducing avoidable indirect costs incurred by the applicant
(including shorter and more predictable approval process with fixed
and reliable timelines, standardized contracts, public pre-evaluation
hearings of applications);
-    providing assistance during, and reporting with recommendations at
the end of, the pre-evaluation hearings.