Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian's points make a lot of sense. So do Andrei's.

Stéphane

Le 23 mars 2010 à 00:23, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :

> Great points Andrei.
>  
> However, I am still at a loss to understand why everyone NEEDS TLD’s. Heck, I 
> am struggling to understand why everyone NEEDS a domain name even.
>  
> You can certainly use the internet without one.
>  
> If the argument came down to better infrastructure with which to access the 
> internet and lowers barrier to entry to the new gTLD program I am fairly sure 
> (in my uneducated opinion) that folks would choose the former.
>  
> On a local level there are folks within my community that cannot afford a 
> domain name. $10 is far too much for them to participate. Should we as a 
> community be looking to serve these folks from a new gTLD point of view?
>  
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:39 AM
> To: 'Rafik Dammak'; 'Gomes, Chuck'
> Cc: 'Terry L Davis, P.E.'; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Stéphane Van 
> Gelder'; Bruce Tonkin; 'GNSO Council'
> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to 
> develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring 
> assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN 
> Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi
>  
> Rafik, guys,
>  
> I don’t support the idea of application fee vary by “sort of applicant” – 
> whatever it is: economy, nation, planet, city or non commercial foundation. 
> Because this situation is bi-directional: either initial application price 
> tag is too high, or ICANN discounts the idea of “quality applicants” and 
> steps back for political reasons in attempt to look better. Some of us got 
> experience of running the infrastructure services for many years, some runs 
> registrar or registration services. It’s not that we’re better than others. 
> Let me recall a very practical thing, some of our council members must 
> remember the process. We just submitted the IANA application for IDN ccTLD 
> delegation. And we took this project seriously – run it as due-diligence to 
> see and submit what we have in place after significant legal, technical and 
> operational upgrade. This is very serious - we’ve got a lot of things in 
> place and technology is a good part of it. Businesses, families, social and 
> civil services - the whole economies depend on this infrastructure. The worth 
> thing – the neighborhood depends on how good and stable it is operated.
> But there must be a solution. This came in my discussion with Debbie - I 
> personally like the idea of subsidizing developing communities or non 
> commercial companies  where mature TLDs (g and cc) taking care of technical 
> infrastructure, fund the application expense and provide operational support. 
> Adding new TLD into well developed technical and business infrastructure adds 
> a fraction of cost.
> And if there are multiple sponsors and multiple recipients, we can reach a 
> certain balance.
> The good thing about it  - the sponsorship is a natural thing which requires 
> no new regulations, PDP, WGs, etc. If there are enough sponsors, we can pick 
> up some long waiting gTLD projects very fast. However, wouldn’t it be really 
> cool if ICANN gives a green light to the first gTLDs of global humanitarian 
> services?
>  
> All best,
>  
> --andrei
>  
> --
> Andrei Kolesnikov
> Coordination Center for TLD .RU
> Director
> http://cctld.ru
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:52 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stéphane Van Gelder; 
> Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to 
> develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring 
> assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN 
> Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi
>  
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> I am concerned that the only explanation that we can hear is "staff said" or 
> "staff stated" or "staff explained" or "staff decided". I understand for the 
> need for support form the staff but for GNSO council, there are still rooms 
> to have its own vision and making decision independently from staff reports? 
>  
> @Alan yes the feeling is that ICANN is not listening to people from 
> developing countries and get more worse when ICANN "would like" ccTLD from 
> African region to participate with 3% (Idea suggested by Rod) or also to hear 
> the "technical support" which will be provided by the proposed DNS-CERT (it 
> is really offending and just overlapping with tasks done by regional 
> organizations)
>  
> Regards
>  
> Rafik
>  
> 2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I don't think anyone believes that the costs to run every registry is the 
> same.  Some have higher security needs than others.  Some need a more global 
> infrastructure than others.  Some have lower costs in their region and in 
> other places in the world.  All have different business plans.
> 
> But the basic cost of evaluating an application, excluding any dispute 
> processes that may ensue, are essentially the same for all applicants except 
> in cases where the same applicant applies for multiple TLDs.  The way Staff 
> has decided to impose application fees as of now, they have already built in 
> subsidization of fees for single TLD applicants by those applying for 
> multiple TLDs.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM
> > To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Bruce Tonkin'
> > Cc: 'GNSO Council '
> > Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC -
> > GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing
> > support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for
> > and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board
> > Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti
> >
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > In my point of view, it sounds that you are wrongly using the
> > principle of equality in this case which looks more like
> > discrimination against applicants for developing regions. Why
> > you want a registry from developing regions to have the same
> > budget of registry in developed country?there are a lot of
> > way to cut costs.
> >
> > Yes, a registry in developing region can be run with respect
> > to all ICANN requirements in cheaper way than in developed country.
> > That is why I would like if possible that Bruce point to
> > documents (if they exist) explaining in details the why of
> > such requested costs for running a regisrty from ICANN
> > perspective?but also for the application fees as the
> > explanation of cost recovery remains vague and abstract.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rafik
> > BlackBerry from DOCOMO
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53
> > To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>;
> > 'Bruce Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC -
> > GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing
> > support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for
> > and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board
> > Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti
> >
> >
> > Stephane
> >
> > My feelings also.
> >
> > To me, we would have to treat all "dis-advantaged enties"
> > alike regardless
> > of their nationality as there will be many entities in every
> > country for
> > which the TLD cost is too high. My first question to any of
> > them though
> > would be to ask if the entry cost is too high, do you
> > actually have the
> > resources then to run a TLD?
> >
> > Feels more like a "tar pit" than a can of worms.
> >
> > Take care
> > Terry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of St phane Van Gelder
> > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:57 AM
> > To: Bruce Tonkin
> > Cc: GNSO Council
> > Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to
> > develop a sustainable approach to providing support to
> > applicants requiring
> > assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in
> > response to the ICANN
> > Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti
> >
> >
> > I had understood the motion to be referencing financial support.
> >
> > But to me it really doesn't look like much of a solution. If
> > the aim is to
> > help applicants with lesser means, then this motion is so
> > vague as to be
> > totally moot. If the Board really has a desire to explore the
> > possibility of
> > catering to applicants with different financial profiles, I
> > think we then
> > spill into the notion of categories of applicants that the
> > GAC has been
> > pushing for and we then open up several new cans of worms
> > that can only lead
> > to more delays.
> >
> > Just my personal five cents.
> >
> > St phane
> >
> > Le 20 mars 2010   06:41, Bruce Tonkin a  crit :
> >
> > >
> > > Hello Chuck,
> > >
> > >>
> > >> This is interesting Bruce.  I had no idea that this motion
> > was talking
> > >> about financial support;
> > >
> > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for
> > the Board to
> > > reduce the application fees for developing countries.
> > >
> > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the
> > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put
> > > forward some proposals.   It was my input (which I also
> > stated during
> > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may
> > > help, but also support in terms of resources.   I gave the
> > example that
> > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers
> > operated by
> > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bruce Tonkin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>