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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A motion is being prepared for GNSO Council action on 1 April.  The ALAC also 
has this on their agenda today.  The motion will likely task the WG with first 
developing a charter that would need to be approved by the participating SO's 
and AC's.
 
Rafik - would you like to make the motion?  Margie is preparing a draft motion; 
once I have it, I would be happy to send it to you so you can make it.  The 
deadline for motions is tomorrow, 24 March.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:57 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
        
        
        yes definitely. what is the process for starting this joint-wg? 

        Rafik
        
        
        2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
        

                Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good ideas.
                 
                Chuck


________________________________

                        From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
                        Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:52 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
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >