<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
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
- To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>, <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- 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
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:29:35 -0400
- Cc: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>, <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3E335B8D35@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <bbd2a2cd1003220951x2afdf3c5k7e03c679ad60d7c5@mail.gmail.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07032730D9@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <bbd2a2cd1003221757s507e3d89r3e1626d8a081039e@mail.gmail.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070327312A@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <397999878-1269356127-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-260617213-@bda2472.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <05D21F5556C6714F96C8A4668CB204DB0211D277@RCOEVSCHI003.archq.ri.redcross.net> <bccbb21a1003231324j73dd1e1cx2c102fa27af3a796@mail.gmail.com> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3E335B8D35@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcrKxvRclXgC4ucJTNKve7/eeXxT0QAAuAgwAAOIiVA=
- Thread-topic: [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
I don't see anything in the Board motion that suggests a fast track. I also
don't believe there is any intent to come up with anything that would cause
delays.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:52 PM
To: Olga Cavalli; HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx; tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx;
Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx
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
My reading of Tim's email is that non-profit gTLD's et al are already
catered for in the new gTLD Process as it stands and that there should be no
need, at this late stage, to provide a carve out or fast track especially for
those groups.
I think we all understand the importance and relevance of humanitarian
efforts. That is why they are catered for within the DAG as it stands.
I agree with Tim, if my reading is correct, that delays caused by this
late consideration are not helpful nor desirable.
Finally I wouldn't want this motion to centre on 'non-profits' alone.
There are many non-profits that would scoff at only having to pay $185k fee to
apply (it may help them keep their ability to not declare a profit after allJ).
Tim, sorry if I misrepresented your point.
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:25 AM
To: HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx; tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx;
Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx
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,
I support Debbie´s comments.
regards
Olga
2010/3/23 <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tim,
I am sorry to hear that you think discussion of a processes related to
non-profit gTLDs is not "urgent." I certainly understand the concern shared by
many related to ICANN staff and Councilors limited resources and timing;
however, I think we do ICANN a disservice by discrediting the importance
non-commercial use new gTLDs and minimizing the voice of certain stakeholders
based on the lack of commercialization of new gTLDs. I would hope many may
come to understand that there are "urgent" and important non-commercial uses
for new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian, educational and philanthropic
activity is very meaningful to communities worldwide.
I hope there is a way to get this process right without delay. Delay
helps no one. However, dismissing groups as suggested below for the sake of
speed is very disconcerting.
Debbie
Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel
American Red Cross
Office of the General Counsel
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 303-5356
Fax: (202) 303-0143
HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:57 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rafik Dammak
Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO
Council; Margie Milam
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
Does this need to be in place for the first round? I would find it hard
to support assistance for any applicant wanting to apply for a commercially
viable gTLD for profit. So if this would apply mainly to non-profit community
types it seems it isn't urgent.
I'd hate to have another fasttrack process going where we don't have
time to really work out the best solution.
Tim
________________________________
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400
To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.<tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane Van
Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; Bruce
Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; GNSO Council<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Margie Milam<Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
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
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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|