RE: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of discussion on application fees in Amsterdam

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

Thank you very much Mawaki for the detailed response to my questions.  I
personally believe that you make some extremely valid points that are
consistent with the RyC positions communicated in our input to the
process.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:29 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of 
> discussion on application fees in Amsterdam
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> my responses in line below.
> 
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Gomes: Mawaki - What do you mean by "should not be held against
> > them"?
> > If you mean that the fact that extra costs to evaluate their
> > application
> > because of legal and/or language issues should not be used in any
> > negative way to evaluate their application, I would agree with you.
> >  But
> > if you mean that they should not have to bear the extra costs,
> 
> I mean both, actually. I'm glad to see we are totally in agreement on
> this first part.
> 
>  
> > then that
> > raises an additional question: who should bear the costs?  The RyC
> > has
> > communicated that its members do no believe that any applicants
> > should
> > have to subsidize application costs for other applicants.  Do you
> > agree
> > or disagree with this position of the RyC? If you agree, 
> 
> Yes, my turn to agree with you (and the RyC) here.
> 
> 
> > then are you
> > suggesting that ICANN should charge the extra costs to such
> > applicants
> > or that ICANN should find funds elwewhere in its budget to cover
> > the
> > extra costs?
> >  
> 
> The latter, and let me clarify again. What I'm saying is the whole
> ICANN as the Internet coordination and governance (or some say
> regulatory) body could try to secure resources to make these
> processes as even as possible to all potential players. Or to work
> harder, and with good will, towards equal real chances (as much as
> possible, I know it's never perfect) of market entry for those
> potential players. It clearly has a benefit as well as a cost, either
> symbolic, material or both, to be the authority that everybody in the
> industry looks at and often relies on, at one level or the other. We,
> as ICANN, need to accept to bear that cost toward the whole
> community, and it may have different flavors depending on the
> specificties of the various groups of participants, the regions,
> their top issues and priorities, etc. in connection with ICANN
> business.
> 
> To exemplify, let me take the case of a developing Non-English
> speaking country (and there are many, so I'm virtually talking of
> regions size-wise). We need to realize that it already has a cost,
> rather enorm, for them that this whole business is conducted in a
> language that is not theirs. For many, this will result, among other
> things, in 8, 10 or more years lagging behind and even locked out of
> the business. Their poor institutional and economic development
> doesn't help either, of course, and that's not ICANN's fault. But the
> result is that it is again those who have less who still get less,
> falling deeper behind, while paying the same market price as every
> one if not more because of their poor organization (access,
> international bandwidth and interconnections, etc.) 
> 
> So are we going to tell them, not only they have to pay the same fees
> (in absolute value) that is required from their counterparts from
> markets and economies much much more developed than theirs where the
> relative value of those fees are unbearable, not only that, but also
> they will need to hire lawyers with international competence to
> translate the legal and contractual instruments as well as prepare
> their application to ICANN in English before they have one slight
> chance to compete? We in fact don't need to utter or write a word; by
> just choosing not to address this issue, we may be meaning that in
> the eyes of people who are concerned, and in the long run (meaning
> right now, already) the result is the same.
> 
> Thanks Chuck for asking, and thank you all for your attention; sorry
> for the lengthy posting... it's been some time, eh?
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> 
> 
>