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

[rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]

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: 'Stphane 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 Stphane 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.

Stphane

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
> 
> 
>