<<<
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 Meeti
I think that we are having the wrong argument
here. For over three years, every time that the
issue of preferential prices for developing
countries (or other disadvantaged groups) was
raised, that answer was that ICANN would consider
it in the next round and not the initial new gTLD application process.
The answer had some rationale behind it,
including the lack of clarity on what the "right"
price should be, the worry about gaming, and the
veiled hope that auctions in the first round
might make funding available for preferred pricing in the next round.
All of that being said, the reaction of those
from developing countries to the official party
line (that is, wait until next time) was often:
- it was taken as staff stone-walling;
- ICANN (ie staff) did not really understand;
- ICANN did not care.
This Board resolution, as vague as it is, sends a
very different message. The Board cares and
understands. Perhaps if money was more readily
available this year, the message might have been
even more encouraging, but that is not the case.
But in my mind the important message is that the
Board has send a very different message from what
we have been hearing from staff for several years.
I don't know whether we can translate the motion
into action that will really help in the coming
application round, but we can try.
Alan
At 21/03/2010 10:32 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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: '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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|