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>]

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
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >