<<<
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: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'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
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:45:46 -0400
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <bbd2a2cd1003220951x2afdf3c5k7e03c679ad60d7c5@mail.gmail.com> <03c101caca08$1c13f6e0$543be4a0$@ru>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Adrian,
NEED is a rather loaded term. WANTS, COULD
BENEFIT FROM, ASPIRES TO each may describe a particular situation better.
I have spent a good part of the last decade in
discussions about why developing countries *need*
state-of-the-art communications and technologies
and technologists when many within their
populations also *nned* food and health care and
education. More to the point, why should other
countries help pay for these in lieu of food/medicine/schools.
The answer revolves around the need to developing
countries to participate in the global economy
(and yes, the Internet). If we cannot come up
with examples of TLDs that stick out as "really
good things" that can attract support, perhaps
you are right and they don't "need" them. But I
suspect that there will be examples, particularly
IDNs, where the case will be a lot easier to make.
Alan
At 22/03/2010 07:23 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
Great points Andrei.
However, I am still at a loss to understand why
everyone NEEDS TLDâ??s. Heck, I am struggling to
understand why everyone NEEDS a domain name even.
You can certainly use the internet without one.
If the argument came down to better
infrastructure with which to access the internet
and lowers barrier to entry to the new gTLD
program I am fairly sure (in my uneducated
opinion) that folks would choose the former.
On a local level there are folks within my
community that cannot afford a domain name. $10
is far too much for them to participate. Should
we as a community be looking to serve these
folks from a new gTLD point of view?
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov
Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:39 AM
To: 'Rafik Dammak'; '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
Rafik, guys,
I donâ??t support the idea of application fee
vary by â??sort of applicantâ?? ? whatever it
is: economy, nation, planeet, city or non
commercial foundation. Because this situation is
bi-directional: either initial application price
tag is too high, or ICANN discounts the idea of
â??quality applicantsâ?? and steps back for
political reasons in attempt to look better.
Some of us got experience of running the
infrastructure services for many years, some
runs registrar or registration services. Itâ??s
not that weâ??re better than others. Let me
recall a very practical thing, some of our
council members must remember the process. We
just submitted the IANA application for IDN
ccTLD delegation. And we took this project
seriously ? rrun it as due-diligence to see and
submit what we have in place after significant
legal, technical and operational upgrade. This
is very serious - weâ??ve got a lot of things in
place and technology is a good part of it.
Businesses, families, social and civil services
- the whole economies depend on this
infrastructure. The worth thing â?? the
neighborhood depends on how good and stable it is operated.
But there must be a solution. This came in my
discussion with Debbie - I personally like the
idea of subsidizing developing communities or
non commercial companies where mature TLDs (g
and cc) taking care of technical infrastructure,
fund the application expense and provide
operational support. Adding new TLD into well
developed technical and business infrastructure adds a fraction of cost.
And if there are multiple sponsors and multiple
recipients, we can reach a certain balance.
The good thing about it - the sponsorship is a
natural thing which requires no new regulations,
PDP, WGs, etc. If there are enough sponsors, we
can pick up some long waiting gTLD projects very
fast. However, wouldnâ??t it be really cool if
ICANN gives a green light to the first gTLDs of global humanitarian services?
All best,
--andrei
--
Andrei Kolesnikov
Coordination Center for TLD .RU
Director
http://cctld.ru
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:52 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 <<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>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: <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> <mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM
> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.;
<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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."
<<mailto:tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53
> To: 'St phane Van
Gelder'<<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>;
> 'Bruce
Tonkin'<<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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: <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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
>>>
|