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 Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Andrei,

I am not sure why and how you can talk about "quality applicants", for
pricing and fees it is legitimate to ask why such high pricing and should be
discussed. the fear is that is only a way to keep the status quo and limit
the market to known entities.
the IDN ccTLD is good example but I am not sure that there is a fee for the
fast track process?http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/ . we
shouldn't also be worried for the technical and operational side as many of
those countries were preparing for long time to have IDNs.

well, I don't see in the language in the board resolution any mention that
ICANN will subsidize applicants. my understanding is that the community
should be original to find other entities (let's say World bank or
international development agencies) to help and
support prospective applicants from developing countries and
other approaches too in addition to that. don't worry ICANN will still make
profits.

your idea of "mature" g and cc TLD taking care of everything may interest
some but not all. it is not sustainable and there is real desire and willing
to be independent.

anyway, there are two problems : the fees costs and operations cost as
defined by the staff. both can be fairly discussed and there are many ways
to discuss them without lowering any standards or requirements for stability
and security etc etc.

for communities looking for development and progress, humanitarian services
aren't the response and just look as aid and assistance.  don't alienate
people.

Regards

Rafik

2010/3/23 Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei@xxxxxxxx>

>  Rafik, guys,
>
>
>
> I don’t support the idea of application fee vary by “sort of applicant” –
> whatever it is: economy, nation, planet, 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 “quality applicants” 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. It’s not that we’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 – run it as due-diligence to
> see and submit what we have in place after significant legal, technical and
> operational upgrade. This is very serious - we’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 – 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, wouldn’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 <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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>