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>]

yes definitely. what is the process for starting this joint-wg?

Rafik

2010/3/23 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
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>