<<<
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
Does this need to be in place for the first round? I would find it hard to
support assistance for any applicant wanting to apply for a commercially viable
gTLD for profit. So if this would apply mainly to non-profit community types it
seems it isn't urgent.
I'd hate to have another fasttrack process going where we don't have time to
really work out the best solution.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55
To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.<tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; Bruce
Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; GNSO Council<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Margie Milam<Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
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
A motion is being prepared for GNSO Council action on 1 April. The ALAC also
has this on their agenda today. The motion will likely task the WG with first
developing a charter that would need to be approved by the participating SO's
and AC's.
Rafik - would you like to make the motion? Margie is preparing a draft motion;
once I have it, I would be happy to send it to you so you can make it. The
deadline for motions is tomorrow, 24 March.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:57 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
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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|