<<<
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: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak@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
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:02:03 -0400
- Cc: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <397999878-1269356127-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-260617213-@bda2472.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <bbd2a2cd1003220951x2afdf3c5k7e03c679ad60d7c5@mail.gmail.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07032730D9@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <bbd2a2cd1003221757s507e3d89r3e1626d8a081039e@mail.gmail.com><046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF070327312A@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <397999878-1269356127-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-260617213-@bda2472.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcrKmOYl9UUpN2lUS0eCAEggboBgdAAAMISw
- Thread-topic: [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
The Board motion was extremely vague but I have been assuming that the intent
was to have something in place for the first round if possible. Whether it is
possible or not remains to be seen.
Chuck
________________________________
From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:57 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rafik Dammak
Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO
Council; Margie Milam
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
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
________________________________
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400
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
>>>
|