ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>