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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
I support Debbie´s comments.
regards
Olga

2010/3/23 <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  Tim,
>
>
>
> I am sorry to hear that you think discussion of a processes related to
> non-profit gTLDs is not “urgent.”  I certainly understand the concern shared
> by many related to ICANN staff and Councilors limited  resources and timing;
> however, I think we do ICANN a disservice by discrediting the importance
> non-commercial use new gTLDs and minimizing the voice of certain
> stakeholders based on the lack of commercialization of new gTLDs.  I would
> hope many may come to understand that there are “urgent” and important
> non-commercial uses for new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian, educational
> and philanthropic activity is very meaningful to communities worldwide.
>
>
>
> I hope there is a way to get this process right without delay.  Delay helps
> no one.  However, dismissing groups as suggested below for the sake of speed
> is very disconcerting.
>
>
>
> Debbie
>
>
>
> *Debra Y. Hughes** l** Senior Counsel*
> *American Red Cross*
>
> Office of the General Counsel
> 2025 E Street, NW
> Washington, D.C. 20006
> Phone: (202) 303-5356
> Fax: (202) 303-0143
> HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>