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>]

Thanks Chuck, I would like to make the motion and to receive the draft
motion which will be prepared by Margie.

Rafik


2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  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
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>