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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Bill

On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Olga Cavalli wrote:

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