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

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My reading of Tim's email is that non-profit gTLD's et al are already catered 
for in the new gTLD Process as it stands and that there should be no need, at 
this late stage, to provide a carve out or fast track especially for those 
groups.

I think we all understand the importance and relevance of humanitarian efforts. 
That is why they are catered for within the DAG as it stands.

I agree with Tim, if my reading is correct, that delays caused by this late 
consideration are not helpful nor desirable.

Finally I wouldn't want this motion to centre on 'non-profits' alone. There are 
many non-profits that would scoff at only having to pay $185k fee to apply (it 
may help them keep their ability to not declare a profit after all:)).

Tim, sorry if I misrepresented your point.



Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:25 AM
To: HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx; tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; 
Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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

Hi,
I support Debbie´s comments.
regards
Olga
2010/3/23 <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On 
Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:57 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400
To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.<tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; Stéphane 
Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>; 
Bruce 
Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>;
 GNSO Council<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; Margie 
Milam<Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:57 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; 
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good ideas.

Chuck

________________________________
From: Rafik Dammak 
[mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:52 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; 
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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>
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On 
> Behalf Of
> rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM
> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; 
> owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53
> To: 'St phane Van 
> Gelder'<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>;
> 'Bruce 
> Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>
> [mailto: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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>