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 will be glad to volunteer as council liaison.

Rafik

2010/3/24 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  Thanks Rafik.  I will send it to you shortly.
>
> One more question: Would you also be willing to serve as the Council
> Liaison for this WG?
>
> Chuck
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:28 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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
>
>  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
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>