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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Regardless of what comes out of this discussion, there is nothing
preventing a non-profit from applying for a new gTLD in the first round.
But the costs have been established based on cost recovery. So any
applicant who is allowed to apply at below costs is asking the community
to partially fund their application. In my opinion, that should not
happen, but if it does there should be a very high bar for
qualification. Given the fund raising capabilities of the Red Cross I
don't see it hitting that bar, in my opinion.

Regardless, the GNSO has gone through a PDP on new gTLDs. An
implementation of the resultant policy is nearly complete. If we are
going to amend the policy to consider different categories of applicants
for any reason, it should go through a full PDP process, in my opinion.


Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
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
From: <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 7:37 am
To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, 
<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
<Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>

Tim,
I acknowledge your opinion -- that’s fine --and I respectfully
disagree.  I think the considerations of commercial enterprises and
non-commercial organizations should be equally considered and I believe
that conversation is important or urgent.  While some may think that not
for profit does not equal “need,” I hope others will agree not for
profit equals “important enough not be dismissed.”  
 
Although I certainly a proud employee of the American Red Cross, it is
disappointing for you to assume that the position I am advocating is
simply to benefit my own organization.  When I applied to volunteer as a
GNSO Councilor, it was to share the perspective of not for profit
organizations (many of whom I collaborate with – large and small), not
only the perspective of Red Cross.  Perhaps my perspective of my
volunteer role is very different than others on the Council and that’s
okay.  For me, to advocate simply for the benefit of Red Cross is short
sighted and contrary to the best interests of policy development.   
 
Happy to talk about this more offline.
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: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:40 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx;
Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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

 
With all due respect, new gTLDs will not solve any urgent problem for
anyone. And I do not consider the Red Cross as an organization that
needs help with the cost of applying. Non-profit does not automatically
translate into "need." 

Tim

From: <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:53:20 -0400

To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>

Cc: <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>;
<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <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

 

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