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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think that the Board was suggesting that any applicant pay reduced fees 
or that the process be changed in anyway. Rather, I believe that the idea was 
for those interested in the community to collaborate to see if there are ways 
that funding assistance could be provided for potential qualified applicants 
from the community.  For example, is there possibly a foundation that would be 
interested in providing financial assistance to worthy applicants from 
developing countries/territories or from charitable organizations that have 
limited resources and could possible serve a valuable public service.

The general idea actually goes way back to the new gTLD PDP itself. We 
discussed this and suggested in the final report that Staff consider possible 
ways that this could be dealt with.  Staff decided that the complexity of doing 
this made it difficult to handle in the first round and therefore deferred it 
to later rounds.  In the meantime, there have been ongoing concerns expressed 
in public comments because of the high fees.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:43 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz; Rafik Dammak
> Cc: HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; 
> Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck
> 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
> 
> I tend to agree with Tim on that point and I think it is an 
> absolute minefield.
> 
> If, on the other hand, we are talking about knowledge 
> sharing, educational workshops, staff secondments etc etc, 
> that's different and there are probably a host of such 
> options that could be considered. 
> 
> I think it would be useful to hear from where this idea 
> emanated - have there been requests from potential applicants 
> to date and if so, what are the nature of these requests? I 
> imagine that would be one of the first tasks for the WG. 
> 
> Caroline.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: 24 March 2010 14:27
> To: Rafik Dammak
> Cc: HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; 
> Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
> 
> 
> If any applicant pays less than cost they are indirectly 
> asking the community to partially fund them. ICANN's funds 
> come from the community in the form of various fees imposed 
> through registries and registrars and through donations to a 
> lesser degree. It may be noble to advocate or consider giving 
> certain applicants an opportunity to apply below costs, but 
> it will not be as easy as some may think to figure out how we 
> determine who should or shouldn't get such consideration.
> 
> 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: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:05 am
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, 
> stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx, 
> Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 
> Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx, owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 
> cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Tim,
> 
> where did you see any mention that applicants asking 
> community to partially fund them?
> when Debbie is talking about non-profit applicants like 
> foundations, NGO, philanthropy, it doesn't mean that she is 
> talking about Redcross, she is advocating for all those 
> prospective non profits applicants which community can help 
> them through developing a sustainable approach to provide support.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> Rafik
>  
> 2010/3/24 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>