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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not getting into the rest of this debate, but I don't see how anyone could 
argue that this particular point that Tim is making here is unfounded.

Stéphane

Le 24 mars 2010 à 15:26, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

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