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

[Terry L Davis <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Debbie

I would hope that we can separate "non-profit service orgs" from
"dis-advantaged".  I believe they represent two entirely different needs and 
thus
unfortunately probably two different application processes.

That said, this was my first concern!  How do we catagorize "dis-advantaged"
orgs.  If we can figure this out such that the "non-profit purely international
service orgs" are not lumped into "dis-advantaged" I think that is the correct
way forward.

Take care
Terry

On Tue Mar 23 12:53 ,  sent:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Tim,
>
>Â 
>
>I am sorry to hear that you think discussion
>of a processes related to non-profit gTLDs is not â??urgent.â?? Â 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. Â I would hope many may come to understand that there are â??urgentâ??
>and important non-commercial uses for new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian,
>educational and philanthropic activity is very meaningful to communities
>worldwide. 
>
>Â 
>
>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.
>
>Â 
>
>Debbie
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>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>;
>St�©phane 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
>
>
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>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.
>
>Â 
>
>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.
>
>Â 
>
>Chuck
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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? 
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>
>
>Rafik
>
>
>
>2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up
>with some good ideas.
>
>Â 
>
>Chuck
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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? 
>
>
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>
>
>@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)
>
>
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>
>
>Regards
>
>
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>
>
>Rafik
>
>
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>I don't think anyone believes that the costs to run every registry is
>the same. Â Some have higher security needs than others. Â Some need a
>more global infrastructure than others. Â Some have lower costs in their
>region and in other places in the world. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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. Â  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. Â  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
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Â 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>