RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Terry,

I am dead against a "gated process" at this late stage. If the GNSO Council 
wanted that it should have considered them in the original recommendations.

We are close enough now where staff have made the appropriate contingencies to 
handle the projected volume as described by Kurt in Nairobi. Changing this now 
(like the EOI process) will create more problems than it solves. I do not even 
consider that we debate it.

This approach would therefore encompass NOT allowing for "disadvantaged" 
applicants to be carved out - which I am lead to believe is NOT the purpose nor 
one of the possible outcomes of the Support WG anyway.

Thanks.

Adrian Kinderis



From: Terry L Davis, P.E. [mailto:tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2010 1:46 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis; 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Rafik Dammak'
Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'GNSO Council'
Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD 
APPLICANT SUPPORT

Council

I'm going to be a bit cross-wise here.

To be honest, I'd rather see us working on a "gated process" to begin moving 
TLD applications forward, even if it is only going to be 1 or 2 per month.  
Until we start accepting and processing the TLD applications, we have no real 
idea what requirements for staff and the associated timelines will be.  Getting 
the application process moving seems key to me...

Working on yet another set of processes that will take considerable time to 
sort out for "dis-advantage" (meaning is open to me anyway) applicants would 
only seem to add to the initial opening of the TLD process.  ??

Just my thoughts, please feel free to return other options/opinions; I'm very 
interested in hearing them.

Take care
Terry

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:25 PM
To: Olga Cavalli
Cc: Rafik Dammak; Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD 
APPLICANT SUPPORT

I am not sure that helps the discussion.

It is frustrating as a councillor and professional with limited time to have to 
keep poking...

Can you please elaborate as to why this is not a friendly amendment.

Adrian Kinderis


From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2010 12:21 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Rafik Dammak; Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD 
APPLICANT SUPPORT

Hi,
I do not see it as a friendly amendment.
Regards
Olga
2010/3/30 Adrian Kinderis 
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Olga?

Do you see this as a friendly amendment?

Adrian Kinderis


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On 
Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2010 3:33 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD 
APPLICANT SUPPORT

Hello,

unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment.

Regards

Rafik
2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>

Rafik/Olga,

Do you accept this as a friendly amendment?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On 
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:20 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING
> GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
>
>
> Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look
> for funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to
> possibly resolve this concern, I would like to make that
> evident in the motion and propose this friendly amendment:
>
> Add the following to the first Resolve:
>
> keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of
> new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs
>
> So the first Resolve would read:
>
> Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a
> joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request
> by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to
> new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and
> operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to
> recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going
> services to new gTLDs;
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP
> ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Council 
> GNSO
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>
> Hello,
>
> I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council
> working group on new gTLD applicant support the motion
> document is attached.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
>