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

["Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian
 
I don't think we are in major disagreement.  
 
I wasn't online for Nairobi and haven't reviewed Kurt's presentation.  A
gated process was one option to jump-start TLD registration.   If they can
handle the volume they expect, then we need to continue on that path; my
impressions from Seoul and between was that they really didn't know what
volume they could process reasonably thus I continued to look at the option
for a gated process to start the TLDs.
 
I just want to see some way for us to start accepting and processing
applications as soon as possible.  Nothing ever solves problems as well as
forcing your operations staff to inititate new processes/capabilities; until
they have to deal with it daily as a routine event, it is a mental exercise.
 
Take care
Terry
 
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:05 PM
To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; '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
 
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>
Olga?
 
Do you see this as a friendly amendment?
 
Adrian Kinderis
 
 
From: 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>

Rafik/Olga,

Do you accept this as a friendly amendment?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 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>
> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO
> <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
>
>
>