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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

After discussion with NCSG, we decided to accept the amendment and would
like to reword it:
"keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of
new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs"

Regards

Rafik



2010/3/31 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

>
> Rafik, Olga,
>
> I think it would clearly be useful for you to provide some explanation as
> to why you don't consider Tim's amendment as friendly.
>
> There may be very good reasons for that, but by not explaining them, it
> simply raises suspicions around this motion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
> Le 31 mars 2010 à 15:47, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
>
> >
> > That's just all the more reason to accept my amendment as friendly. If
> > it is not considered friendly then it's clear to me that Rafik and Olga
> > have something different in mind. Regardless of the Board motion
> > mentioning it, this motion needs to be clear that it has picked up on
> > that fact and that the WG will proceed accordingly. If that is not
> > clear, it is unlikely the RrSG will support it.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON
> > NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
> > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 1:48 pm
> > To: "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > Tim, the Boards motion, which is directly referenced in the proposed
> > motion includes "Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the
> > costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs".
> > Why is it necessary to re-iterate it again?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 30/03/2010 12:58 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> >
> >> Rafik,
> >>
> >> Then I'm confused because you said:
> >>
> >> "I think that there are misunderstandings about the working group and
> >> its relation with the new gTLD process too.
> >> - the working group should work on finding approaches for applicants
> >> requiring assistance. it means that those applicants have anyway to
> >> follow the same requirements like any other applicants. the assistance
> >> may be technical (as suggested by Andrei) or/and financial (to find
> >> structure/organizations to fund those projects, it is not ICANN which
> >> will fund!)."
> >>
> >> All I am asking is that the motion is clarified to make your point - "it
> >> is not ICANN which will fund!" Would you please propose such an
> >> amendment that is acceptable? The RrSG would like to be able to support
> >> the motion.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON
> >> NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
> >> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am
> >> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
>