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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Rafik. That is acceptable to me and I will clear that with our
Councilors and the RrSG.

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: Wed, March 31, 2010 10:12 am
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>