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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
I support the rewording proposed by Rafik.
Regards
Olga

2010/3/31 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
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>