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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

Please let us know when you have cleared it so that I know whether it can be 
considered as a friendly amendment now that Olga has also approved Rafik's 
wording.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:27 AM
> To: GNSO Council 
> Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING 
> GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> 
> 
>