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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, the wording Rafik proposes is fine. But there is another request
for a friendly ammendment, that the motion state that "the goal of not
creating further delays to the new gTLD process." So the amended motion
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 the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD
applications and on-going services to new gTLDs, and the goal of not
creating further delays to the new gTLD process;

Sorry for the late request. Wanted to get it on the list but we can
discuss during the call.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON
NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, March 31, 2010 4:02 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council "
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> 
> 
>