March 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain Constituency
by Robert Hoggarth Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

Dear GNSO Council Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal Petition and Charter of the proposed new City Top-Level Domain Constituency submitted by Dirk Krischenowski of dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG. This significant step represents the fourth formal new constituency petition submitted to the Board in the context of the new GNSO Improvements effort. The Staff will soon open a 30-day Public Comment Forum regarding the Petition which will extend into July. Any comments submitted in the Forum will be summarized for the Board's review. I have shared a copy of the attached documents with the Board and will be sending copies to the GNSO Constituencies leaders list as well. The document is now also posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm.@icann.org Please drop me a line if you have any questions or comments on this matter. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN 424 558 4805 robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org

1 1

FW: Public Meet Up with ICANN¹s CEO in Washington, DC on 27th January
by Glen de Saint Géry April 25, 2010

April 25, 2010

Forwarded From: Donna Austin on behalf of Rod Beckstrom _______ Dear Chuck and GNSO members As you know, I believe that ICANN's CEO should be accessible to the community, but also to those who may not regularly participate in ICANN's processes but are interested in the important work we do. As a part of this effort, I've started holding what I call "Meet Ups" where I make myself available in an informal setting when I travel and my schedule allows. To help ensure as many of people as possible are able to attend if they want, we announce these as far in advance as we can. All you need to bring are your thoughts, ideas, or questions and enough coin to buy your favourite form of refreshment. Here are all the details. If you have any questions, please send an email to my Chief of Staff, Donna Austin <donna.austin(a)icann.org>. Date: 27th January 2010 17:00 to 19:00 local time Place: Buffalo Billiards, Victorian Room, 1330 19th Street, Washington DC 20036 Map: http://tinyurl.com/yakmr9t I hope to see you there! Warmly Rod Rod Beckstrom President & CEO ICANN

3 3

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Tim Ruiz March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

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(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 31, 2010 10:12 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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(a)indom.com> 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(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 1:48 pm > To: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > 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(a)gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am >> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> >> Hello, >> >> unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment. >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> Rafik >> >> 2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >> >> Rafik/Olga, >> >> Do you accept this as a friendly amendment? >> >> Chuck >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >> >> >>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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(a)gmail.com> >>> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am >>> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO >>> <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> > >

2 1

GNSO Council Agenda 1 April 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

Dear All, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 1 April 2010 at 2000 UTC Please find the agenda at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-01apr10-en.htm and on the Wiki https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_1_april_2010 and in plain text for your convenience with the motion at the bottom of the agenda. Please note the addition to the agenda in Item 2: 2.1.5 Objective # 5 Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-chartered-objectives-1… Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 1 April 2010. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09o… For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 20:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 13:00 PDT; 15:00 CDT; 16:00 EST; 17:00 Buenos Aires; 17:00 Brazil; 22:00 CET; 00:00 Moscow; 01:00 Pakistan; 04:00 Hong Kong; 05:00 Tokyo, 07:00 Melbourne - next day Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/ Please enter as a 'guest'. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the following Council meetings per the new Council Operating Procedures: * 10 March meeting - Pending approval on 3 April 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08658.html * 15 March Special meeting - approved on 26 March 2010. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-15mar10-en.htm Item 2: Vertical Integration PDP Update (10 minutes) 2.1 Status Report (Stephane van Gelder) 2.1.1 Formation of Working Group 2.1.2 Election of chair/vice chair 2.1.3 Brief progress report 2.1.4 Draft Work Schedule 2.1.5 Objective # 5 Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-chartered-objectives-1… 2.2 Invitation of participants from the AC's and other SO's (Chuck Gomes/Glen) Item 3: Whois Studies (40 minutes) 3.1 Refer to: * Whois Studies Report: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion# http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… * Public comment site for the Framework for ICANN's FY11 Operating Plan and Budget: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#op-budg… (Note that the comment period ends today.) * Public comment: Draft NORC Report on Whois Accuracy, (comment period ends 15 April 2010) Presentation Slides: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/whois-studies-presentation-01apr10-en.… 3.2 Overview of the Report (Liz Gasster) 3.3 Discussion 3.4 Action items 3.4.1 Review and assess cost and feasibility estimates for the studies 3.4.2 Decide whether to pursue any of the studies and, if so, which ones 3.4.3 Provide input into the FY11 budget process 3.5 How should we accomplish the above? * Should we form a drafting team to develop recommendations for consideration in our next meeting? * Other ideas? * Note that a final budget has to be finished by 17 May and there are currently no funds budgeted for Whois Studies. Item 4: Prioritization of GNSO work (15 minutes) 4.1 Status Report (Olga Cavalli) 4.2 Next steps? Item 5: Status updates (10 minutes) 5.1 Questions/comments on written status updates sent in advance by leaders of Working Groups, Work Teams, staff projects, etc.? Status updates: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/notes-council-01april10-en.htm Item 6: Any Other Business (15 minutes) 6.1 GNSO action items from 12 March Board Resolutions 6.1.1 Joint SO/AC WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeting 6.1.2 Motion: See: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?1_april_motions 6.1.3 Discussion 6.1.4 Vote (Note: Absentee voting does not apply.) 6.2 Other? Item 7: The updated GNSO Project Status List (10 minutes) http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 7.1 Questions/comments? Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ________________________________________ Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ________________________________________ Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 20:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 21:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 next day Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 07:00 next day ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ________________________________________ For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/ MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT: Made by: Rafik Dammak Seconded by: Olga Cavalli amended by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Tim Ruiz (Amendments are in bold text) Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives; Whereas, numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying and about the material requirements for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs and material conditions might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing regions, from cultural/linguistic groups and from non-profit groups such as philanthropies, Whereas, on 13 March 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 20 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20) requesting that stakeholders work with their respective ACs and SOs to form a working group to provide a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to form a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to fulfill this Board request, and to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to such new GTLD applicants; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: 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" Resolved further, that Rafik Dammak shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this joint SO/AC working group; Resolved further, that the GNSO Council Chair shall within 48 hours of this motion inform the Chairs of other SO's and the AC's of this action and encourage their participation; Resolved further, that ICANN Staff shall within seven calendar days of this motion identify and assign applicable Staff support for this working group and arrange for support tools such as a mailing list, website and other tools as needed; Resolved further, that the staff support assigned to this working group shall within 48 hours after the support tools are arranged distribute an invitation for working group participants as widely as possible within the SO/AC community; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall initiate its activities within 28 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the participating SO's and AC's, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim co-chair with the liaison(s) from other SO's and AC's; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall as its first action items: i) elect a chair or co-chairs; ii) establish meeting times as needed; and iii) develop and propose a charter describing its tasks and schedule of deliverables for approval by the participating SO's and AC's. Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall deliver its initial recommendation for community comment in time for discussion at the Brussels ICANN meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS documents posted
by Glen de Saint Géry March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

Dear All, Please note on the 'Issues page' http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ that the following documents relating to WHOIS have been recently posted: # WHOIS Current Activity (updated April 2010) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-update-01apr10-en.htm # Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements - Initial Report (26 March 2010) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-initial-repor… # Whois Studies Report for GNSO 23 March 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… Thank you, Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion
by Caroline Greer March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

Liz, Thank you very much for that clarification. That's what I hoped it meant to say. Kind regards ---------------- Caroline Greer Director of Policy dotMobi ----- Original Message ----- From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> To: Caroline Greer; GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed Mar 31 17:52:55 2010 Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion Hi Caroline, Thanks so much for your interest in the studies! I think I understand your question, and I think the problem or concern is related to my use of the term “desire”. What I mean to say is that the researchers all conveyed that they thought it was important in order to prove or disprove the hypothesis to try to find (or determine the absence of) a specific link between publicly-displayed information related to a specific domain name and subsequent misuse of the registration data for that domain name. I think that goes to the crux of the question raised in the hypothesis and was not intend to convey that they were partial to any particular outcome. In retrospect I think I could have used a better word, but the important point I was trying to make with that “lead-in” is while the researchers demonstrated that they grasped the optimal goal of the study (to examine the queries that lead to harmful acts), the methodologies they proposed might not yield an unequivocal result and at best might yield only a “loose correlation” regarding the extent to which various anti-harvesting measures result in reductions of harmful acts. I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you would like further clarification. Best, Liz From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@mtld.mobi] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:33 AM To: Liz Gasster; GNSO Council List Cc: Steve Sheng Subject: RE: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion Liz, Many thanks for sending through the initial staff report. I noticed one particular line in the report that I wanted to clarify. Under the Staff Analysis of WHOIS Misuse Studies section [Staff recommendations about Misuse Studies, based on RFP responses], the following is stated: “Every bidder expressed a strong desire to tie WHOIS queries directly to harmful acts.” I checked back on the ToR and it appears (please correct me if I am wrong) that the intent was to prove or disprove the following hypothesis: Public access to WHOIS data leads to a measurable degree of misuse – that is, to actions that cause actual harm, are illegal or illegitimate, or otherwise contrary to the stated legitimate purpose. Perhaps it is just the way that the report is worded but do you think that the bidders are open from the outset to either proving or disproving the hypothesis? It did not read that way and seems as if assumptions are already being made (which may of course be correct, but study and analysis should bring about that result). Kind regards, Caroline. From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: 23 March 2010 23:47 To: GNSO Council List Cc: Steve Sheng Subject: [council] Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion All, Attached please find staff’s initial report on WHOIS studies as requested by the Council on 4 March 2009. I will provide an overview of this report at the Council’s upcoming 1 April meeting, and I look forward to your comments and input. My report will also be posted here shortly. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion# <https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion> I will also be posting my presentation slides by the end of this week. I’d also like to make the following points: 1. I want to recognize that this effort has been underway for quite some time, and while I have provided many updates along the way, I understand that the background and context may be new to Council members who joined the GNSO following the discussions that led to initiation of this work. I would be glad to add additional background or detail as requested. There was a significant body of work that the Council and community engaged in that led up to the decision in March 2009 to pursue costs and feasibility for the specific study areas selected. There were also other studies initially proposed by members of the community and by the GAC. Those described in my report were selected by the Council for staff to pursue. 2. The Policy staff is also releasing a first draft later this month of an additional “study” that was requested by the GNSO Council in May 2009. This “study” is more accurately described as a compilation or synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements, that includes known deficiencies in the current service and “any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past”. As requested in the resolution initiating this work, when Staff releases the report, we will be consulting with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO on this draft, and an updated synthesis will be prepared following those consultations. Steve Sheng is the primary author of this upcoming report. 3. Regarding both reports, staff has tried to be responsive to the expectations of the GNSO in initiating the requests. If more work is needed or you have something further in mind, please let us know. We consider both to be working documents that can be updated or refined upon community review. 4. There are many important details to consider, but ultimately the Council will want to consider whether to recommend funding for WHOIS studies in the FY 2011 budget. WHOIS studies have been noted as a potential future expense for some time, but the analysis I’ve just completed provides much-needed detail on specific costs to anticipate for the WHOIS Misuse and WHOIS Registrant Identification studies. At the time this work was initiated, there were differing views about whether / which studies should be undertaken. Hopefully the information provided will be useful to the Council in considering next steps. I might also suggest that this information be provided to the GAC given its extensive previous recommendations for further study of WHOIS. Staff can forward the report or the Council may certainly do so. Again, we look forward to your comments and input! Thanks, Liz

1 0

Initial staff report on GNSO-requested WHOIS studies attached for your review and discussion
by Liz Gasster March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

All, Attached please find staff's initial report on WHOIS studies as requested by the Council on 4 March 2009. I will provide an overview of this report at the Council's upcoming 1 April meeting, and I look forward to your comments and input. My report will also be posted here shortly. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion# I will also be posting my presentation slides by the end of this week. I'd also like to make the following points: 1. I want to recognize that this effort has been underway for quite some time, and while I have provided many updates along the way, I understand that the background and context may be new to Council members who joined the GNSO following the discussions that led to initiation of this work. I would be glad to add additional background or detail as requested. There was a significant body of work that the Council and community engaged in that led up to the decision in March 2009 to pursue costs and feasibility for the specific study areas selected. There were also other studies initially proposed by members of the community and by the GAC. Those described in my report were selected by the Council for staff to pursue. 2. The Policy staff is also releasing a first draft later this month of an additional "study" that was requested by the GNSO Council in May 2009. This "study" is more accurately described as a compilation or synthesis of WHOIS Service Requirements, that includes known deficiencies in the current service and "any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past". As requested in the resolution initiating this work, when Staff releases the report, we will be consulting with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO on this draft, and an updated synthesis will be prepared following those consultations. Steve Sheng is the primary author of this upcoming report. 3. Regarding both reports, staff has tried to be responsive to the expectations of the GNSO in initiating the requests. If more work is needed or you have something further in mind, please let us know. We consider both to be working documents that can be updated or refined upon community review. 4. There are many important details to consider, but ultimately the Council will want to consider whether to recommend funding for WHOIS studies in the FY 2011 budget. WHOIS studies have been noted as a potential future expense for some time, but the analysis I've just completed provides much-needed detail on specific costs to anticipate for the WHOIS Misuse and WHOIS Registrant Identification studies. At the time this work was initiated, there were differing views about whether / which studies should be undertaken. Hopefully the information provided will be useful to the Council in considering next steps. I might also suggest that this information be provided to the GAC given its extensive previous recommendations for further study of WHOIS. Staff can forward the report or the Council may certainly do so. Again, we look forward to your comments and input! Thanks, Liz

3 6

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Tim Ruiz March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

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(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 1:48 pm To: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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(a)gmail.com> >Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am >To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Hello, > >unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment. > > >Regards > > >Rafik > >2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > >Rafik/Olga, > >Do you accept this as a friendly amendment? > >Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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(a)gmail.com> > > Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am > > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO > > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > 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 > > > > > >

4 3

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Tim Ruiz March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

Chuck, So I assume then that my "unfriendly" amendment will be voted on prior to the motion, correct? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 8:20 pm To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Cc: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, I do not see it as a friendly amendment. Regards Olga 2010/3/30 Adrian Kinderis <adrian(a)ausregistry.com.au> Olga? Do you see this as a friendly amendment? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2010 3:33 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT Hello, unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment. Regards Rafik 2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Rafik/Olga, Do you accept this as a friendly amendment? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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(a)gmail.com> > Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > 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 > > >

1 0

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Tim Ruiz March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

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(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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

7 11

Council Meeting - 2nd of April
by Adrian Kinderis March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

All, I will not be on the Council call on Friday. It is Good Friday - a religious and public holiday in my country. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis

1 0

Public Comment: GNSO Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars
by Glen de Saint Géry March 30, 2010

March 30, 2010

Public Comment: GNSO Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-29mar10-en.htm 29 March 2010 The GNSO Council is seeking comments regarding the commencement of a policy development process on the topic of vertical integration1 between registries and registrars. The public comment period ends on 18 April 2010. Background The GNSO Council has commenced a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries. The GNSO Council formed a working group to evaluate whether policy recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and existing gTLDs. The working group expects to define the range of restrictions on vertical separation that are currently in effect, to serve as a baseline to evaluate future proposals. ICANN is currently in the process of finalizing the implementation details for the launch of new gTLDs. ICANN has posted three draft applicant guidebooks and a series of topic papers for public comment describing the manner in which ICANN proposes to implement this program. These documents include proposals on the topic of vertical integration- and whether cross-ownership restrictions or other rules related to vertical integration should be adopted to apply to the New gTLD Program. At Nairobi, the ICANN Board adopted a resolution recognizing the importance of establishing a baseline approach to registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead. Within the context of the new gTLD process, the ICANN Board resolved that there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed. The ICANN Board further resolved that if a policy becomes available from the GNSO, and approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD program, that policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as part of the New gTLD Program. This public comment forum is an opportunity to comment on any aspect related to the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars that you think should be taken into account by the Working Group as part of its deliberations. For example, comments may be submitted on: (i) recommended models for the New gTLD Program, (ii) the economic analysis conducted by economists retained by ICANN, including the CRA Report [PDF, 512 KB] as well as the one recently submitted by Salop and Wright [PDF, 42 KB], (iii) the Board approved model proposed by the Board at the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi on 12 March 2010, or (iv) whether the restrictions currently applicable to existing gTLD registries should be changed, or (v) additional work that should be performed by the Working Group to recommend models for the New gTLD Program.. Additional Information: To review the Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars, please refer to http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf [PDF, 254 KB]. The ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5. To review the charter describing the policy work to be undertaken by the Vertical Integration Working Group, please refer to: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-chartered-objectives-1… [PDF, 41 KB]. To participate in the GNSO working group for this policy development process, please contact Glen de Saint Gery at gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org by no later than 31 March 2010. For information on the details of the implementation planning activities for new gTLDs, please refer to the documents posted at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm For additional resources on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars, please refer to the documents posted at: https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?https_st_icann_org_vert… Staff responsible: Margie Milam Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to pdp-vertical-integ(a)icann.org until 18 April 2010. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#vi An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/pdp-vertical-integration/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 From the VI PDP WG Charter: ' "Vertical Integration" (VI) is defined as a business structure in which there is no separation between the Registry Operator and the registrar in relation to a particular gTLD. They are either owned or controlled by the same company or have another contractual affiliation that controls the specific gTLD, and the Registry Operator is not required to provide equivalent access and non-discriminatory access to non-affiliated registrars to sell names under its gTLD.' Please note that this is a working definition, which is subject to further development and refinement. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

URGENT Feedback on Framework for FY11 Ops Plan and Budget
by Glen de Saint Géry March 30, 2010

March 30, 2010

Forwarded from Kevin Wilson: Dear SO/AC Chairs and other leaders of iCANN community groups: This is to remind you that April 1st is the deadline for the Open Forum for Community Feedback on the Framework for ICANN's FY11 Operating Plan and Budget. We have heard many oral quesitons and comments this year, but as of today we only have one posted comment. http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2011. Any comments received will be synthesized and a response posted. The feedback, if applicable, will be factored into the draft FY11 Operating Plan and Budget which will be posted by the 17th of May. At that time another open forum will be established to encourage public feedback with enough time to synthesize comments before final submital to the Board at the Brussels meeting in June. We encourage your feedback. Best regards Kevin Wilson CFO ICANN

1 0

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Alan Greenberg March 30, 2010

March 30, 2010

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(a)gmail.com> >Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am >To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Hello, > >unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment. > > >Regards > > >Rafik > >2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > >Rafik/Olga, > >Do you accept this as a friendly amendment? > >Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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(a)gmail.com> > > Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am > > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO > > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > 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 > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Tim Ruiz March 30, 2010

March 30, 2010

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(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hello, unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment. Regards Rafik 2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Rafik/Olga, Do you accept this as a friendly amendment? Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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(a)gmail.com> > Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Council GNSO > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > 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 > > >

1 0

MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
by Rafik Dammak March 28, 2010

March 28, 2010

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

5 7

RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG 'to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs' in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi
by Terry L Davis March 27, 2010

March 27, 2010

Debbie I would hope that we can separate "non-profit service orgs" from "dis-advantaged". I believe they represent two entirely different needs and thus unfortunately probably two different application processes. That said, this was my first concern! How do we catagorize "dis-advantaged" orgs. If we can figure this out such that the "non-profit purely international service orgs" are not lumped into "dis-advantaged" I think that is the correct way forward. Take care Terry On Tue Mar 23 12:53 , sent: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Tim, > >Â > >I am sorry to hear that you think discussion >of a processes related to non-profit gTLDs is not âurgent.â Â I >certainly understand the concern shared by many related to ICANN staff and Councilors >limited Â resources and timing; however, I think we do ICANN a disservice by >discrediting the importance non-commercial use new gTLDs and minimizing the >voice of certain stakeholders based on the lack of commercialization of new >gTLDs. Â I would hope many may come to understand that there are âurgentâ >and important non-commercial uses for new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian, >educational and philanthropic activity is very meaningful to communities >worldwide. > >Â > >I hope there is a way to get this process right >without delay. Â Delay helps no one.Â However, dismissing groups as suggested below >for the sake of speed is very disconcerting. > >Â > >Debbie > >Â > > > >Debra Y. Hughes l Senior >Counsel > >American Red Cross > >Office of the General CounselÂ > >2025 E Street, NW > >Washington, D.C. 20006 > >Phone: (202) 303-5356 > >Fax: (202) 303-0143 > >HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: >owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com > >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 >10:57 AM > >To: Gomes, Chuck; >owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Rafik Dammak > >Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; StÃ©phane >Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council; Margie Milam > >Subject: Re: [council] FW: >Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach >to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and >operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the >Nairobi > > > >Â > >Does this need to be in place for the first round? I would find it hard >to support assistance for any applicant wanting to apply for a commercially >viable gTLD for profit. So if this would apply mainly to non-profit community >types it seems it isn't urgent. > > > >I'd hate to have another fasttrack process going where we don't have time to >really work out the best solution. > > > >Tim > > > > > > > > > >From: "Gomes, >Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > > > > >Date: Tue, 23 Mar >2010 10:41:55 -0400 > > > > > >To: Rafik >Dammak<rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> > > > > > >Cc: Terry L Davis, >P.E.<tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>; <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; >StÃÂ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; Bruce >Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; GNSO >Council<council(a)gnso.icann.org>; Margie Milam<Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> > > > > > >Subject: RE: [council] >FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable >approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying >for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 >at the Nairobi > > > > > >Â > > > >A motion is being prepared for GNSO >Council action on 1 April.Â The ALAC also has this on their agenda >today.Â The motion will likely task the WG with first developing a charter >that would need to be approved by the participating SO's and AC's. > >Â > >Rafik - would you like to make the >motion?Â Margie is preparing a draft motion; once I have it, I would be >happy to send it to you so you can make it.Â The deadline for motions is >tomorrow, 24 March. > >Â > >Chuck > > > >Â > > > > > > > >From: Rafik >Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] > >Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:57 >PM > >To: Gomes, Chuck > >Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; >owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; StÃ©phane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council > >Subject: Re: [council] FW: >Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach >to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and >operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the >Nairobi > > > >yes definitely. what is the process for starting this joint-wg? > > > >Â > > > > > >Rafik > > > >2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > > > >Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up >with some good ideas. > >Â > >Chuck > > > >Â > > > > > > > >From: Rafik Dammak >[mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] > > >Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:52 >PM > >To: Gomes, Chuck > >Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; >StÃ©phane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: [council] FW: >Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach >to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and >operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the >Nairobi > > > > > >Â > > > > > > > >Hi Chuck, > > > > > >I am concerned that the only explanation that we can hear is "staff >said" or "staff stated" or "staff explained" or >"staff decided". I understand for the need for support form the staff >but for GNSO council, there are still rooms to have its own vision and making >decision independently from staff reports?Â > > > > > >Â > > > > > >@Alan yes the feeling is that ICANN is not listening to people from >developing countries and get more worse when ICANN "would like" ccTLD >from African region to participate with 3% (Idea suggested by Rod) or also to >hear the "technical support" which will be provided by the proposed >DNS-CERT (it is really offending and just overlapping with tasks done by >regionalÂ organizations) > > > > > >Â > > > > > >Regards > > > > > >Â > > > > > >Rafik > > > > > >Â > > > > > > > >2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > >I don't think anyone believes that the costs to run every registry is >the same. Â Some have higher security needs than others. Â Some need a >more global infrastructure than others. Â Some have lower costs in their >region and in other places in the world. Â All have different business >plans. > > > >But the basic cost of evaluating an application, excluding any dispute >processes that may ensue, are essentially the same for all applicants except in >cases where the same applicant applies for multiple TLDs. Â The way Staff >has decided to impose application fees as of now, they have already built in >subsidization of fees for single TLD applicants by those applying for multiple >TLDs. > > > >Chuck > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >On Behalf Of > > > > > > > >> rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com > >> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM > >> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; > >> 'StÃ©phane Van Gelder'; 'Bruce Tonkin' > >> Cc: 'GNSO Council ' > >> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - > >> GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing > >> support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for > >> and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board > >> Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > >> > >> > >> Hello All, > >> > >> In my point of view, it sounds that you are wrongly using the > >> principle of equality in this case which looks more like > >> discrimination against applicants for developing regions. Why > >> you want a registry from developing regions to have the same > >> budget of registry in developed country?there are a lot of > >> way to cut costs. > >> > >> Yes, a registry in developing region can be run with respect > >> to all ICANN requirements in cheaper way than in developed country. > >> That is why I would like if possible that Bruce point to > >> documents (if they exist) explaining in details the why of > >> such requested costs for running a regisrty from ICANN > >> perspective?but also for the application fees as the > >> explanation of cost recovery remains vague and abstract. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Rafik > >> BlackBerry from DOCOMO > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net> > >> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53 > >> To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; > >> 'Bruce Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > >> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - > >> GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing > >> support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for > >> and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board > >> Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > >> > >> > >> Stephane > >> > >> My feelings also. > >> > >> To me, we would have to treat all "dis-advantaged enties" > >> alike regardless > >> of their nationality as there will be many entities in every > >> country for > >> which the TLD cost is too high. My first question to any of > >> them though > >> would be to ask if the entry cost is too high, do you > >> actually have the > >> resources then to run a TLD? > >> > >> Feels more like a "tar pit" than a can of worms. > >> > >> Take care > >> Terry > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > >> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >On > >> Behalf Of St phane Van Gelder > >> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:57 AM > >> To: Bruce Tonkin > >> Cc: GNSO Council > >> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG >"to > >> develop a sustainable approach to providing support to > >> applicants requiring > >> assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in > >> response to the ICANN > >> Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > >> > >> > >> I had understood the motion to be referencing financial support. > >> > >> But to me it really doesn't look like much of a solution. If > >> the aim is to > >> help applicants with lesser means, then this motion is so > >> vague as to be > >> totally moot. If the Board really has a desire to explore the > >> possibility of > >> catering to applicants with different financial profiles, I > >> think we then > >> spill into the notion of categories of applicants that the > >> GAC has been > >> pushing for and we then open up several new cans of worms > >> that can only lead > >> to more delays. > >> > >> Just my personal five cents. > >> > >> St phane > >> > >> Le 20 mars 2010 Â 06:41, Bruce Tonkin a Â crit : > >> > >> > > >> > Hello Chuck, > >> > > >> >> > >> >> This is interesting Bruce. Â I had no idea that this motion > >> was talking > >> >> about financial support; > >> > > >> > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > >> the Board to > >> > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > >> > > >> > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > >> > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > >> > forward some proposals. Â It was my input (which I also > >> stated during > >> > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > >> > help, but also support in terms of resources. Â I gave the > >> example that > >> > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > >> operated by > >> > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Bruce Tonkin > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >Â > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Â > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

Initial WHOIS Service Requirements Report for Council review and discussion
by Liz Gasster March 27, 2010

March 27, 2010

All, On 7 May, 2009, the GNSO Council requested that policy staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the WHOIS service policy tools. The GNSO Council asked that these requirements reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current WHOIS service but also should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past. Attached is staff's Initial WHOIS Service Requirements Report in response to this request. Steve Sheng is the primary author of this report. As part of the work, the GNSO Council also requested that we consult with the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and SSAC on this initial report, and an updated synthesis will be prepared following those consultations. Specifically, through the staff liaisons, we will be sending this report to each of the SO and AC Chairs and we are seeking specific input as follows: 1) Have we adequately identified the origins of each requirement and provided sufficient background? 2) Did we miss any important requirements of or improvements to WHOIS that have been discussed to-date? 3) Do you have any suggestions on how we can improve the clarity of the document? 4) any other comments are welcome. We are asking for comments by close of business on Monday, May 17. Our plan is to incorporate the feedback into the draft report and publish the final report before the Brussels meeting. We consider this report to be a working document that will be updated and refined upon community review. Questions and input should be directed to Steve Sheng of the policy staff. Both Steve and I gave "preview" presentations of this report during the Nairobi meetings and we can provide a brief overview at the upcoming Council meeting. Steve will be conducting two webinars during April and May to brief the community on the report and to respond to questions. More information on those events is forthcoming. We thank you in advance for your valuable feedback. Liz Gasster and Steve Sheng

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG 'to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs' in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi
by Terry L Davis March 27, 2010

March 27, 2010

Adrian Well stated. Take care Terry On Mon Mar 22 16:54 , Adrian Kinderis sent: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Alan, fair point. > > > >You have my support on infrastructure and technology. We have >quietly technically supported a number of Pacific Islands at no cost for this >exact reason. > > > >I also appreciate the way you have phased your second paragraph. >It makes sense. IDN’s will be key. I just am not sure that one could classify “owning >and operating a gTLD” as critical infrastructure hence my notion of *need*. > > > > > >Adrian Kinderis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > >Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 10:46 AM > >To: Bruce Tonkin; 'GNSO Council' > >Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG >"to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants >requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response >to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi > > > > > > > >Adrian, > > > >NEED is a rather loaded term. WANTS, COULD BENEFIT FROM, ASPIRES TO each may >describe a particular situation better. > > > >I have spent a good part of the last decade in discussions about why developing >countries *need* state-of-the-art communications and technologies and >technologists when many within their populations also *nned* food and health >care and education. More to the point, why should other countries help pay for >these in lieu of food/medicine/schools. > > > >The answer revolves around the need to developing countries to participate in >the global economy (and yes, the Internet). If we cannot come up with examples >of TLDs that stick out as "really good things" that can attract >support, perhaps you are right and they don't "need" them. But I suspect >that there will be examples, particularly IDNs, where the case will be a lot >easier to make. > > > >Alan >

1 0

Extended deadline - Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP - 31 MARCH
by Glen de Saint Géry March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

Please note that the co-chairs have decided to extend the deadline for the call for volunteers to participate in the Vertical Integration Policy Development Process Working Group until Wednesday, 31 March at 23:00 UTC. After this date, no newcomers will be able to join the working group. Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Dear All, The GNSO Council has initiated a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of Vertical Integration between Registrars and Registries. At its 10 March 2010 meeting, the GNSO Council formed a working group to perform the activities of this PDP, and is now seeking volunteers to serve on the working group. This working group will evaluate and propose policy recommendations for new gTLDs and existing gTLDs on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars. The working group expects to define the range of restrictions on vertical separation that are currently in effect, to serve as a baseline to evaluate future proposals. The work will be done an expedited basis, with an expected completion date of 30 June 2010, and will follow the parameters of the charter approved by the GNSO Council for this PDP. If you would like to participate in this working group as a volunteer, kindly respond by email to <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> by Monday, 22 March. You will need to submit your Statement of Interest in order to serve on this working group. The template for the Statement of Interest is described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The working group plans to schedule its first meeting during the week of 22-26 March 2010. At that meeting, the first agenda item will be to select the Chair of the working group. The chair is expected to serve his/her duties in a neutral manner, in accordance with the GNSO Working Group guidelines. Please be prepared to nominate and vote an individual to serve as chair for this working group. For more information on this policy development process, please refer to: Issues Report on Vertical Integration: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf Charter: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective… Working Group Guidelines: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f… Best Regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: DNS CERT
by Gomes, Chuck March 25, 2010

March 25, 2010

Here's the final letter that Cheryl, Chris and I sent to Rod and Peter regarding the DNS-CERT. Chuck ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:04 PM To: Dengate Thrush Peter; Rod Beckstrom Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' Subject: DNS CERT Peter, Rod, Please see the attached letter from Chairs of ALAC, ccNSO and gNSO. It has also been posted as a comment to the relevant calls for comment. Cheers, Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd ceo(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4972 (20100324) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

1 0

Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi
by rosemary.sinclair＠atug.org.au March 24, 2010

March 24, 2010

In the telecoms world at retail level there are different prices for business, consumer and disadvantaged groups - with the problem Tim identifies of allocating the responsibility for subsidy between different groups of users (Ramsey pricing) and between Govt and industry.... Rosemary Sent from my BlackBerry® from Optus -----Original Message----- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:01:04 To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Cc: <HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org>; <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>; <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org>; <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org>; <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi If any applicant pays less than cost they are indirectly asking the community to partially fund them. ICANN's funds come from the community in the form of various fees imposed through registries and registrars and through donations to a lesser degree. It may be noble to advocate or consider giving certain applicants an opportunity to apply below costs, but it will not be as easy as some may think to figure out how we determine who should or shouldn't get such consideration. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:05 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org, tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net, stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com, Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au, council(a)gnso.icann.org, Margie.Milam(a)icann.org, owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, cgomes(a)verisign.com Tim, where did you see any mention that applicants asking community to partially fund them? when Debbie is talking about non-profit applicants like foundations, NGO, philanthropy, it doesn't mean that she is talking about Redcross, she is advocating for all those prospective non profits applicants which community can help them through developing a sustainable approach to provide support. Regards Rafik 2010/3/24 Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> Regardless of what comes out of this discussion, there is nothing preventing a non-profit from applying for a new gTLD in the first round. But the costs have been established based on cost recovery. So any applicant who is allowed to apply at below costs is asking the community to partially fund their application. In my opinion, that should not happen, but if it does there should be a very high bar for qualification. Given the fund raising capabilities of the Red Cross I don't see it hitting that bar, in my opinion. Regardless, the GNSO has gone through a PDP on new gTLDs. An implementation of the resultant policy is nearly complete. If we are going to amend the policy to consider different categories of applicants for any reason, it should go through a full PDP process, in my opinion. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi From: <HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 7:37 am To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Cc: <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>, <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> Tim, I acknowledge your opinion -- that’s fine --and I respectfully disagree. I think the considerations of commercial enterprises and non-commercial organizations should be equally considered and I believe that conversation is important or urgent. While some may think that not for profit does not equal “need,” I hope others will agree not for profit equals “important enough not be dismissed.” Although I certainly a proud employee of the American Red Cross, it is disappointing for you to assume that the position I am advocating is simply to benefit my own organization. When I applied to volunteer as a GNSO Councilor, it was to share the perspective of not for profit organizations (many of whom I collaborate with – large and small), not only the perspective of Red Cross. Perhaps my perspective of my volunteer role is very different than others on the Council and that’s okay. For me, to advocate simply for the benefit of Red Cross is short sighted and contrary to the best interests of policy development. Happy to talk about this more offline. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org From: tim(a)godaddy.com [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:40 PM To: Hughes, Debra Y.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; cgomes(a)verisign.com; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com Cc: tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com; Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au; council(a)gnso.icann.org; Margie.Milam(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi With all due respect, new gTLDs will not solve any urgent problem for anyone. And I do not consider the Red Cross as an organization that needs help with the cost of applying. Non-profit does not automatically translate into "need." Tim From: <HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:53:20 -0400 To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>; <cgomes(a)verisign.com>; <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Cc: <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>; <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org>; <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Tim, I am sorry to hear that you think discussion of a processes related to non-profit gTLDs is not “urgent.” I certainly understand the concern shared by many related to ICANN staff and Councilors limited resources and timing; however, I think we do ICANN a disservice by discrediting the importance non-commercial use new gTLDs and minimizing the voice of certain stakeholders based on the lack of commercialization of new gTLDs. I would hope many may come to understand that there are “urgent” and important non-commercial uses for new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian, educational and philanthropic activity is very meaningful to communities worldwide. I hope there is a way to get this process right without delay. Delay helps no one. However, dismissing groups as suggested below for the sake of speed is very disconcerting. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Rafik Dammak Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council; Margie Milam Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Does this need to be in place for the first round? I would find it hard to support assistance for any applicant wanting to apply for a commercially viable gTLD for profit. So if this would apply mainly to non-profit community types it seems it isn't urgent. I'd hate to have another fasttrack process going where we don't have time to really work out the best solution. Tim From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400 To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.<tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>; <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; Bruce Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; GNSO Council<council(a)gnso.icann.org>; Margie Milam<Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi A motion is being prepared for GNSO Council action on 1 April. The ALAC also has this on their agenda today. The motion will likely task the WG with first developing a charter that would need to be approved by the participating SO's and AC's. Rafik - would you like to make the motion? Margie is preparing a draft motion; once I have it, I would be happy to send it to you so you can make it. The deadline for motions is tomorrow, 24 March. Chuck From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:57 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi yes definitely. what is the process for starting this joint-wg? Rafik 2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good ideas. Chuck From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:52 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Hi Chuck, I am concerned that the only explanation that we can hear is "staff said" or "staff stated" or "staff explained" or "staff decided". I understand for the need for support form the staff but for GNSO council, there are still rooms to have its own vision and making decision independently from staff reports? @Alan yes the feeling is that ICANN is not listening to people from developing countries and get more worse when ICANN "would like" ccTLD from African region to participate with 3% (Idea suggested by Rod) or also to hear the "technical support" which will be provided by the proposed DNS-CERT (it is really offending and just overlapping with tasks done by regional organizations) Regards Rafik 2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> I don't think anyone believes that the costs to run every registry is the same. Some have higher security needs than others. Some need a more global infrastructure than others. Some have lower costs in their region and in other places in the world. All have different business plans. But the basic cost of evaluating an application, excluding any dispute processes that may ensue, are essentially the same for all applicants except in cases where the same applicant applies for multiple TLDs. The way Staff has decided to impose application fees as of now, they have already built in subsidization of fees for single TLD applicants by those applying for multiple TLDs. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of > rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM > To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; > 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Bruce Tonkin' > Cc: 'GNSO Council ' > Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - > GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing > support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for > and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board > Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > > > Hello All, > > In my point of view, it sounds that you are wrongly using the > principle of equality in this case which looks more like > discrimination against applicants for developing regions. Why > you want a registry from developing regions to have the same > budget of registry in developed country?there are a lot of > way to cut costs. > > Yes, a registry in developing region can be run with respect > to all ICANN requirements in cheaper way than in developed country. > That is why I would like if possible that Bruce point to > documents (if they exist) explaining in details the why of > such requested costs for running a regisrty from ICANN > perspective?but also for the application fees as the > explanation of cost recovery remains vague and abstract. > > Thank you, > > Regards > > Rafik > BlackBerry from DOCOMO > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net> > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53 > To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; > 'Bruce Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - > GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing > support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for > and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board > Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > > > Stephane > > My feelings also. > > To me, we would have to treat all "dis-advantaged enties" > alike regardless > of their nationality as there will be many entities in every > country for > which the TLD cost is too high. My first question to any of > them though > would be to ask if the entry cost is too high, do you > actually have the > resources then to run a TLD? > > Feels more like a "tar pit" than a can of worms. > > Take care > Terry > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of St phane Van Gelder > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:57 AM > To: Bruce Tonkin > Cc: GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to > develop a sustainable approach to providing support to > applicants requiring > assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in > response to the ICANN > Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > > > I had understood the motion to be referencing financial support. > > But to me it really doesn't look like much of a solution. If > the aim is to > help applicants with lesser means, then this motion is so > vague as to be > totally moot. If the Board really has a desire to explore the > possibility of > catering to applicants with different financial profiles, I > think we then > spill into the notion of categories of applicants that the > GAC has been > pushing for and we then open up several new cans of worms > that can only lead > to more delays. > > Just my personal five cents. > > St phane > > Le 20 mars 2010 06:41, Bruce Tonkin a crit : > > > > > Hello Chuck, > > > >> > >> This is interesting Bruce. I had no idea that this motion > was talking > >> about financial support; > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > the Board to > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > stated during > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > example that > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > operated by > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

Draft minutes of the GNSO Open Council meeting in Nairobi 10 March 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry March 24, 2010

March 24, 2010

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Open Council meeting in Nairobi on 10 March 2010. Please let me know if you would like any changes to be made. If no comments are received, these minutes will be published, as approved on the website on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#mar on Friday, 2 April 2010. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi
by Tim Ruiz March 24, 2010

March 24, 2010

If any applicant pays less than cost they are indirectly asking the community to partially fund them. ICANN's funds come from the community in the form of various fees imposed through registries and registrars and through donations to a lesser degree. It may be noble to advocate or consider giving certain applicants an opportunity to apply below costs, but it will not be as easy as some may think to figure out how we determine who should or shouldn't get such consideration. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:05 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org, tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net, stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com, Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au, council(a)gnso.icann.org, Margie.Milam(a)icann.org, owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, cgomes(a)verisign.com Tim, where did you see any mention that applicants asking community to partially fund them? when Debbie is talking about non-profit applicants like foundations, NGO, philanthropy, it doesn't mean that she is talking about Redcross, she is advocating for all those prospective non profits applicants which community can help them through developing a sustainable approach to provide support. Regards Rafik 2010/3/24 Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> Regardless of what comes out of this discussion, there is nothing preventing a non-profit from applying for a new gTLD in the first round. But the costs have been established based on cost recovery. So any applicant who is allowed to apply at below costs is asking the community to partially fund their application. In my opinion, that should not happen, but if it does there should be a very high bar for qualification. Given the fund raising capabilities of the Red Cross I don't see it hitting that bar, in my opinion. Regardless, the GNSO has gone through a PDP on new gTLDs. An implementation of the resultant policy is nearly complete. If we are going to amend the policy to consider different categories of applicants for any reason, it should go through a full PDP process, in my opinion. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi From: <HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 7:37 am To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Cc: <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>, <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> Tim, I acknowledge your opinion -- that’s fine --and I respectfully disagree. I think the considerations of commercial enterprises and non-commercial organizations should be equally considered and I believe that conversation is important or urgent. While some may think that not for profit does not equal “need,” I hope others will agree not for profit equals “important enough not be dismissed.” Although I certainly a proud employee of the American Red Cross, it is disappointing for you to assume that the position I am advocating is simply to benefit my own organization. When I applied to volunteer as a GNSO Councilor, it was to share the perspective of not for profit organizations (many of whom I collaborate with – large and small), not only the perspective of Red Cross. Perhaps my perspective of my volunteer role is very different than others on the Council and that’s okay. For me, to advocate simply for the benefit of Red Cross is short sighted and contrary to the best interests of policy development. Happy to talk about this more offline. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org From: tim(a)godaddy.com [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:40 PM To: Hughes, Debra Y.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; cgomes(a)verisign.com; rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com Cc: tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com; Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au; council(a)gnso.icann.org; Margie.Milam(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi With all due respect, new gTLDs will not solve any urgent problem for anyone. And I do not consider the Red Cross as an organization that needs help with the cost of applying. Non-profit does not automatically translate into "need." Tim From: <HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:53:20 -0400 To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>; <cgomes(a)verisign.com>; <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Cc: <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>; <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org>; <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Tim, I am sorry to hear that you think discussion of a processes related to non-profit gTLDs is not “urgent.” I certainly understand the concern shared by many related to ICANN staff and Councilors limited resources and timing; however, I think we do ICANN a disservice by discrediting the importance non-commercial use new gTLDs and minimizing the voice of certain stakeholders based on the lack of commercialization of new gTLDs. I would hope many may come to understand that there are “urgent” and important non-commercial uses for new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian, educational and philanthropic activity is very meaningful to communities worldwide. I hope there is a way to get this process right without delay. Delay helps no one. However, dismissing groups as suggested below for the sake of speed is very disconcerting. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Rafik Dammak Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council; Margie Milam Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Does this need to be in place for the first round? I would find it hard to support assistance for any applicant wanting to apply for a commercially viable gTLD for profit. So if this would apply mainly to non-profit community types it seems it isn't urgent. I'd hate to have another fasttrack process going where we don't have time to really work out the best solution. Tim From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400 To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.<tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>; <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; StÃ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; Bruce Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; GNSO Council<council(a)gnso.icann.org>; Margie Milam<Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi A motion is being prepared for GNSO Council action on 1 April. The ALAC also has this on their agenda today. The motion will likely task the WG with first developing a charter that would need to be approved by the participating SO's and AC's. Rafik - would you like to make the motion? Margie is preparing a draft motion; once I have it, I would be happy to send it to you so you can make it. The deadline for motions is tomorrow, 24 March. Chuck From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:57 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi yes definitely. what is the process for starting this joint-wg? Rafik 2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good ideas. Chuck From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:52 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Hi Chuck, I am concerned that the only explanation that we can hear is "staff said" or "staff stated" or "staff explained" or "staff decided". I understand for the need for support form the staff but for GNSO council, there are still rooms to have its own vision and making decision independently from staff reports? @Alan yes the feeling is that ICANN is not listening to people from developing countries and get more worse when ICANN "would like" ccTLD from African region to participate with 3% (Idea suggested by Rod) or also to hear the "technical support" which will be provided by the proposed DNS-CERT (it is really offending and just overlapping with tasks done by regional organizations) Regards Rafik 2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> I don't think anyone believes that the costs to run every registry is the same. Some have higher security needs than others. Some need a more global infrastructure than others. Some have lower costs in their region and in other places in the world. All have different business plans. But the basic cost of evaluating an application, excluding any dispute processes that may ensue, are essentially the same for all applicants except in cases where the same applicant applies for multiple TLDs. The way Staff has decided to impose application fees as of now, they have already built in subsidization of fees for single TLD applicants by those applying for multiple TLDs. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of > rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM > To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; > 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Bruce Tonkin' > Cc: 'GNSO Council ' > Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - > GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing > support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for > and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board > Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > > > Hello All, > > In my point of view, it sounds that you are wrongly using the > principle of equality in this case which looks more like > discrimination against applicants for developing regions. Why > you want a registry from developing regions to have the same > budget of registry in developed country?there are a lot of > way to cut costs. > > Yes, a registry in developing region can be run with respect > to all ICANN requirements in cheaper way than in developed country. > That is why I would like if possible that Bruce point to > documents (if they exist) explaining in details the why of > such requested costs for running a regisrty from ICANN > perspective?but also for the application fees as the > explanation of cost recovery remains vague and abstract. > > Thank you, > > Regards > > Rafik > BlackBerry from DOCOMO > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net> > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53 > To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; > 'Bruce Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - > GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing > support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for > and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board > Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > > > Stephane > > My feelings also. > > To me, we would have to treat all "dis-advantaged enties" > alike regardless > of their nationality as there will be many entities in every > country for > which the TLD cost is too high. My first question to any of > them though > would be to ask if the entry cost is too high, do you > actually have the > resources then to run a TLD? > > Feels more like a "tar pit" than a can of worms. > > Take care > Terry > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of St phane Van Gelder > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:57 AM > To: Bruce Tonkin > Cc: GNSO Council > Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to > develop a sustainable approach to providing support to > applicants requiring > assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in > response to the ICANN > Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > > > I had understood the motion to be referencing financial support. > > But to me it really doesn't look like much of a solution. If > the aim is to > help applicants with lesser means, then this motion is so > vague as to be > totally moot. If the Board really has a desire to explore the > possibility of > catering to applicants with different financial profiles, I > think we then > spill into the notion of categories of applicants that the > GAC has been > pushing for and we then open up several new cans of worms > that can only lead > to more delays. > > Just my personal five cents. > > St phane > > Le 20 mars 2010 06:41, Bruce Tonkin a crit : > > > > > Hello Chuck, > > > >> > >> This is interesting Bruce. I had no idea that this motion > was talking > >> about financial support; > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > the Board to > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > stated during > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > example that > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > operated by > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >

4 4

RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG
by Alan Greenberg March 24, 2010

March 24, 2010

I support the recent statements of Rafiq and Debbie, and I am not sure I can say this any clearer than they already have, but there has been no talk of an applicant paying to ICANN a lesser fee. Some of us would like to see that at some point, but that is not what we are discussing now. The Board's resolution as I understand it, (and based on discussions with several Board members, I think I do understand) is to investigate ways of easing the burden (whether with money or skills or whatever) on the applicant, but NOT at the expense of ICANN. Alan At 24/03/2010 10:26 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >If any applicant pays less than cost they are indirectly asking the >community to partially fund them. ICANN's funds come from the community >in the form of various fees imposed through registries and registrars >and through donations to a lesser degree. It may be noble to advocate or >consider giving certain applicants an opportunity to apply below costs, >but it will not be as easy as some may think to figure out how we >determine who should or shouldn't get such consideration. > >Tim > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to >develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants >requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in >response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi >From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> >Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:05 am >To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> >Cc: HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org, tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net, >stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com, Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au, >council(a)gnso.icann.org, Margie.Milam(a)icann.org, >owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, cgomes(a)verisign.com > >Tim, > >where did you see any mention that applicants asking community to >partially fund them? >when Debbie is talking about non-profit applicants like foundations, >NGO, philanthropy, it doesn't mean that she is talking about Redcross, >she is advocating for all those prospective non profits applicants which >community can help them through developing a sustainable approach to >provide support. > > >Regards > > >Rafik > >2010/3/24 Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> >Regardless of what comes out of this discussion, there is nothing >preventing a non-profit from applying for a new gTLD in the first round. >But the costs have been established based on cost recovery. So any >applicant who is allowed to apply at below costs is asking the community >to partially fund their application. In my opinion, that should not >happen, but if it does there should be a very high bar for >qualification. Given the fund raising capabilities of the Red Cross I >don't see it hitting that bar, in my opinion. > >Regardless, the GNSO has gone through a PDP on new gTLDs. An >implementation of the resultant policy is nearly complete. If we are >going to amend the policy to consider different categories of applicants >for any reason, it should go through a full PDP process, in my opinion. > > >Tim > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to >develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants >requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in >response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi > >From: <HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org> > > >Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 7:37 am >To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>, ><cgomes(a)verisign.com>, <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> >Cc: <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>, <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, ><Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, ><Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> > >Tim, >I acknowledge your opinion -- thatâs fine --and I respectfully >disagree. I think the considerations of commercial enterprises and >non-commercial organizations should be equally considered and I believe >that conversation is important or urgent. While some may think that not >for profit does not equal âneed,â I hope others will agree not for >profit equals âimportant enough not be dismissed.â > >Although I certainly a proud employee of the American Red Cross, it is >disappointing for you to assume that the position I am advocating is >simply to benefit my own organization. When I applied to volunteer as a >GNSO Councilor, it was to share the perspective of not for profit >organizations (many of whom I collaborate with large and smaall), not >only the perspective of Red Cross. Perhaps my perspective of my >volunteer role is very different than others on the Council and thatâs >okay. For me, to advocate simply for the benefit of Red Cross is short >sighted and contrary to the best interests of policy development. > >Happy to talk about this more offline. >Debbie >Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel >American Red Cross >Office of the General Counsel >2025 E Street, NW >Washington, D.C. 20006 >Phone: (202) 303-5356 >Fax: (202) 303-0143 >HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org > > >From: tim(a)godaddy.com [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:40 PM >To: Hughes, Debra Y.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; cgomes(a)verisign.com; >rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com >Cc: tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com; >Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au; council(a)gnso.icann.org; >Margie.Milam(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to >develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants >requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in >response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi > > >With all due respect, new gTLDs will not solve any urgent problem for >anyone. And I do not consider the Red Cross as an organization that >needs help with the cost of applying. Non-profit does not automatically >translate into "need." > >Tim > >From: <HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org> > >Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:53:20 -0400 > >To: <tim(a)godaddy.com>; <cgomes(a)verisign.com>; ><owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> > >Cc: <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>; <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; ><Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org>; ><Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> > >Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to >develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants >requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in >response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi > > > >Tim, > >I am sorry to hear that you think discussion of a processes related to >non-profit gTLDs is not âurgent.â I certainly understand the >concern shared by many related to ICANN staff and Councilors limited >resources and timing; however, I think we do ICANN a disservice by >discrediting the importance non-commercial use new gTLDs and minimizing >the voice of certain stakeholders based on the lack of commercialization >of new gTLDs. I would hope many may come to understand that there are >âurgentâ and important non-commercial uses for new gTLDs. For >example, humanitarian, educational and philanthropic activity is very >meaningful to communities worldwide. > >I hope there is a way to get this process right without delay. Delay >helps no one. However, dismissing groups as suggested below for the >sake of speed is very disconcerting. > >Debbie > >Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel >American Red Cross >Office of the General Counsel >2025 E Street, NW >Washington, D.C. 20006 >Phone: (202) 303-5356 >Fax: (202) 303-0143 >HughesDeb(a)usa.redcross.org > > >From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] >On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:57 AM >To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; Rafik Dammak >Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; StÃ©phane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO >Council; Margie Milam >Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to >develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants >requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in >response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi > > >Does this need to be in place for the first round? I would find it hard >to support assistance for any applicant wanting to apply for a >commercially viable gTLD for profit. So if this would apply mainly to >non-profit community types it seems it isn't urgent. > >I'd hate to have another fasttrack process going where we don't have >time to really work out the best solution. > >Tim > >From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > >Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400 > >To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> > >Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.<tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net>; ><owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org>; StÃÂ©phane Van >Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; Bruce >Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; GNSO >Council<council(a)gnso.icann.org>; Margie Milam<Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> > >Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to >develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants >requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in >response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi > > > >A motion is being prepared for GNSO Council action on 1 April. The ALAC >also has this on their agenda today. The motion will likely task the WG >with first developing a charter that would need to be approved by the >participating SO's and AC's. > >Rafik - would you like to make the motion? Margie is preparing a draft >motion; once I have it, I would be happy to send it to you so you can >make it. The deadline for motions is tomorrow, 24 March. > >Chuck > > >From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] >Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:57 PM >To: Gomes, Chuck >Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; StÃ©phane Van >Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council >Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to >develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants >requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in >response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi >yes definitely. what is the process for starting this joint-wg? > > >Rafik >2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good ideas. > >Chuck > > >From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] >Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:52 PM >To: Gomes, Chuck >Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; StÃ©phane Van >Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council > >Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to >develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants >requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in >response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi > > > >Hi Chuck, > >I am concerned that the only explanation that we can hear is "staff >said" or "staff stated" or "staff explained" or "staff decided". I >understand for the need for support form the staff but for GNSO council, >there are still rooms to have its own vision and making decision >independently from staff reports? > > > >@Alan yes the feeling is that ICANN is not listening to people from >developing countries and get more worse when ICANN "would like" ccTLD >from African region to participate with 3% (Idea suggested by Rod) or >also to hear the "technical support" which will be provided by the >proposed DNS-CERT (it is really offending and just overlapping with >tasks done by regional organizations) > > > >Regards > > > >Rafik > > > >2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> >I don't think anyone believes that the costs to run every registry is >the same. Some have higher security needs than others. Some need a >more global infrastructure than others. Some have lower costs in their >region and in other places in the world. All have different business >plans. > >But the basic cost of evaluating an application, excluding any dispute >processes that may ensue, are essentially the same for all applicants >except in cases where the same applicant applies for multiple TLDs. The >way Staff has decided to impose application fees as of now, they have >already built in subsidization of fees for single TLD applicants by >those applying for multiple TLDs. > >Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of > > > rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com > > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM > > To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org; > > 'StÃ©phane Van Gelder'; 'Bruce Tonkin' > > Cc: 'GNSO Council ' > > Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - > > GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing > > support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for > > and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board > > Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > In my point of view, it sounds that you are wrongly using the > > principle of equality in this case which looks more like > > discrimination against applicants for developing regions. Why > > you want a registry from developing regions to have the same > > budget of registry in developed country?there are a lot of > > way to cut costs. > > > > Yes, a registry in developing region can be run with respect > > to all ICANN requirements in cheaper way than in developed country. > > That is why I would like if possible that Bruce point to > > documents (if they exist) explaining in details the why of > > such requested costs for running a regisrty from ICANN > > perspective?but also for the application fees as the > > explanation of cost recovery remains vague and abstract. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Regards > > > > Rafik > > BlackBerry from DOCOMO > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2(a)speakeasy.net> > > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53 > > To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; > > 'Bruce Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > > Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - > > GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing > > support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for > > and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board > > Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > > > > > > Stephane > > > > My feelings also. > > > > To me, we would have to treat all "dis-advantaged enties" > > alike regardless > > of their nationality as there will be many entities in every > > country for > > which the TLD cost is too high. My first question to any of > > them though > > would be to ask if the entry cost is too high, do you > > actually have the > > resources then to run a TLD? > > > > Feels more like a "tar pit" than a can of worms. > > > > Take care > > Terry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > > Behalf Of St phane Van Gelder > > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:57 AM > > To: Bruce Tonkin > > Cc: GNSO Council > > Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to > > develop a sustainable approach to providing support to > > applicants requiring > > assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in > > response to the ICANN > > Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti > > > > > > I had understood the motion to be referencing financial support. > > > > But to me it really doesn't look like much of a solution. If > > the aim is to > > help applicants with lesser means, then this motion is so > > vague as to be > > totally moot. If the Board really has a desire to explore the > > possibility of > > catering to applicants with different financial profiles, I > > think we then > > spill into the notion of categories of applicants that the > > GAC has been > > pushing for and we then open up several new cans of worms > > that can only lead > > to more delays. > > > > Just my personal five cents. > > > > St phane > > > > Le 20 mars 2010 06:41, Bruce Tonkin a crit : > > > > > > > > Hello Chuck, > > > > > >> > > >> This is interesting Bruce. I had no idea that this motion > > was talking > > >> about financial support; > > > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > > the Board to > > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > > stated during > > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > > example that > > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > > operated by > > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0