RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG

27 Mar 2010

      The problem becomes somewhat easier from an ICANN 
point of view in that the "we" who must do the 
categorizing is not "us" - ICANN.

The WG is to look at ways of finding support for 
various "needy" new gTLD applicants. But I can't 
see any need for us to evaluate specific ones. 
The donors will make that value judgement. Or 
perhaps the WG will recommend that ICANN sets up 
a foundation to act as the intermediary and it will establish criteria.

Alan

At 26/03/2010 09:05 PM, Terry L Davis wrote:
...
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
...
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@usa.redcross.org
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org 
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of
tim@godaddy.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010
10:57 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck;
owner-council@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
Councilors
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@verisign.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar
2010 10:41:55 -0400
To: Rafik
Dammak<rafik.dammak@gmail.com>
Cc: Terry L Davis,
P.E.<tdavis2@speakeasy.net>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>;
StÃÂ©phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; Bruce
Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; GNSO
Council<council@gnso.icann.org>; Margie Milam<Margie.Milam@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@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@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@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@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@gnso.icann.org
...
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of
...
rafik.dammak@gmail.com
...
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM
...
To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council@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@speakeasy.net>
...
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53
...
To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>;
...
'Bruce Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
...
Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council@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@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

RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG

Alan Greenberg