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  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.
Â
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.
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.; 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
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@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>; Stéphane 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. 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.
Â
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.
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; 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?
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; 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
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 regional 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;
'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@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  06:41, Bruce Tonkin a  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