>
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. 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>