Adrian
I don’t think we
are in major disagreement.
I wasn’t online for
Nairobi and haven’t reviewed Kurt’s presentation. A gated process was one option to
jump-start TLD registration. If they can handle the volume they
expect, then we need to continue on that path; my impressions from Seoul and
between was that they really didn’t know what volume they could process
reasonably thus I continued to look at the option for a gated process to start
the TLDs.
I just want to see some
way for us to start accepting and processing applications as soon as possible. Nothing ever solves problems as well as
forcing your operations staff to inititate new
processes/capabilities; until they have to deal with it daily as a routine
event, it is a mental exercise.
Take care
Terry
From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:05 PM
To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Rafik Dammak'
Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'GNSO Council'
Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW
GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
Terry,
I am dead against a “gated
process” at this late stage. If the GNSO Council wanted that it should
have considered them in the original recommendations.
We are close enough now where staff have
made the appropriate contingencies to handle the projected volume as described
by Kurt in Nairobi. Changing this now (like the EOI process) will create more
problems than it solves. I do not even consider that we debate it.
This approach would therefore encompass
NOT allowing for “disadvantaged” applicants to be carved out
– which I am lead to believe is NOT the purpose nor one of the possible
outcomes of the Support WG anyway.
Thanks.
Adrian Kinderis
From: Terry L Davis, P.E.
[mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2010 1:46 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis; 'Olga Cavalli'; 'Rafik Dammak'
Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Tim Ruiz'; 'GNSO Council'
Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW
GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
Council
I’m going to be a bit cross-wise here.
To be honest, I’d rather see us working on a “gated
process” to begin moving TLD applications forward, even if it is only
going to be 1 or 2 per month. Until we start accepting and processing the
TLD applications, we have no real idea what requirements for staff and the
associated timelines will be. Getting the application process moving
seems key to me…
Working on yet another set of processes that will take
considerable time to sort out for “dis-advantage” (meaning is open
to me anyway) applicants would only seem to add to the initial opening of the
TLD process. ??
Just my thoughts, please feel free to return other
options/opinions; I’m very interested in hearing them.
Take care
Terry
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf
Of Adrian Kinderis
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:25 PM
To: Olga Cavalli
Cc: Rafik Dammak; Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW
GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
I am not sure that helps the discussion.
It is frustrating as a councillor and
professional with limited time to have to keep poking...
Can you please elaborate as to why this
is not a friendly amendment.
Adrian Kinderis
From: Olga Cavalli
[mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 March 2010 12:21 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Rafik Dammak; Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW
GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
Hi,
I do not see it as a friendly amendment.
Regards
Olga
2010/3/30
Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Olga?
Do
you see this as a friendly amendment?
Adrian
Kinderis
From: owner-council@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@verisign.com>
Rafik/Olga,
Do you accept this as a friendly amendment?
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@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@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, Council GNSO
> <council@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
>
>
>