>
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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>