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
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
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
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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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
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
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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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
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
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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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
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
PS: It is possible that Canon's announcement that they will seek "Canon" as a TLD, may drastically change the projected volumes. I suspect that their direct competitors will have to look hard at how they respond. Then you could have the ripple effect setting in. From: Terry L Davis, P.E. [mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:19 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 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
I'm not sure that will be so. A lot of corporates already had plans for a TLD in the pipeline before the Canon announcement. They may now feel better inclined to go public, but I don't think the Canon thing will have a significant on volumes. Stéphane Le 31 mars 2010 à 05:25, Terry L Davis, P.E. a écrit :
PS: It is possible that Canon’s announcement that they will seek “Canon” as a TLD, may drastically change the projected volumes. I suspect that their direct competitors will have to look hard at how they respond. Then you could have the ripple effect setting in…
From: Terry L Davis, P.E. [mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:19 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
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
Rafik, Can you please provide some reasoning as to why you believe this is not 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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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
participants (7)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Gomes, Chuck -
Olga Cavalli -
Rafik Dammak -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Terry L Davis, P.E. -
Tim Ruiz