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
If any applicant pays less than cost they are indirectly asking the community to partially fund them. ICANN's funds come from the community in the form of various fees imposed through registries and registrars and through donations to a lesser degree. It may be noble to advocate or consider giving certain applicants an opportunity to apply below costs, but it will not be as easy as some may think to figure out how we determine who should or shouldn't get such consideration. Tim -------- Original Message -------- 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 From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:05 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org, tdavis2@speakeasy.net, stephane.vangelder@indom.com, Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au, council@gnso.icann.org, Margie.Milam@icann.org, owner-council@gnso.icann.org, cgomes@verisign.com Tim, where did you see any mention that applicants asking community to partially fund them? when Debbie is talking about non-profit applicants like foundations, NGO, philanthropy, it doesn't mean that she is talking about Redcross, she is advocating for all those prospective non profits applicants which community can help them through developing a sustainable approach to provide support. Regards Rafik 2010/3/24 Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Regardless of what comes out of this discussion, there is nothing preventing a non-profit from applying for a new gTLD in the first round. But the costs have been established based on cost recovery. So any applicant who is allowed to apply at below costs is asking the community to partially fund their application. In my opinion, that should not happen, but if it does there should be a very high bar for qualification. Given the fund raising capabilities of the Red Cross I don't see it hitting that bar, in my opinion. Regardless, the GNSO has gone through a PDP on new gTLDs. An implementation of the resultant policy is nearly complete. If we are going to amend the policy to consider different categories of applicants for any reason, it should go through a full PDP process, in my opinion. Tim -------- Original Message -------- 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 From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 7:37 am To: <tim@godaddy.com>, <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>, <cgomes@verisign.com>, <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <tdavis2@speakeasy.net>, <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, <council@gnso.icann.org>, <Margie.Milam@icann.org> Tim, I acknowledge your opinion -- that’s fine --and I respectfully disagree. I think the considerations of commercial enterprises and non-commercial organizations should be equally considered and I believe that conversation is important or urgent. While some may think that not for profit does not equal “need,” I hope others will agree not for profit equals “important enough not be dismissed.” Although I certainly a proud employee of the American Red Cross, it is disappointing for you to assume that the position I am advocating is simply to benefit my own organization. When I applied to volunteer as a GNSO Councilor, it was to share the perspective of not for profit organizations (many of whom I collaborate with – large and small), not only the perspective of Red Cross. Perhaps my perspective of my volunteer role is very different than others on the Council and that’s okay. For me, to advocate simply for the benefit of Red Cross is short sighted and contrary to the best interests of policy development. Happy to talk about this more offline. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org From: tim@godaddy.com [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:40 PM To: Hughes, Debra Y.; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; cgomes@verisign.com; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org; 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 With all due respect, new gTLDs will not solve any urgent problem for anyone. And I do not consider the Red Cross as an organization that needs help with the cost of applying. Non-profit does not automatically translate into "need." Tim From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:53:20 -0400 To: <tim@godaddy.com>; <cgomes@verisign.com>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <tdavis2@speakeasy.net>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; <council@gnso.icann.org>; <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 Tim, I am sorry to hear that you think discussion of a processes related to non-profit gTLDs is not “urgent.” 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 “urgent” and important non-commercial uses for new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian, educational and philanthropic activity is very meaningful to communities worldwide. 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. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 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 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 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. 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. Chuck 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? Rafik 2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good ideas. Chuck 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 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? @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) Regards Rafik 2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> I don't think anyone believes that the costs to run every registry is the same. Some have higher security needs than others. Some need a more global infrastructure than others. Some have lower costs in their region and in other places in the world. 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. 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. I had no idea that this motion
about financial support;
Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for
was talking 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
I tend to agree with Tim on that point and I think it is an absolute minefield. If, on the other hand, we are talking about knowledge sharing, educational workshops, staff secondments etc etc, that’s different and there are probably a host of such options that could be considered. I think it would be useful to hear from where this idea emanated - have there been requests from potential applicants to date and if so, what are the nature of these requests? I imagine that would be one of the first tasks for the WG. Caroline. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: 24 March 2010 14:27 To: Rafik Dammak Cc: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org; Margie.Milam@icann.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; cgomes@verisign.com 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 If any applicant pays less than cost they are indirectly asking the community to partially fund them. ICANN's funds come from the community in the form of various fees imposed through registries and registrars and through donations to a lesser degree. It may be noble to advocate or consider giving certain applicants an opportunity to apply below costs, but it will not be as easy as some may think to figure out how we determine who should or shouldn't get such consideration. Tim -------- Original Message -------- 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 From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:05 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org, tdavis2@speakeasy.net, stephane.vangelder@indom.com, Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au, council@gnso.icann.org, Margie.Milam@icann.org, owner-council@gnso.icann.org, cgomes@verisign.com Tim, where did you see any mention that applicants asking community to partially fund them? when Debbie is talking about non-profit applicants like foundations, NGO, philanthropy, it doesn't mean that she is talking about Redcross, she is advocating for all those prospective non profits applicants which community can help them through developing a sustainable approach to provide support. Regards Rafik 2010/3/24 Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Regardless of what comes out of this discussion, there is nothing preventing a non-profit from applying for a new gTLD in the first round. But the costs have been established based on cost recovery. So any applicant who is allowed to apply at below costs is asking the community to partially fund their application. In my opinion, that should not happen, but if it does there should be a very high bar for qualification. Given the fund raising capabilities of the Red Cross I don't see it hitting that bar, in my opinion. Regardless, the GNSO has gone through a PDP on new gTLDs. An implementation of the resultant policy is nearly complete. If we are going to amend the policy to consider different categories of applicants for any reason, it should go through a full PDP process, in my opinion. Tim -------- Original Message -------- 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 From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 7:37 am To: <tim@godaddy.com>, <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>, <cgomes@verisign.com>, <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <tdavis2@speakeasy.net>, <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, <council@gnso.icann.org>, <Margie.Milam@icann.org> Tim, I acknowledge your opinion -- that’s fine --and I respectfully disagree. I think the considerations of commercial enterprises and non-commercial organizations should be equally considered and I believe that conversation is important or urgent. While some may think that not for profit does not equal “need,” I hope others will agree not for profit equals “important enough not be dismissed.” Although I certainly a proud employee of the American Red Cross, it is disappointing for you to assume that the position I am advocating is simply to benefit my own organization. When I applied to volunteer as a GNSO Councilor, it was to share the perspective of not for profit organizations (many of whom I collaborate with – large and small), not only the perspective of Red Cross. Perhaps my perspective of my volunteer role is very different than others on the Council and that’s okay. For me, to advocate simply for the benefit of Red Cross is short sighted and contrary to the best interests of policy development. Happy to talk about this more offline. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org From: tim@godaddy.com [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:40 PM To: Hughes, Debra Y.; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; cgomes@verisign.com; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org; 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 With all due respect, new gTLDs will not solve any urgent problem for anyone. And I do not consider the Red Cross as an organization that needs help with the cost of applying. Non-profit does not automatically translate into "need." Tim From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:53:20 -0400 To: <tim@godaddy.com>; <cgomes@verisign.com>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <tdavis2@speakeasy.net>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; <council@gnso.icann.org>; <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 Tim, I am sorry to hear that you think discussion of a processes related to non-profit gTLDs is not “urgent.” 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 “urgent” and important non-commercial uses for new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian, educational and philanthropic activity is very meaningful to communities worldwide. 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. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 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 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 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. 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. Chuck 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? Rafik 2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good ideas. Chuck 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 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? @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) Regards Rafik 2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> I don't think anyone believes that the costs to run every registry is the same. Some have higher security needs than others. Some need a more global infrastructure than others. Some have lower costs in their region and in other places in the world. 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. 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. I had no idea that this motion
about financial support;
Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for
was talking 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
I don't think that the Board was suggesting that any applicant pay reduced fees or that the process be changed in anyway. Rather, I believe that the idea was for those interested in the community to collaborate to see if there are ways that funding assistance could be provided for potential qualified applicants from the community. For example, is there possibly a foundation that would be interested in providing financial assistance to worthy applicants from developing countries/territories or from charitable organizations that have limited resources and could possible serve a valuable public service. The general idea actually goes way back to the new gTLD PDP itself. We discussed this and suggested in the final report that Staff consider possible ways that this could be dealt with. Staff decided that the complexity of doing this made it difficult to handle in the first round and therefore deferred it to later rounds. In the meantime, there have been ongoing concerns expressed in public comments because of the high fees. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@mtld.mobi] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:43 AM To: Tim Ruiz; Rafik Dammak Cc: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org; Margie.Milam@icann.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Gomes, Chuck 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
I tend to agree with Tim on that point and I think it is an absolute minefield.
If, on the other hand, we are talking about knowledge sharing, educational workshops, staff secondments etc etc, that's different and there are probably a host of such options that could be considered.
I think it would be useful to hear from where this idea emanated - have there been requests from potential applicants to date and if so, what are the nature of these requests? I imagine that would be one of the first tasks for the WG.
Caroline.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: 24 March 2010 14:27 To: Rafik Dammak Cc: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org; Margie.Milam@icann.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; cgomes@verisign.com 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
If any applicant pays less than cost they are indirectly asking the community to partially fund them. ICANN's funds come from the community in the form of various fees imposed through registries and registrars and through donations to a lesser degree. It may be noble to advocate or consider giving certain applicants an opportunity to apply below costs, but it will not be as easy as some may think to figure out how we determine who should or shouldn't get such consideration.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- 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 From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:05 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org, tdavis2@speakeasy.net, stephane.vangelder@indom.com, Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au, council@gnso.icann.org, Margie.Milam@icann.org, owner-council@gnso.icann.org, cgomes@verisign.com
Tim,
where did you see any mention that applicants asking community to partially fund them? when Debbie is talking about non-profit applicants like foundations, NGO, philanthropy, it doesn't mean that she is talking about Redcross, she is advocating for all those prospective non profits applicants which community can help them through developing a sustainable approach to provide support.
Regards
Rafik
2010/3/24 Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Regardless of what comes out of this discussion, there is nothing preventing a non-profit from applying for a new gTLD in the first round. But the costs have been established based on cost recovery. So any applicant who is allowed to apply at below costs is asking the community to partially fund their application. In my opinion, that should not happen, but if it does there should be a very high bar for qualification. Given the fund raising capabilities of the Red Cross I don't see it hitting that bar, in my opinion.
Regardless, the GNSO has gone through a PDP on new gTLDs. An implementation of the resultant policy is nearly complete. If we are going to amend the policy to consider different categories of applicants for any reason, it should go through a full PDP process, in my opinion.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- 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
From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>
Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 7:37 am To: <tim@godaddy.com>, <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>, <cgomes@verisign.com>, <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <tdavis2@speakeasy.net>, <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, <council@gnso.icann.org>, <Margie.Milam@icann.org>
Tim, I acknowledge your opinion -- that's fine --and I respectfully disagree. I think the considerations of commercial enterprises and non-commercial organizations should be equally considered and I believe that conversation is important or urgent. While some may think that not for profit does not equal "need," I hope others will agree not for profit equals "important enough not be dismissed."
Although I certainly a proud employee of the American Red Cross, it is disappointing for you to assume that the position I am advocating is simply to benefit my own organization. When I applied to volunteer as a GNSO Councilor, it was to share the perspective of not for profit organizations (many of whom I collaborate with - large and small), not only the perspective of Red Cross. Perhaps my perspective of my volunteer role is very different than others on the Council and that's okay. For me, to advocate simply for the benefit of Red Cross is short sighted and contrary to the best interests of policy development.
Happy to talk about this more offline. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org
From: tim@godaddy.com [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:40 PM To: Hughes, Debra Y.; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; cgomes@verisign.com; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org; 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
With all due respect, new gTLDs will not solve any urgent problem for anyone. And I do not consider the Red Cross as an organization that needs help with the cost of applying. Non-profit does not automatically translate into "need."
Tim
From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:53:20 -0400
To: <tim@godaddy.com>; <cgomes@verisign.com>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>
Cc: <tdavis2@speakeasy.net>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; <council@gnso.icann.org>; <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
Tim,
I am sorry to hear that you think discussion of a processes related to non-profit gTLDs is not "urgent." 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 "urgent" and important non-commercial uses for new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian, educational and philanthropic activity is very meaningful to communities worldwide.
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.
Debbie
Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 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
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
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.
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.
Chuck
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?
Rafik 2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good ideas.
Chuck
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
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?
@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)
Regards
Rafik
2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> I don't think anyone believes that the costs to run every registry is the same. Some have higher security needs than others. Some need a more global infrastructure than others. Some have lower costs in their region and in other places in the world. 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. 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. I had no idea that this motion
about financial support;
Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for
was talking 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
Le 24 mars 2010 à 16:52, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
I don't think that the Board was suggesting that any applicant pay reduced fees or that the process be changed in anyway. Rather, I believe that the idea was for those interested in the community to collaborate to see if there are ways that funding assistance could be provided for potential qualified applicants from the community.
(SVG) That was my understanding as well. Stéphane
I'm not getting into the rest of this debate, but I don't see how anyone could argue that this particular point that Tim is making here is unfounded. Stéphane Le 24 mars 2010 à 15:26, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
If any applicant pays less than cost they are indirectly asking the community to partially fund them. ICANN's funds come from the community in the form of various fees imposed through registries and registrars and through donations to a lesser degree. It may be noble to advocate or consider giving certain applicants an opportunity to apply below costs, but it will not be as easy as some may think to figure out how we determine who should or shouldn't get such consideration.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- 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 From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:05 am To: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org, tdavis2@speakeasy.net, stephane.vangelder@indom.com, Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au, council@gnso.icann.org, Margie.Milam@icann.org, owner-council@gnso.icann.org, cgomes@verisign.com
Tim,
where did you see any mention that applicants asking community to partially fund them? when Debbie is talking about non-profit applicants like foundations, NGO, philanthropy, it doesn't mean that she is talking about Redcross, she is advocating for all those prospective non profits applicants which community can help them through developing a sustainable approach to provide support.
Regards
Rafik
2010/3/24 Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> Regardless of what comes out of this discussion, there is nothing preventing a non-profit from applying for a new gTLD in the first round. But the costs have been established based on cost recovery. So any applicant who is allowed to apply at below costs is asking the community to partially fund their application. In my opinion, that should not happen, but if it does there should be a very high bar for qualification. Given the fund raising capabilities of the Red Cross I don't see it hitting that bar, in my opinion.
Regardless, the GNSO has gone through a PDP on new gTLDs. An implementation of the resultant policy is nearly complete. If we are going to amend the policy to consider different categories of applicants for any reason, it should go through a full PDP process, in my opinion.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- 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
From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>
Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 7:37 am To: <tim@godaddy.com>, <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>, <cgomes@verisign.com>, <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <tdavis2@speakeasy.net>, <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>, <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, <council@gnso.icann.org>, <Margie.Milam@icann.org>
Tim, I acknowledge your opinion -- that’s fine --and I respectfully disagree. I think the considerations of commercial enterprises and non-commercial organizations should be equally considered and I believe that conversation is important or urgent. While some may think that not for profit does not equal “need,” I hope others will agree not for profit equals “important enough not be dismissed.”
Although I certainly a proud employee of the American Red Cross, it is disappointing for you to assume that the position I am advocating is simply to benefit my own organization. When I applied to volunteer as a GNSO Councilor, it was to share the perspective of not for profit organizations (many of whom I collaborate with – large and small), not only the perspective of Red Cross. Perhaps my perspective of my volunteer role is very different than others on the Council and that’s okay. For me, to advocate simply for the benefit of Red Cross is short sighted and contrary to the best interests of policy development.
Happy to talk about this more offline. Debbie Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 303-5356 Fax: (202) 303-0143 HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org
From: tim@godaddy.com [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:40 PM To: Hughes, Debra Y.; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; cgomes@verisign.com; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; council@gnso.icann.org; 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
With all due respect, new gTLDs will not solve any urgent problem for anyone. And I do not consider the Red Cross as an organization that needs help with the cost of applying. Non-profit does not automatically translate into "need."
Tim
From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:53:20 -0400
To: <tim@godaddy.com>; <cgomes@verisign.com>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>
Cc: <tdavis2@speakeasy.net>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; <council@gnso.icann.org>; <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
Tim,
I am sorry to hear that you think discussion of a processes related to non-profit gTLDs is not “urgent.” 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 “urgent” and important non-commercial uses for new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian, educational and philanthropic activity is very meaningful to communities worldwide.
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.
Debbie
Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel American Red Cross Office of the General Counsel 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
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
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.
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.
Chuck
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?
Rafik 2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good ideas.
Chuck
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
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?
@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)
Regards
Rafik
2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> I don't think anyone believes that the costs to run every registry is the same. Some have higher security needs than others. Some need a more global infrastructure than others. Some have lower costs in their region and in other places in the world. 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. 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. I had no idea that this motion
about financial support;
Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for
was talking 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
participants (4)
-
Caroline Greer -
Gomes, Chuck -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz