Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik
Thanks Rafik. Chuck From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik
Wow. This is some motion. Interesting that it is slipped in during all the commotion of VI etc. I am still at a bit of a loss to understand this. You are now reaching out to Registry Back end Service providers and assuming that ICANN play a role in supporting the payment of their services? Where does this end? I would love, personally, to have a license for mobile spectrum in Australia. I cannot afford it, therefore I don’t. My bad luck. I am not sure this is too much different. I am not sure why support needs to be granted on any level here. Originally, I agreed because we were discussing the supporting the development of the application itself. Some folks may have troubles in doing so (especially non English speakers etc). It seems to now be stretching much much further than this. I have yet to speak to my Stakeholder group on this topic but I assume we wouldn’t be supportive of this motion. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik
Wow.
This is some motion. Interesting that it is slipped in during all the commotion of VI etc.
no comment,
I am still at a bit of a loss to understand this.
You are now reaching out to Registry Back end Service providers and assuming that ICANN play a role in supporting the payment of their services? Where does this end?
Registry back and service providers can participate VOLUNTARY and if they are really willing to assist needy applicants from developing regions. The extensions for the charter are to deal with fund raising and organizing not about ICANN giving financial assistance or even reducing fees.
I would love, personally, to have a license for mobile spectrum in Australia. I cannot afford it, therefore I don’t. My bad luck. I am not sure this is too much different. I am not sure why support needs to be granted on any level here.
if you are worried about application fees, I advice you to read again the last two ICANN board resolution about assisting applicants.
Originally, I agreed because we were discussing the supporting the development of the application itself. Some folks may have troubles in doing so (especially non English speakers etc). It seems to now be stretching much much further than this.
I have yet to speak to my Stakeholder group on this topic but I assume we
wouldn’t be supportive of this motion.
the final report will be available soon (sorry another reading in addition to the waited AGB)
Rafik
Rafik, I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG. It is all good work that is deserved of our attention. However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants. Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG’s for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it; - a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties? - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and ‘standard’ ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated? - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik
Hi Adrian, thank you for your interest, for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support. 1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment). We will work on topic of *external* sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines) Regards Rafik 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au>
Rafik,
I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG.
It is all good work that is deserved of our attention.
However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide *support to applicants.*
Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG’s for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it;
- a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties?
- a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and ‘standard’ ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated?
- ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language
Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks.
*Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM *To:* Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck *Subject:* [council] JAS WG charter extension motion
Hello,
I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items.
Regards
Rafik
Rafik, I definitely support the work of the JAS working group and submitted comments to that effect when the initial report was published. Thanks for your efforts and those of the WG! I was wondering if you would consider a friendly amendment to your Motion for JAS WG charter extension. I would like to add the concept of bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts in small or underserved languages, at discounted fees. Rationale: For example, a multinational organization could consider multiple IDN scripts (like Arabic or Korean) to connect with a community in their native language. At $185,000 per application, that becomes very cost prohibitive, especially for a NGOs that may want to use the string to deliver services and not monetize the string for profits. In my reading of the report, it seems the WG considered bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts at discounted fees. (See "Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts" Item 2.2.1) So, would you consider a friendly amendment adding the following objective to the list provided in the Motion? "Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages." Thanks, 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 <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hi Adrian, thank you for your interest, for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support. 1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment). We will work on topic of external sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines) Regards Rafik 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Rafik, I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG. It is all good work that is deserved of our attention. However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants. Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG's for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it; - a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties? - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and 'standard' ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated? - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik
So you are talking discounts and not external subsidies? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org Sent: Thursday, 18 November 2010 10:46 AM To: rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen@icann.org; cgomes@verisign.com Subject: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Rafik, I definitely support the work of the JAS working group and submitted comments to that effect when the initial report was published. Thanks for your efforts and those of the WG! I was wondering if you would consider a friendly amendment to your Motion for JAS WG charter extension. I would like to add the concept of bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts in small or underserved languages, at discounted fees. Rationale: For example, a multinational organization could consider multiple IDN scripts (like Arabic or Korean) to connect with a community in their native language. At $185,000 per application, that becomes very cost prohibitive, especially for a NGOs that may want to use the string to deliver services and not monetize the string for profits. In my reading of the report, it seems the WG considered bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts at discounted fees. (See "Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts" Item 2.2.1) So, would you consider a friendly amendment adding the following objective to the list provided in the Motion? "Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages." Thanks, 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<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hi Adrian, thank you for your interest, for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support. 1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment). We will work on topic of external sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines) Regards Rafik 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Rafik, I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG. It is all good work that is deserved of our attention. However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants. Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG's for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it; - a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties? - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and 'standard' ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated? - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks. 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: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik
I would also support this amendment. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** -----Original Message----- From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:46:24 To: <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>; <Glen@icann.org>; <cgomes@verisign.com> Subject: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Rafik, I definitely support the work of the JAS working group and submitted comments to that effect when the initial report was published. Thanks for your efforts and those of the WG! I was wondering if you would consider a friendly amendment to your Motion for JAS WG charter extension. I would like to add the concept of bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts in small or underserved languages, at discounted fees. Rationale: For example, a multinational organization could consider multiple IDN scripts (like Arabic or Korean) to connect with a community in their native language. At $185,000 per application, that becomes very cost prohibitive, especially for a NGOs that may want to use the string to deliver services and not monetize the string for profits. In my reading of the report, it seems the WG considered bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts at discounted fees. (See "Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts" Item 2.2.1) So, would you consider a friendly amendment adding the following objective to the list provided in the Motion? "Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages." Thanks, 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 <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hi Adrian, thank you for your interest, for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support. 1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment). We will work on topic of external sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines) Regards Rafik 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Rafik, I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG. It is all good work that is deserved of our attention. However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants. Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG's for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it; - a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties? - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and 'standard' ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated? - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik
Thanks Debbie for proposing this amendment and Zahid for your expressed support. Rafik and Bill - Do you support it as a friendly amendment? Chuck From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:43 PM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion I would also support this amendment. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:46:24 -0500 To: <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>; <Glen@icann.org>; <cgomes@verisign.com> Subject: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Rafik, I definitely support the work of the JAS working group and submitted comments to that effect when the initial report was published. Thanks for your efforts and those of the WG! I was wondering if you would consider a friendly amendment to your Motion for JAS WG charter extension. I would like to add the concept of bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts in small or underserved languages, at discounted fees. Rationale: For example, a multinational organization could consider multiple IDN scripts (like Arabic or Korean) to connect with a community in their native language. At $185,000 per application, that becomes very cost prohibitive, especially for a NGOs that may want to use the string to deliver services and not monetize the string for profits. In my reading of the report, it seems the WG considered bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts at discounted fees. (See "Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts" Item 2.2.1) So, would you consider a friendly amendment adding the following objective to the list provided in the Motion? "Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages." Thanks, 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 <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hi Adrian, thank you for your interest, for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support. 1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment). We will work on topic of external sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines) Regards Rafik 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Rafik, I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG. It is all good work that is deserved of our attention. However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants. Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG's for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it; - a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties? - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and 'standard' ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated? - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik
I've some questionmarks regarding the Resolved under 1. c) Establishing a framework, including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance; This task seems to be beyond the scope of this group since use of auction income - beyond cost coverage - could be discussed from different point of views, not just from a perspective of applicant support. So more "neutrality" is required for this part of the discussion. I'd like to discuss this furtheron. Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. November 2010 11:18 An: zahid@dndrc.com; HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen Betreff: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Thanks Debbie for proposing this amendment and Zahid for your expressed support. Rafik and Bill - Do you support it as a friendly amendment? Chuck From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:43 PM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion I would also support this amendment. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** _____ From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:46:24 -0500 To: <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>; <Glen@icann.org>; <cgomes@verisign.com> Subject: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Rafik, I definitely support the work of the JAS working group and submitted comments to that effect when the initial report was published. Thanks for your efforts and those of the WG! I was wondering if you would consider a friendly amendment to your Motion for JAS WG charter extension. I would like to add the concept of bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts in small or underserved languages, at discounted fees. Rationale: For example, a multinational organization could consider multiple IDN scripts (like Arabic or Korean) to connect with a community in their native language. At $185,000 per application, that becomes very cost prohibitive, especially for a NGOs that may want to use the string to deliver services and not monetize the string for profits. In my reading of the report, it seems the WG considered bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts at discounted fees. (See "Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts" Item 2.2.1) So, would you consider a friendly amendment adding the following objective to the list provided in the Motion? "Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages." Thanks, 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 <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hi Adrian, thank you for your interest, for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support. 1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment). We will work on topic of external sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines) Regards Rafik 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Rafik, I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG. It is all good work that is deserved of our attention. However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants. Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG's for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it; - a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties? - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and 'standard' ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated? - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik
Opportunity for discussion will be provided Wolf. Chuck From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:44 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; zahid@dndrc.com; HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen@icann.org Subject: AW: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion I've some questionmarks regarding the Resolved under 1. c) Establishing a framework, including a possible recommendation for a separate ICANN originated foundation, for managing any auction income, beyond costs. for future rounds and ongoing assistance; This task seems to be beyond the scope of this group since use of auction income - beyond cost coverage - could be discussed from different point of views, not just from a perspective of applicant support. So more "neutrality" is required for this part of the discussion. I'd like to discuss this furtheron. Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. November 2010 11:18 An: zahid@dndrc.com; HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen Betreff: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Thanks Debbie for proposing this amendment and Zahid for your expressed support. Rafik and Bill - Do you support it as a friendly amendment? Chuck From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:43 PM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion I would also support this amendment. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:46:24 -0500 To: <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>; <Glen@icann.org>; <cgomes@verisign.com> Subject: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Rafik, I definitely support the work of the JAS working group and submitted comments to that effect when the initial report was published. Thanks for your efforts and those of the WG! I was wondering if you would consider a friendly amendment to your Motion for JAS WG charter extension. I would like to add the concept of bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts in small or underserved languages, at discounted fees. Rationale: For example, a multinational organization could consider multiple IDN scripts (like Arabic or Korean) to connect with a community in their native language. At $185,000 per application, that becomes very cost prohibitive, especially for a NGOs that may want to use the string to deliver services and not monetize the string for profits. In my reading of the report, it seems the WG considered bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts at discounted fees. (See "Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts" Item 2.2.1) So, would you consider a friendly amendment adding the following objective to the list provided in the Motion? "Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages." Thanks, 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 <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hi Adrian, thank you for your interest, for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support. 1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment). We will work on topic of external sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines) Regards Rafik 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Rafik, I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG. It is all good work that is deserved of our attention. However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants. Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG's for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it; - a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties? - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and 'standard' ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated? - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik
Hi Chuck As I understand things, Rafik was introducing the motion on behalf of the JAS, and when he sent Debbie's proposed amendment to the JAS list you and Tijani expressed concern that it might go beyond the charter. Therefore he informed Debbie that he did not have JAS consensus to view it as friendly. Cheers, Bill On Nov 18, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Debbie for proposing this amendment and Zahid for your expressed support.
Rafik and Bill – Do you support it as a friendly amendment?
Chuck
From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:43 PM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion
I would also support this amendment.
Sincerely,
Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***
From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:46:24 -0500 To: <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>; <Glen@icann.org>; <cgomes@verisign.com> Subject: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion
Rafik, I definitely support the work of the JAS working group and submitted comments to that effect when the initial report was published. Thanks for your efforts and those of the WG! I was wondering if you would consider a friendly amendment to your Motion for JAS WG charter extension. I would like to add the concept of bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts in small or underserved languages, at discounted fees. Rationale: For example, a multinational organization could consider multiple IDN scripts (like Arabic or Korean) to connect with a community in their native language. At $185,000 per application, that becomes very cost prohibitive, especially for a NGOs that may want to use the string to deliver services and not monetize the string for profits. In my reading of the report, it seems the WG considered bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts at discounted fees. (See “Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts” Item 2.2.1) So, would you consider a friendly amendment adding the following objective to the list provided in the Motion? “Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.” Thanks, 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 Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion
Hi Adrian,
thank you for your interest, for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support.
1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment). We will work on topic of external sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done
as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines)
Regards
Rafik
2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Rafik,
I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG.
It is all good work that is deserved of our attention.
However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants.
Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG’s for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it;
- a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties? - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and ‘standard’ ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated? - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language
Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks.
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion
Hello,
I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items.
Regards
Rafik
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
Thanks Bill. We will vote on Debbie's amendment. Please note that I simply responded to Tijani's message noting that the purpose of the amendment as I understood it was to modify the charter. Chuck From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:54 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: zahid@dndrc.com; HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com; council@gnso.icann.org; Glen Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hi Chuck As I understand things, Rafik was introducing the motion on behalf of the JAS, and when he sent Debbie's proposed amendment to the JAS list you and Tijani expressed concern that it might go beyond the charter. Therefore he informed Debbie that he did not have JAS consensus to view it as friendly. Cheers, Bill On Nov 18, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Thanks Debbie for proposing this amendment and Zahid for your expressed support. Rafik and Bill - Do you support it as a friendly amendment? Chuck From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@dndrc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:43 PM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; Glen; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion I would also support this amendment. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:46:24 -0500 To: <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>; <Glen@icann.org>; <cgomes@verisign.com> Subject: RE: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Rafik, I definitely support the work of the JAS working group and submitted comments to that effect when the initial report was published. Thanks for your efforts and those of the WG! I was wondering if you would consider a friendly amendment to your Motion for JAS WG charter extension. I would like to add the concept of bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts in small or underserved languages, at discounted fees. Rationale: For example, a multinational organization could consider multiple IDN scripts (like Arabic or Korean) to connect with a community in their native language. At $185,000 per application, that becomes very cost prohibitive, especially for a NGOs that may want to use the string to deliver services and not monetize the string for profits. In my reading of the report, it seems the WG considered bundling applications for multiple IDN scripts at discounted fees. (See "Support for Build-out in Underserved Languages and Scripts" Item 2.2.1) So, would you consider a friendly amendment adding the following objective to the list provided in the Motion? "Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages." Thanks, 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 <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hi Adrian, thank you for your interest, for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support. 1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment). We will work on topic of external sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines) Regards Rafik 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Rafik, I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG. It is all good work that is deserved of our attention. However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants. Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG's for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it; - a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties? - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and 'standard' ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated? - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************************
Chuck, As you asked me to put in writing my thoughts shared during today's call on prioritization of GNSO work, here they are. I would like the Council to consider doing an annual update of the process brought up by the WG, because of two benefits 1) Improving general awareness by the Councli members of the work going on; 2) A valuable tool for leadership in figuring the degree of consensus on the relative value of the different projects. Jaime Wagner jaime@powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br
Hi, I want to support what Jaime expressed in relation with prioritization process. Regards Olga Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar (http://www.movistar.com.ar) -----Original Message----- From: "Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf" <jaime@powerself.com.br> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:09:44 To: 'Gomes, Chuck'<cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Prioritizatio process Chuck, As you asked me to put in writing my thoughts shared during today's call on prioritization of GNSO work, here they are. I would like the Council to consider doing an annual update of the process brought up by the WG, because of two benefits 1) Improving general awareness by the Councli members of the work going on; 2) A valuable tool for leadership in figuring the degree of consensus on the relative value of the different projects. Jaime Wagner jaime@powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br
Thanks Jaimie, and here's a short recap of what I was saying, as Chuck requested: - Keep a model-based approach but simplify. - Council Leadership could play a part in suggesting priority projects to Council, those suggestions based on model approach. - Or we could take our thinking "outside the box". One idea: use US Congress style system of wiping the slate clean at the end of each calendar year. Others will no doubt have different ideas to suggest as well. Stéphane Le 18 nov. 2010 à 13:09, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf a écrit :
Chuck,
As you asked me to put in writing my thoughts shared during today’s call on prioritization of GNSO work, here they are.
I would like the Council to consider doing an annual update of the process brought up by the WG, because of two benefits
1) Improving general awareness by the Councli members of the work going on; 2) A valuable tool for leadership in figuring the degree of consensus on the relative value of the different projects.
Jaime Wagner jaime@powerself.com.br Direto (51) 3219-5955 Cel (51) 8126-0916 Geral (51) 3233-3551 DDG: 0800-703-6366 www.powerself.com.br
So sorry, but I am still not sure I understand. See below as I have a few points of clarification. Adrian Kinderis Chief Executive Officer AusRegistry Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com.au Web: www.ausregistry.com.au The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 18 November 2010 2:09 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hi Adrian, thank you for your interest, for clarification, an applicant won't necessary apply or/and have all kind of support. 1- it respect cost-recovery principle and we will work with the new gTLD program staff to accommodate that (Chuck amendment). We will work on topic of external sources of donors or foundations willing to support financially applicants. AK>> So will you be proposing for a discount from ICANN? Yes or no? To be clear, by discount I mean a reduction in the total application fee paid to ICANN. It may be for example, that the applicant pays part of the fee and the rest is sourced from another means (foundation etc). 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. AK>> The applicant will pay for Registry Services but they may be subsidised from an external party? Yes or no? Also, these Registry Services will comply with all other Registry standards as requested in the AGB? Yes or no? 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done AK>> OK as you see the WG will work to explore how things will be done (guidelines) Regards Rafik 2010/11/17 Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au<mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au>> Rafik, I have been reviewing the work of the JAS WG. It is all good work that is deserved of our attention. However, I have read the various Board resolutions that were the genesis of the working. The original notion was developed in order to provide support to applicants. Is it fair to say that, in your mind (or the WG’s for that matter), the following will be true given the support regime as you would have it; - a new gTLD applicant will have to pay the application fee in its entirety but will be subsidized through a foundation or external parties? - a new gTLD applicant will have to establish a Registry System to full and ‘standard’ ICANN compliance but may be subsidized in order to cover the costs associated? - ICANN may provide assistance in preparing the application for those where English is not a first language Can you clarify this for me so I can take this back to my SG? Thanks. 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: Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:01 AM To: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, I want to submit this motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN board resolution about supporting applicants and for completion a list of further work items. Regards Rafik
Hello,
AK>> So will you be proposing for a discount from ICANN? Yes or no? To be clear, by discount I mean a reduction in the total application fee paid to ICANN. It may be for example, that the applicant pays part of the fee and the rest is sourced from another means (foundation etc).
1- yes fees sourced from another means. the WG need to investigate that area and we asked to augment it with more expertise for that reason. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those
requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done.
AK>> The applicant will pay for Registry Services but they may be subsidised from an external party? Yes or no? Also, these Registry Services will comply with all other Registry standards as requested in the AGB? Yes or no?
2- Yes. Yes.
3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done
AK>> OK
Thanks Rafik. I feel much better about the working group if it is going to work within those parameters. Adrian Kinderis From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 18 November 2010 6:05 PM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry; Gomes, Chuck Subject: Re: [council] JAS WG charter extension motion Hello, AK>> So will you be proposing for a discount from ICANN? Yes or no? To be clear, by discount I mean a reduction in the total application fee paid to ICANN. It may be for example, that the applicant pays part of the fee and the rest is sourced from another means (foundation etc). 1- yes fees sourced from another means. the WG need to investigate that area and we asked to augment it with more expertise for that reason. 2- yes, we didn't state exceptions for applicants regarding those requirements, assistance or support can be technical (from various service providers etc) or financial ( subsidized from external sources). the WG will work to figure out how this could best be done. AK>> The applicant will pay for Registry Services but they may be subsidised from an external party? Yes or no? Also, these Registry Services will comply with all other Registry standards as requested in the AGB? Yes or no? 2- Yes. Yes. 3- translation of material etc but not necessarily by ICANN, again the WG will work to figure out how it can be done AK>> OK
participants (10)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Gomes, Chuck -
HughesDeb＠usa.redcross.org -
Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Olga Cavalli -
Rafik Dammak -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
William Drake -
Zahid Jamil