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
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 > was talking > >> about financial support; > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > the Board to > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > stated during > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > example that > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > operated by > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >
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
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 > was talking > >> about financial support; > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > the Board to > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > stated during > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > example that > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > operated by > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >
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 -----Original Message----- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 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 > was talking > >> about financial support; > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > the Board to > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > stated during > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > example that > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > operated by > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >
The Board motion was extremely vague but I have been assuming that the intent was to have something in place for the first round if possible. Whether it is possible or not remains to be seen. Chuck ________________________________ From: tim@godaddy.com [mailto: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 > was talking > >> about financial support; > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > the Board to > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > stated during > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > example that > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > operated by > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >
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 <mailto: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 > was talking > >> about financial support; > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > the Board to > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > stated during > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > example that > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > operated by > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >
Hi, I support Debbie´s comments. regards Olga 2010/3/23 <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>
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
+1 Bill On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Olga Cavalli wrote:
Hi, I support Debbie´s comments. regards Olga
2010/3/23 <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> 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
My reading of Tim's email is that non-profit gTLD's et al are already catered for in the new gTLD Process as it stands and that there should be no need, at this late stage, to provide a carve out or fast track especially for those groups. I think we all understand the importance and relevance of humanitarian efforts. That is why they are catered for within the DAG as it stands. I agree with Tim, if my reading is correct, that delays caused by this late consideration are not helpful nor desirable. Finally I wouldn't want this motion to centre on 'non-profits' alone. There are many non-profits that would scoff at only having to pay $185k fee to apply (it may help them keep their ability to not declare a profit after all:)). Tim, sorry if I misrepresented your point. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:25 AM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org Cc: tim@godaddy.com; cgomes@verisign.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com; tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce Tonkin; 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 Hi, I support Debbie´s comments. regards Olga 2010/3/23 <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>> 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<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of tim@godaddy.com<mailto:tim@godaddy.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400 To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.<tdavis2@speakeasy.net<mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net>>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>>; Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>; Bruce Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>; GNSO Council<council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>; Margie Milam<Margie.Milam@icann.org<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net>> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53 To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>; 'Bruce Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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> [mailto: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
The board simply asked that a WG develop a sustainable approach to supporting applicants requiring assistance. Isn't it a bit premature to be worrying about carve outs, fast tracks, launch delays and all the rest? Why not take this one step at a time.... Bill On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
My reading of Tim’s email is that non-profit gTLD’s et al are already catered for in the new gTLD Process as it stands and that there should be no need, at this late stage, to provide a carve out or fast track especially for those groups.
I think we all understand the importance and relevance of humanitarian efforts. That is why they are catered for within the DAG as it stands.
I agree with Tim, if my reading is correct, that delays caused by this late consideration are not helpful nor desirable.
Finally I wouldn’t want this motion to centre on ‘non-profits’ alone. There are many non-profits that would scoff at only having to pay $185k fee to apply (it may help them keep their ability to not declare a profit after allJ).
Tim, sorry if I misrepresented your point.
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:25 AM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org Cc: tim@godaddy.com; cgomes@verisign.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com; tdavis2@speakeasy.net;stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce Tonkin; 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
Hi, I support Debbie´s comments. regards Olga
2010/3/23 <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> 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
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
Surely you jest Bill! One step at a time... you open this box and all sorts of overzealous folks start having visions of grandeur. I have seen it far too many times in ICANN world. We have every right to be cautious right now! Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 9:04 AM To: GNSO Council List 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 The board simply asked that a WG develop a sustainable approach to supporting applicants requiring assistance. Isn't it a bit premature to be worrying about carve outs, fast tracks, launch delays and all the rest? Why not take this one step at a time.... Bill On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: My reading of Tim's email is that non-profit gTLD's et al are already catered for in the new gTLD Process as it stands and that there should be no need, at this late stage, to provide a carve out or fast track especially for those groups. I think we all understand the importance and relevance of humanitarian efforts. That is why they are catered for within the DAG as it stands. I agree with Tim, if my reading is correct, that delays caused by this late consideration are not helpful nor desirable. Finally I wouldn't want this motion to centre on 'non-profits' alone. There are many non-profits that would scoff at only having to pay $185k fee to apply (it may help them keep their ability to not declare a profit after all:)). Tim, sorry if I misrepresented your point. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:25 AM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Cc: tim@godaddy.com<mailto:tim@godaddy.com>; cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>; owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>; tdavis2@speakeasy.net<mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net>;stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; Bruce Tonkin; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>; Margie.Milam@icann.org<mailto: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 Hi, I support Debbie´s comments. regards Olga 2010/3/23 <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>> 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<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of tim@godaddy.com<mailto:tim@godaddy.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400 To: Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.<tdavis2@speakeasy.net<mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net>>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>>; Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>; Bruce Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>; GNSO Council<council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>; Margie Milam<Margie.Milam@icann.org<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net>> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53 To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>; 'Bruce Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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> [mailto: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
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html> ***********************************************************
Bill, that board decision for my impression was too weak, vague - and simple. I would have expected more guidance given by the board. So it's up to the community to open this barrel. But as long as it affects negatively the implementation schedule for new gTLDs I wouldn't do so. Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. März 2010 23:04 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: 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 The board simply asked that a WG develop a sustainable approach to supporting applicants requiring assistance. Isn't it a bit premature to be worrying about carve outs, fast tracks, launch delays and all the rest? Why not take this one step at a time.... Bill On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: My reading of Tim's email is that non-profit gTLD's et al are already catered for in the new gTLD Process as it stands and that there should be no need, at this late stage, to provide a carve out or fast track especially for those groups. I think we all understand the importance and relevance of humanitarian efforts. That is why they are catered for within the DAG as it stands. I agree with Tim, if my reading is correct, that delays caused by this late consideration are not helpful nor desirable. Finally I wouldn't want this motion to centre on 'non-profits' alone. There are many non-profits that would scoff at only having to pay $185k fee to apply (it may help them keep their ability to not declare a profit after allJ). Tim, sorry if I misrepresented your point. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:25 AM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org Cc: tim@godaddy.com; cgomes@verisign.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com; tdavis2@speakeasy.net;stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce Tonkin; 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 Hi, I support Debbie´s comments. regards Olga 2010/3/23 <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> 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 <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> 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
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
hello everybody, I think that there are misunderstandings about the working group and its relation with the new gTLD process too. - the working group should work on finding approaches for applicants requiring assistance. it means that those applicants have anyway to follow the same requirements like any other applicants. the assistance may be technical (as suggested by Andrei) or/and financial (to find structure/organizations to fund those projects, it is not ICANN which will fund!). those efforts are toward applicants from developing regions fro example (not all of them need assistance) or non-profits (like those mentioned by Debbie) in response to Adrian comments, those applicants won't have special or privileged treatment as they will have the same evaluation process like others. I am still not in favor in high pricing and fees nor of the suggested cost for running registry with ALL requirements and with respect to security, resilience and stability (within NCSG we are working to prove that) but the working group has another scope, it is just about funding for applicants having a real and sustainable plan for running registry to response a community need or for non-profit purpose. - no link with ongoing implementation process and no possible delay. the board withdrew the controversial EOI because possible delay. I think Bill made clearly the point about that. finally, I agree with Debbie comments. just for remind we talk many times about public interest within ICANN, I hope to see it effectively now with that working group. Regards Rafik 2010/3/24 <KnobenW@telekom.de>
Bill,
that board decision for my impression was too weak, vague - and simple. I would have expected more guidance given by the board. So it's up to the community to open this barrel. But as long as it affects negatively the implementation schedule for new gTLDs I wouldn't do so.
Regards Wolf-Ulrich
------------------------------ *Von:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *William Drake *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 23. März 2010 23:04 *An:* GNSO Council List *Betreff:* 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
The board simply asked that a WG develop a sustainable approach to supporting applicants requiring assistance. Isn't it a bit premature to be worrying about carve outs, fast tracks, launch delays and all the rest? Why not take this one step at a time....
Bill
On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
My reading of Tim’s email is that non-profit gTLD’s et al are already catered for in the new gTLD Process as it stands and that there should be no need, at this late stage, to provide a carve out or fast track especially for those groups. I think we all understand the importance and relevance of humanitarian efforts. That is why they are catered for within the DAG as it stands. I agree with Tim, if my reading is correct, that delays caused by this late consideration are not helpful nor desirable. Finally I wouldn’t want this motion to centre on ‘non-profits’ alone. There are many non-profits that would scoff at only having to pay $185k fee to apply (it may help them keep their ability to not declare a profit after allJ). Tim, sorry if I misrepresented your point. *Adrian Kinderis*
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli *Sent:* Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:25 AM *To:* HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org *Cc:* tim@godaddy.com; cgomes@verisign.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com; tdavis2@speakeasy.net;stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce Tonkin; 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
Hi, I support Debbie´s comments. regards Olga 2010/3/23 <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> 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
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
Hi On Mar 24, 2010, at 4:20 AM, <KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@telekom.de> wrote:
Bill,
that board decision for my impression was too weak, vague - and simple. I would have expected more guidance given by the board. So it's up to the community to open this barrel.
I agree it's up to the community to flesh out the issues and options.
But as long as it affects negatively the implementation schedule for new gTLDs I wouldn't do so.
Ok, but I would not assume ex ante that slowing things down is the necessary outcome of a bit of dialogue on overlooked community concerns, or let that spectre preclude processes that could broaden international support for ICANN's work. Best, Bill
I don't see anything in the Board motion that suggests a fast track. I also don't believe there is any intent to come up with anything that would cause delays. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:52 PM To: Olga Cavalli; HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org Cc: tim@godaddy.com; Gomes, Chuck; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com; tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce Tonkin; 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 My reading of Tim's email is that non-profit gTLD's et al are already catered for in the new gTLD Process as it stands and that there should be no need, at this late stage, to provide a carve out or fast track especially for those groups. I think we all understand the importance and relevance of humanitarian efforts. That is why they are catered for within the DAG as it stands. I agree with Tim, if my reading is correct, that delays caused by this late consideration are not helpful nor desirable. Finally I wouldn't want this motion to centre on 'non-profits' alone. There are many non-profits that would scoff at only having to pay $185k fee to apply (it may help them keep their ability to not declare a profit after allJ). Tim, sorry if I misrepresented your point. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:25 AM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org Cc: tim@godaddy.com; cgomes@verisign.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com; tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce Tonkin; 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 Hi, I support Debbie´s comments. regards Olga 2010/3/23 <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> 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 <mailto: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 > was talking > >> about financial support; > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > the Board to > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > stated during > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > example that > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > operated by > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >
As has already been pointed out, I don't think the Board or anyone else mentioned fast track. What I thought we were talking about was getting certain groups off of the "extremely slow track - wait for next time". And the type of support we are talking about would not likely get past a rudimentary examination if the "non-profits" we may be including have a problem of where to stash all of their money. Alan At 23/03/2010 04:52 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
My reading of Tims email is that non-profit gTLDs et al are already catered for in the new gTLD Process as it stands and that there should be no need, at this late stage, to provide a carve out or fast track especially for those groups.
I think we all understand the importance and relevance of humanitarian efforts. That is why they are catered for within the DAG as it stands.
I agree with Tim, if my reading is correct, that delays caused by this late consideration are not helpful nor desirable.
Finally I wouldnt want this motion to centre on non-profits alone. There are many non-profits that would scoff at only having to pay $185k fee to apply (it may help them keep their ability to not declare a profit after allJ).
Tim, sorry if I misrepresented your point.
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:25 AM To: HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org Cc: tim@godaddy.com; cgomes@verisign.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com; tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce Tonkin; 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
Hi, I support Debbie´s comments. regards Olga 2010/3/23 <<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> 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 <mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org
---------- From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of <mailto:tim@godaddy.com>tim@godaddy.com Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>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" <<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400 To: Rafik Dammak<<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.<<mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net>tdavis2@speakeasy.net>; <<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; Stéphane Van Gelder<<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; Bruce Tonkin<<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; GNSO Council<<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org>; Margie Milam<<mailto:Margie.Milam@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
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.; <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>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 <<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>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.; <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>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 <<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>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: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>rafik.dammak@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>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." <<mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net>tdavis2@speakeasy.net> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53 To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; 'Bruce Tonkin'<<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>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: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>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
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 -----Original Message----- From: <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:53:20 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 <mailto: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 > was talking > >> about financial support; > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > the Board to > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > stated during > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > example that > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > operated by > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >
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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > was talking > >> about financial support; > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > the Board to > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > stated during > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > example that > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > operated by > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >
Thanks Chuck, I would like to make the motion and to receive the draft motion which will be prepared by Margie. Rafik 2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
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
Thanks Rafik. I will send it to you shortly. One more question: Would you also be willing to serve as the Council Liaison for this WG? Chuck ________________________________ From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:28 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; 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 Thanks Chuck, I would like to make the motion and to receive the draft motion which will be prepared by Margie. Rafik 2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> 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 > was talking > >> about financial support; > > > > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for > the Board to > > reduce the application fees for developing countries. > > > > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the > > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put > > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also > stated during > > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may > > help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the > example that > > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers > operated by > > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost. > > > > Regards, > > Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > > >
Thanks Chuck, I will be glad to volunteer as council liaison. Rafik 2010/3/24 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
Thanks Rafik. I will send it to you shortly.
One more question: Would you also be willing to serve as the Council Liaison for this WG?
Chuck
------------------------------ *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:28 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; 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
Thanks Chuck, I would like to make the motion and to receive the draft motion which will be prepared by Margie.
Rafik
2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
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
Rafik, guys, I don’t support the idea of application fee vary by “sort of applicant” – whatever it is: economy, nation, planet, city or non commercial foundation. Because this situation is bi-directional: either initial application price tag is too high, or ICANN discounts the idea of “quality applicants” and steps back for political reasons in attempt to look better. Some of us got experience of running the infrastructure services for many years, some runs registrar or registration services. It’s not that we’re better than others. Let me recall a very practical thing, some of our council members must remember the process. We just submitted the IANA application for IDN ccTLD delegation. And we took this project seriously – run it as due-diligence to see and submit what we have in place after significant legal, technical and operational upgrade. This is very serious - we’ve got a lot of things in place and technology is a good part of it. Businesses, families, social and civil services - the whole economies depend on this infrastructure. The worth thing – the neighborhood depends on how good and stable it is operated. But there must be a solution. This came in my discussion with Debbie - I personally like the idea of subsidizing developing communities or non commercial companies where mature TLDs (g and cc) taking care of technical infrastructure, fund the application expense and provide operational support. Adding new TLD into well developed technical and business infrastructure adds a fraction of cost. And if there are multiple sponsors and multiple recipients, we can reach a certain balance. The good thing about it - the sponsorship is a natural thing which requires no new regulations, PDP, WGs, etc. If there are enough sponsors, we can pick up some long waiting gTLD projects very fast. However, wouldn’t it be really cool if ICANN gives a green light to the first gTLDs of global humanitarian services? All best, --andrei -- Andrei Kolesnikov Coordination Center for TLD .RU Director http://cctld.ru From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:52 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
Great points Andrei. However, I am still at a loss to understand why everyone NEEDS TLD’s. Heck, I am struggling to understand why everyone NEEDS a domain name even. You can certainly use the internet without one. If the argument came down to better infrastructure with which to access the internet and lowers barrier to entry to the new gTLD program I am fairly sure (in my uneducated opinion) that folks would choose the former. On a local level there are folks within my community that cannot afford a domain name. $10 is far too much for them to participate. Should we as a community be looking to serve these folks from a new gTLD point of view? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:39 AM To: 'Rafik Dammak'; '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 Rafik, guys, I don’t support the idea of application fee vary by “sort of applicant” – whatever it is: economy, nation, planet, city or non commercial foundation. Because this situation is bi-directional: either initial application price tag is too high, or ICANN discounts the idea of “quality applicants” and steps back for political reasons in attempt to look better. Some of us got experience of running the infrastructure services for many years, some runs registrar or registration services. It’s not that we’re better than others. Let me recall a very practical thing, some of our council members must remember the process. We just submitted the IANA application for IDN ccTLD delegation. And we took this project seriously – run it as due-diligence to see and submit what we have in place after significant legal, technical and operational upgrade. This is very serious - we’ve got a lot of things in place and technology is a good part of it. Businesses, families, social and civil services - the whole economies depend on this infrastructure. The worth thing – the neighborhood depends on how good and stable it is operated. But there must be a solution. This came in my discussion with Debbie - I personally like the idea of subsidizing developing communities or non commercial companies where mature TLDs (g and cc) taking care of technical infrastructure, fund the application expense and provide operational support. Adding new TLD into well developed technical and business infrastructure adds a fraction of cost. And if there are multiple sponsors and multiple recipients, we can reach a certain balance. The good thing about it - the sponsorship is a natural thing which requires no new regulations, PDP, WGs, etc. If there are enough sponsors, we can pick up some long waiting gTLD projects very fast. However, wouldn’t it be really cool if ICANN gives a green light to the first gTLDs of global humanitarian services? All best, --andrei -- Andrei Kolesnikov Coordination Center for TLD .RU Director http://cctld.ru From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:52 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<mailto: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> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net>> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53 To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>; 'Bruce Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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> [mailto: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
Adrian's points make a lot of sense. So do Andrei's. Stéphane Le 23 mars 2010 à 00:23, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :
Great points Andrei.
However, I am still at a loss to understand why everyone NEEDS TLD’s. Heck, I am struggling to understand why everyone NEEDS a domain name even.
You can certainly use the internet without one.
If the argument came down to better infrastructure with which to access the internet and lowers barrier to entry to the new gTLD program I am fairly sure (in my uneducated opinion) that folks would choose the former.
On a local level there are folks within my community that cannot afford a domain name. $10 is far too much for them to participate. Should we as a community be looking to serve these folks from a new gTLD point of view?
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:39 AM To: 'Rafik Dammak'; '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
Rafik, guys,
I don’t support the idea of application fee vary by “sort of applicant” – whatever it is: economy, nation, planet, city or non commercial foundation. Because this situation is bi-directional: either initial application price tag is too high, or ICANN discounts the idea of “quality applicants” and steps back for political reasons in attempt to look better. Some of us got experience of running the infrastructure services for many years, some runs registrar or registration services. It’s not that we’re better than others. Let me recall a very practical thing, some of our council members must remember the process. We just submitted the IANA application for IDN ccTLD delegation. And we took this project seriously – run it as due-diligence to see and submit what we have in place after significant legal, technical and operational upgrade. This is very serious - we’ve got a lot of things in place and technology is a good part of it. Businesses, families, social and civil services - the whole economies depend on this infrastructure. The worth thing – the neighborhood depends on how good and stable it is operated. But there must be a solution. This came in my discussion with Debbie - I personally like the idea of subsidizing developing communities or non commercial companies where mature TLDs (g and cc) taking care of technical infrastructure, fund the application expense and provide operational support. Adding new TLD into well developed technical and business infrastructure adds a fraction of cost. And if there are multiple sponsors and multiple recipients, we can reach a certain balance. The good thing about it - the sponsorship is a natural thing which requires no new regulations, PDP, WGs, etc. If there are enough sponsors, we can pick up some long waiting gTLD projects very fast. However, wouldn’t it be really cool if ICANN gives a green light to the first gTLDs of global humanitarian services?
All best,
--andrei
-- Andrei Kolesnikov Coordination Center for TLD .RU Director http://cctld.ru
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:52 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
Adrian, NEED is a rather loaded term. WANTS, COULD BENEFIT FROM, ASPIRES TO each may describe a particular situation better. I have spent a good part of the last decade in discussions about why developing countries *need* state-of-the-art communications and technologies and technologists when many within their populations also *nned* food and health care and education. More to the point, why should other countries help pay for these in lieu of food/medicine/schools. The answer revolves around the need to developing countries to participate in the global economy (and yes, the Internet). If we cannot come up with examples of TLDs that stick out as "really good things" that can attract support, perhaps you are right and they don't "need" them. But I suspect that there will be examples, particularly IDNs, where the case will be a lot easier to make. Alan At 22/03/2010 07:23 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
Great points Andrei.
However, I am still at a loss to understand why everyone NEEDS TLDâs. Heck, I am struggling to understand why everyone NEEDS a domain name even.
You can certainly use the internet without one.
If the argument came down to better infrastructure with which to access the internet and lowers barrier to entry to the new gTLD program I am fairly sure (in my uneducated opinion) that folks would choose the former.
On a local level there are folks within my community that cannot afford a domain name. $10 is far too much for them to participate. Should we as a community be looking to serve these folks from a new gTLD point of view?
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:39 AM To: 'Rafik Dammak'; '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
Rafik, guys,
I donât support the idea of application fee vary by âsort of applicantâ whatever it is: economy, nation, planeet, city or non commercial foundation. Because this situation is bi-directional: either initial application price tag is too high, or ICANN discounts the idea of âquality applicantsâ and steps back for political reasons in attempt to look better. Some of us got experience of running the infrastructure services for many years, some runs registrar or registration services. Itâs not that weâre better than others. Let me recall a very practical thing, some of our council members must remember the process. We just submitted the IANA application for IDN ccTLD delegation. And we took this project seriously rrun it as due-diligence to see and submit what we have in place after significant legal, technical and operational upgrade. This is very serious - weâve got a lot of things in place and technology is a good part of it. Businesses, families, social and civil services - the whole economies depend on this infrastructure. The worth thing â the neighborhood depends on how good and stable it is operated. But there must be a solution. This came in my discussion with Debbie - I personally like the idea of subsidizing developing communities or non commercial companies where mature TLDs (g and cc) taking care of technical infrastructure, fund the application expense and provide operational support. Adding new TLD into well developed technical and business infrastructure adds a fraction of cost. And if there are multiple sponsors and multiple recipients, we can reach a certain balance. The good thing about it - the sponsorship is a natural thing which requires no new regulations, PDP, WGs, etc. If there are enough sponsors, we can pick up some long waiting gTLD projects very fast. However, wouldnât it be really cool if ICANN gives a green light to the first gTLDs of global humanitarian services?
All best,
--andrei
-- Andrei Kolesnikov Coordination Center for TLD .RU Director http://cctld.ru
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:52 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 <<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>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: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>rafik.dammak@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>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." <<mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net>tdavis2@speakeasy.net> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53 To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; 'Bruce Tonkin'<<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>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: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>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
Alan, fair point. You have my support on infrastructure and technology. We have quietly technically supported a number of Pacific Islands at no cost for this exact reason. I also appreciate the way you have phased your second paragraph. It makes sense. IDN’s will be key. I just am not sure that one could classify “owning and operating a gTLD” as critical infrastructure hence my notion of *need*. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 10:46 AM To: 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 Adrian, NEED is a rather loaded term. WANTS, COULD BENEFIT FROM, ASPIRES TO each may describe a particular situation better. I have spent a good part of the last decade in discussions about why developing countries *need* state-of-the-art communications and technologies and technologists when many within their populations also *nned* food and health care and education. More to the point, why should other countries help pay for these in lieu of food/medicine/schools. The answer revolves around the need to developing countries to participate in the global economy (and yes, the Internet). If we cannot come up with examples of TLDs that stick out as "really good things" that can attract support, perhaps you are right and they don't "need" them. But I suspect that there will be examples, particularly IDNs, where the case will be a lot easier to make. Alan At 22/03/2010 07:23 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: Great points Andrei. However, I am still at a loss to understand why everyone NEEDS TLD’s. Heck, I am struggling to understand why everyone NEEDS a domain name even. You can certainly use the internet without one. If the argument came down to better infrastructure with which to access the internet and lowers barrier to entry to the new gTLD program I am fairly sure (in my uneducated opinion) that folks would choose the former. On a local level there are folks within my community that cannot afford a domain name. $10 is far too much for them to participate. Should we as a community be looking to serve these folks from a new gTLD point of view? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrei Kolesnikov Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:39 AM To: 'Rafik Dammak'; '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 Rafik, guys, I don’t support the idea of application fee vary by “sort of applicant†– whatever it is: economy, nation, planeet, city or non commercial foundation. Because this situation is bi-directional: either initial application price tag is too high, or ICANN discounts the idea of “quality applicants†and steps back for political reasons in attempt to look better. Some of us got experience of running the infrastructure services for many years, some runs registrar or registration services. It’s not that we’re better than others. Let me recall a very practical thing, some of our council members must remember the process. We just submitted the IANA application for IDN ccTLD delegation. And we took this project seriously – rrun it as due-diligence to see and submit what we have in place after significant legal, technical and operational upgrade. This is very serious - we’ve got a lot of things in place and technology is a good part of it. Businesses, families, social and civil services - the whole economies depend on this infrastructure. The worth thing – the neighborhood depends on how good and stable it is operated. But there must be a solution. This came in my discussion with Debbie - I personally like the idea of subsidizing developing communities or non commercial companies where mature TLDs (g and cc) taking care of technical infrastructure, fund the application expense and provide operational support. Adding new TLD into well developed technical and business infrastructure adds a fraction of cost. And if there are multiple sponsors and multiple recipients, we can reach a certain balance. The good thing about it - the sponsorship is a natural thing which requires no new regulations, PDP, WGs, etc. If there are enough sponsors, we can pick up some long waiting gTLD projects very fast. However, wouldn’t it be really cool if ICANN gives a green light to the first gTLDs of global humanitarian services? All best, --andrei -- Andrei Kolesnikov Coordination Center for TLD .RU Director http://cctld.ru<http://cctld.ru/> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:52 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<mailto: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> [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net> > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53 To: 'St phane Van Gelder'< stephane.vangelder@indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>>; 'Bruce Tonkin'< Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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> [ 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
Andrei, I am not sure why and how you can talk about "quality applicants", for pricing and fees it is legitimate to ask why such high pricing and should be discussed. the fear is that is only a way to keep the status quo and limit the market to known entities. the IDN ccTLD is good example but I am not sure that there is a fee for the fast track process?http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/ . we shouldn't also be worried for the technical and operational side as many of those countries were preparing for long time to have IDNs. well, I don't see in the language in the board resolution any mention that ICANN will subsidize applicants. my understanding is that the community should be original to find other entities (let's say World bank or international development agencies) to help and support prospective applicants from developing countries and other approaches too in addition to that. don't worry ICANN will still make profits. your idea of "mature" g and cc TLD taking care of everything may interest some but not all. it is not sustainable and there is real desire and willing to be independent. anyway, there are two problems : the fees costs and operations cost as defined by the staff. both can be fairly discussed and there are many ways to discuss them without lowering any standards or requirements for stability and security etc etc. for communities looking for development and progress, humanitarian services aren't the response and just look as aid and assistance. don't alienate people. Regards Rafik 2010/3/23 Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei@cctld.ru>
Rafik, guys,
I don’t support the idea of application fee vary by “sort of applicant” – whatever it is: economy, nation, planet, city or non commercial foundation. Because this situation is bi-directional: either initial application price tag is too high, or ICANN discounts the idea of “quality applicants” and steps back for political reasons in attempt to look better. Some of us got experience of running the infrastructure services for many years, some runs registrar or registration services. It’s not that we’re better than others. Let me recall a very practical thing, some of our council members must remember the process. We just submitted the IANA application for IDN ccTLD delegation. And we took this project seriously – run it as due-diligence to see and submit what we have in place after significant legal, technical and operational upgrade. This is very serious - we’ve got a lot of things in place and technology is a good part of it. Businesses, families, social and civil services - the whole economies depend on this infrastructure. The worth thing – the neighborhood depends on how good and stable it is operated.
But there must be a solution. This came in my discussion with Debbie - I personally like the idea of subsidizing developing communities or non commercial companies where mature TLDs (g and cc) taking care of technical infrastructure, fund the application expense and provide operational support. Adding new TLD into well developed technical and business infrastructure adds a fraction of cost.
And if there are multiple sponsors and multiple recipients, we can reach a certain balance.
The good thing about it - the sponsorship is a natural thing which requires no new regulations, PDP, WGs, etc. If there are enough sponsors, we can pick up some long waiting gTLD projects very fast. However, wouldn’t it be really cool if ICANN gives a green light to the first gTLDs of global humanitarian services?
All best,
--andrei
--
Andrei Kolesnikov
Coordination Center for TLD .RU
Director
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak *Sent:* Monday, March 22, 2010 7:52 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
Hello Rafik,
the IDN ccTLD is good example but I am not sure that there is a fee for the fast track process?http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/ . we shouldn't also be worried for the technical and operational side as many of those countries were preparing for long time to have IDNs.
There are some fees for IDN-ccTLD fast track. From: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-requestors-manual-16... "Payment of the fee (USD $26,000) for the processing of a request in the String Evaluation Stage is expected but not mandatory. ICANN will submit a notice of this amount to you. If you are unable to pay this fee you can contact ICANN stating the reason for the inability to pay the fee. Payment of an annual contribution to ICANN’s cost of operations in the amount 1‐3% of the revenue from the registrations of domain names within the selected TLD is expected but not mandatory. ICANN will submit a notice of the structure of this amount to you on an annual basis." Note that the application fee above only covers the evaluation of the string. Whereas the policy for new gTLDs requires technical and operational evaluation, along with mechanisms for rights protection mechanisms etc. The legal costs and economists around new gTLDS have also been far greater (millions) - so the more the community demands with respect to work on new gTLDs, the higher the costs for ICANN that need to be recovered in some way. Once a string is selected, then an IDN-ccTLD goes through the normal IANA ccTLD delegation process - which is essentially proving that the applicant has the support of the local community. (it is a little like the community evaluation component of the new gTLD process where there is contention between applicants). There are some technical tests applied before a ccTLD is placed into the root, and generally I believe that IANA does some due diligence on the technical capabilities of the applicant. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, Rafik - for your information few facts of live. Starting IDN ccTLD open up the same issues as one starts gTLD: TM protection, sunrise, hiring expensive legal guys, deals with local authorities, making sure you have community support and operations in place. All of this - a lot of money if cc applicant is not trying to cover bad operations with "national sovereignty". To date we've invested about $600.000 in the registry and systems (go EPP) and about $500.000 (including $26.000 Fast track fee) in SG&A costs. Differences in requirements for ccTLD and gTLD applicants are well known, but they are not about budgets if registry plans to go beyond 10.000 second level domains. And here we go with Adrian's question: "I am struggling to understand why everyone NEEDS a domain name even". And Alan's point: "If we cannot come up with examples of TLDs that stick out as "really good things" that can attract support, perhaps you are right and they don't "need" them. But I suspect that there will be examples, particularly IDNs, where the case will be a lot easier to make." My believe there will be failures and there will be success stories. And until we seed first few (IDN) gTLDs focused on local communities or businesses - we will never know. Damn right - .xxx will cover all costs. What about .дети? (.child in Russian) There is only one way to know: launch it and see how it goes. --andrei
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin ...
Note that the application fee above only covers the evaluation of the string. Whereas the policy for new gTLDs requires technical and operational evaluation, along with mechanisms for rights protection mechanisms etc. The legal costs and economists around new gTLDS have also been far greater (millions) - so the more the community demands with respect to work on new gTLDs, the higher the costs for ICANN that need to be recovered in some way.
Once a string is selected, then an IDN-ccTLD goes through the normal IANA ccTLD delegation process - which is essentially proving that the applicant has the support of the local community. (it is a little like the community evaluation component of the new gTLD process where there is contention between applicants). There are some technical tests applied before a ccTLD is placed into the root, and generally I believe that IANA does some due diligence on the technical capabilities of the applicant.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Rafik, yes, there are *recommended* set up ($26.000) and recurring fees (3% revenue) and we consider this fare deal and important thing to do. The price tag question is very hot. But the misbalanced revenue sheet of ICANN is also real. What about next revolutionary thing – the ICANN investment bank to balance internet unfairness of this world? --andrei From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:34 AM To: Andrei Kolesnikov Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 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 Andrei, I am not sure why and how you can talk about "quality applicants", for pricing and fees it is legitimate to ask why such high pricing and should be discussed. the fear is that is only a way to keep the status quo and limit the market to known entities. the IDN ccTLD is good example but I am not sure that there is a fee for the fast track process?http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/ . we shouldn't also be worried for the technical and operational side as many of those countries were preparing for long time to have IDNs. well, I don't see in the language in the board resolution any mention that ICANN will subsidize applicants. my understanding is that the community should be original to find other entities (let's say World bank or international development agencies) to help and support prospective applicants from developing countries and other approaches too in addition to that. don't worry ICANN will still make profits. your idea of "mature" g and cc TLD taking care of everything may interest some but not all. it is not sustainable and there is real desire and willing to be independent. anyway, there are two problems : the fees costs and operations cost as defined by the staff. both can be fairly discussed and there are many ways to discuss them without lowering any standards or requirements for stability and security etc etc. for communities looking for development and progress, humanitarian services aren't the response and just look as aid and assistance. don't alienate people. Regards Rafik 2010/3/23 Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei@cctld.ru> Rafik, guys, I don’t support the idea of application fee vary by “sort of applicant” – whatever it is: economy, nation, planet, city or non commercial foundation. Because this situation is bi-directional: either initial application price tag is too high, or ICANN discounts the idea of “quality applicants” and steps back for political reasons in attempt to look better. Some of us got experience of running the infrastructure services for many years, some runs registrar or registration services. It’s not that we’re better than others. Let me recall a very practical thing, some of our council members must remember the process. We just submitted the IANA application for IDN ccTLD delegation. And we took this project seriously – run it as due-diligence to see and submit what we have in place after significant legal, technical and operational upgrade. This is very serious - we’ve got a lot of things in place and technology is a good part of it. Businesses, families, social and civil services - the whole economies depend on this infrastructure. The worth thing – the neighborhood depends on how good and stable it is operated. But there must be a solution. This came in my discussion with Debbie - I personally like the idea of subsidizing developing communities or non commercial companies where mature TLDs (g and cc) taking care of technical infrastructure, fund the application expense and provide operational support. Adding new TLD into well developed technical and business infrastructure adds a fraction of cost. And if there are multiple sponsors and multiple recipients, we can reach a certain balance. The good thing about it - the sponsorship is a natural thing which requires no new regulations, PDP, WGs, etc. If there are enough sponsors, we can pick up some long waiting gTLD projects very fast. However, wouldn’t it be really cool if ICANN gives a green light to the first gTLDs of global humanitarian services? All best, --andrei -- Andrei Kolesnikov Coordination Center for TLD .RU Director http://cctld.ru From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:52 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 (12)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Alan Greenberg -
Andrei Kolesnikov -
Bruce Tonkin -
Gomes, Chuck -
HughesDeb＠usa.redcross.org -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Olga Cavalli -
Rafik Dammak -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
tim＠godaddy.com -
William Drake