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 Meeting
I will add the following item to our agenda for the Council meeting on 1 April. It seems to me that it would be helpful to try to form the joint community WG as soon as possible after our 1 April meeting and task them with developing a proposed charter for the longer term work of the group. Thoughts? Please inform your respective groups of this task that was initiated by the Board in Nairobi and seek their input. Thanks, Chuck ________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:42 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ICANN AtLarge Staff; gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: 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 Meeting To: Mr. Chuck Gomes, Chair of the GNSO Regarding: 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 Meeting. Chuck further to our recent conversation on the matter of next steps in response to Board Resolution 20 (copied below) of the ICANN Board Meeting held March 12th in Nairobi, as this matter has clear and important interest and ramifications to our SO and AC (the matter of costs for developing countries and for some community based applicants has been of continued concern to At-Large) I am writing to you as Chair of the GNSO to formally request the GNSO's consideration of the ALAC and GNSO forming a Joint WG to explore options regarding applicant assistance in the application for and operation of new gTLDs, that may be required in some exceptional circumstances, in response to this resolution. This new gTLD Applicant Assistance Program WG should be open to all stakeholders, and once formed, a call to join this Joint WG as either participant or observer should go out to all parts of ICANN. ALAC will if the GNSO is in agreement formally propose the creation of this WG at our meeting of March 23rd and look forward to feedback from you on how the GNSO wishes to proceed with the WG's charter, administration etc., so that we can begin activity in a timely manner to ensure a first report on WG activities can be available at the Brussels Meeting and so that if we deem it appropriate that at this meeting an opportunity can be taken for community consultation with a workshop or similar activity. In advance of the GNSO's formal response to this Joint WG proposal I will be adding this matter to our Agenda of the 23rd and asking the ALAC's gtld-wg to consider how it wishes to engage and integrate in this activity as either a committee of the whole, with the formation of a topic specific Work Team and/or nomination of specific representatives to this new WG. I will; also request that our staff prepare a Wiki space/commons linked to the gtld-wg space where the proposed Joint ALAC-GNSO-WG can operate and where the wider ICANN Community and stakeholders can openly contribute. Board resolution 20 in Nairobi: "20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants Whereas, the launch of the New gTLD Program will bring fundamental change to the marketplace, including competition and innovation; Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on relationships between registries and registrars have been a center of discussion and analysis; Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and opportunity for innovation, new services and benefits for users and registrants; Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives; Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; and Whereas numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing countries. Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an inclusive New gTLD Program. Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs ." CI Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2010
I missed the Board meeting unfortunately and only have the resolution to go on for now. Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of assistance / support was envisaged - was there more discussion on this at the meeting or was it left open and therefore up to the proposed WG? Many thanks, Caroline. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 19 March 2010 15:11 To: GNSO Council Subject: [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 Meeting I will add the following item to our agenda for the Council meeting on 1 April. It seems to me that it would be helpful to try to form the joint community WG as soon as possible after our 1 April meeting and task them with developing a proposed charter for the longer term work of the group. Thoughts? Please inform your respective groups of this task that was initiated by the Board in Nairobi and seek their input. Thanks, Chuck ________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:42 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ICANN AtLarge Staff; gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: 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 Meeting To: Mr. Chuck Gomes, Chair of the GNSO Regarding: 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 Meeting. Chuck further to our recent conversation on the matter of next steps in response to Board Resolution 20 (copied below) of the ICANN Board Meeting held March 12th in Nairobi, as this matter has clear and important interest and ramifications to our SO and AC (the matter of costs for developing countries and for some community based applicants has been of continued concern to At-Large) I am writing to you as Chair of the GNSO to formally request the GNSO's consideration of the ALAC and GNSO forming a Joint WG to explore options regarding applicant assistance in the application for and operation of new gTLDs, that may be required in some exceptional circumstances, in response to this resolution. This new gTLD Applicant Assistance Program WG should be open to all stakeholders, and once formed, a call to join this Joint WG as either participant or observer should go out to all parts of ICANN. ALAC will if the GNSO is in agreement formally propose the creation of this WG at our meeting of March 23rd and look forward to feedback from you on how the GNSO wishes to proceed with the WG's charter, administration etc., so that we can begin activity in a timely manner to ensure a first report on WG activities can be available at the Brussels Meeting and so that if we deem it appropriate that at this meeting an opportunity can be taken for community consultation with a workshop or similar activity. In advance of the GNSO's formal response to this Joint WG proposal I will be adding this matter to our Agenda of the 23rd and asking the ALAC's gtld-wg to consider how it wishes to engage and integrate in this activity as either a committee of the whole, with the formation of a topic specific Work Team and/or nomination of specific representatives to this new WG. I will; also request that our staff prepare a Wiki space/commons linked to the gtld-wg space where the proposed Joint ALAC-GNSO-WG can operate and where the wider ICANN Community and stakeholders can openly contribute. Board resolution 20 in Nairobi: "20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants Whereas, the launch of the New gTLD Program will bring fundamental change to the marketplace, including competition and innovation; Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on relationships between registries and registrars have been a center of discussion and analysis; Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and opportunity for innovation, new services and benefits for users and registrants; Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives; Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; and Whereas numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing countries. Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an inclusive New gTLD Program. Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs ." CI Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2010
I missed the Board meeting as well but it is my impression that it is an open back that can be filled as the community thinks best and as resources are available. Chuck ________________________________ From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@mtld.mobi] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 11:26 AM To: GNSO Council ; Gomes, Chuck Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti I missed the Board meeting unfortunately and only have the resolution to go on for now. Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of assistance / support was envisaged - was there more discussion on this at the meeting or was it left open and therefore up to the proposed WG? Many thanks, Caroline. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 19 March 2010 15:11 To: GNSO Council Subject: [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 Meeting I will add the following item to our agenda for the Council meeting on 1 April. It seems to me that it would be helpful to try to form the joint community WG as soon as possible after our 1 April meeting and task them with developing a proposed charter for the longer term work of the group. Thoughts? Please inform your respective groups of this task that was initiated by the Board in Nairobi and seek their input. Thanks, Chuck ________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:42 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ICANN AtLarge Staff; gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: 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 Meeting To: Mr. Chuck Gomes, Chair of the GNSO Regarding: 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 Meeting. Chuck further to our recent conversation on the matter of next steps in response to Board Resolution 20 (copied below) of the ICANN Board Meeting held March 12th in Nairobi, as this matter has clear and important interest and ramifications to our SO and AC (the matter of costs for developing countries and for some community based applicants has been of continued concern to At-Large) I am writing to you as Chair of the GNSO to formally request the GNSO's consideration of the ALAC and GNSO forming a Joint WG to explore options regarding applicant assistance in the application for and operation of new gTLDs, that may be required in some exceptional circumstances, in response to this resolution. This new gTLD Applicant Assistance Program WG should be open to all stakeholders, and once formed, a call to join this Joint WG as either participant or observer should go out to all parts of ICANN. ALAC will if the GNSO is in agreement formally propose the creation of this WG at our meeting of March 23rd and look forward to feedback from you on how the GNSO wishes to proceed with the WG's charter, administration etc., so that we can begin activity in a timely manner to ensure a first report on WG activities can be available at the Brussels Meeting and so that if we deem it appropriate that at this meeting an opportunity can be taken for community consultation with a workshop or similar activity. In advance of the GNSO's formal response to this Joint WG proposal I will be adding this matter to our Agenda of the 23rd and asking the ALAC's gtld-wg to consider how it wishes to engage and integrate in this activity as either a committee of the whole, with the formation of a topic specific Work Team and/or nomination of specific representatives to this new WG. I will; also request that our staff prepare a Wiki space/commons linked to the gtld-wg space where the proposed Joint ALAC-GNSO-WG can operate and where the wider ICANN Community and stakeholders can openly contribute. Board resolution 20 in Nairobi: "20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants Whereas, the launch of the New gTLD Program will bring fundamental change to the marketplace, including competition and innovation; Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on relationships between registries and registrars have been a center of discussion and analysis; Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and opportunity for innovation, new services and benefits for users and registrants; Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives; Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; and Whereas numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing countries. Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an inclusive New gTLD Program. Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs ." CI Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2010
That was supposed to say "open bag". Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 11:32 AM To: Caroline Greer; 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 missed the Board meeting as well but it is my impression that it is an open back that can be filled as the community thinks best and as resources are available. Chuck ________________________________ From: Caroline Greer [mailto:cgreer@mtld.mobi] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 11:26 AM To: GNSO Council ; Gomes, Chuck Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti I missed the Board meeting unfortunately and only have the resolution to go on for now. Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of assistance / support was envisaged - was there more discussion on this at the meeting or was it left open and therefore up to the proposed WG? Many thanks, Caroline. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 19 March 2010 15:11 To: GNSO Council Subject: [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 Meeting I will add the following item to our agenda for the Council meeting on 1 April. It seems to me that it would be helpful to try to form the joint community WG as soon as possible after our 1 April meeting and task them with developing a proposed charter for the longer term work of the group. Thoughts? Please inform your respective groups of this task that was initiated by the Board in Nairobi and seek their input. Thanks, Chuck ________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:42 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; alac-excom@atlarge-lists.icann.org; ICANN AtLarge Staff; gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: 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 Meeting To: Mr. Chuck Gomes, Chair of the GNSO Regarding: 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 Meeting. Chuck further to our recent conversation on the matter of next steps in response to Board Resolution 20 (copied below) of the ICANN Board Meeting held March 12th in Nairobi, as this matter has clear and important interest and ramifications to our SO and AC (the matter of costs for developing countries and for some community based applicants has been of continued concern to At-Large) I am writing to you as Chair of the GNSO to formally request the GNSO's consideration of the ALAC and GNSO forming a Joint WG to explore options regarding applicant assistance in the application for and operation of new gTLDs, that may be required in some exceptional circumstances, in response to this resolution. This new gTLD Applicant Assistance Program WG should be open to all stakeholders, and once formed, a call to join this Joint WG as either participant or observer should go out to all parts of ICANN. ALAC will if the GNSO is in agreement formally propose the creation of this WG at our meeting of March 23rd and look forward to feedback from you on how the GNSO wishes to proceed with the WG's charter, administration etc., so that we can begin activity in a timely manner to ensure a first report on WG activities can be available at the Brussels Meeting and so that if we deem it appropriate that at this meeting an opportunity can be taken for community consultation with a workshop or similar activity. In advance of the GNSO's formal response to this Joint WG proposal I will be adding this matter to our Agenda of the 23rd and asking the ALAC's gtld-wg to consider how it wishes to engage and integrate in this activity as either a committee of the whole, with the formation of a topic specific Work Team and/or nomination of specific representatives to this new WG. I will; also request that our staff prepare a Wiki space/commons linked to the gtld-wg space where the proposed Joint ALAC-GNSO-WG can operate and where the wider ICANN Community and stakeholders can openly contribute. Board resolution 20 in Nairobi: "20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants Whereas, the launch of the New gTLD Program will bring fundamental change to the marketplace, including competition and innovation; Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on relationships between registries and registrars have been a center of discussion and analysis; Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and opportunity for innovation, new services and benefits for users and registrants; Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives; Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; and Whereas numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing countries. Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an inclusive New gTLD Program. Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs ." CI Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2010
Hello Caroline,
I missed the Board meeting unfortunately and only have the resolution to go on for now. Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of assistance / support was envisaged - was there more discussion on this at the meeting or was it left open and therefore up to the proposed WG?
It was left open. During the EOI panel and various other forums during the week in ICANN - there were members of the developing world noting that the costs to participate in new gTLDs was high. This is certainly been a consistent message since the beginning of the new gTLD process, and the original intent of the new gTLD committee in the GNSO was to deal with this in a second round of new gTLDs to avoid gaming in the first round. The Board has simply made an open call for suggestions. At this stage they would need to be made on a cost recovery basis - ie ICANN is not changing the rules or costs for new gTLDs at this stage ("ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs"). The Board also noted that the application costs are a small proportion of the costs of operating a gTLD at high levels of reliability. The Board would be supportive if a group decided to form a foundation that organizations could donate to, or would be supportive if some in the industry offered some in-kind contributions (e.g some staff support or computing resources) to helping applications from the developing world. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
This is interesting Bruce. I had no idea that this motion was talking about financial support; I thought it had to do with customer service support related to the new gTLD process. This puts a totally different slant on this. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:48 PM To: 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 Caroline,
I missed the Board meeting unfortunately and only have the resolution to go on for now. Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of assistance / support was envisaged - was there more discussion on this at the meeting or was it left open and therefore up to the proposed WG?
It was left open.
During the EOI panel and various other forums during the week in ICANN - there were members of the developing world noting that the costs to participate in new gTLDs was high. This is certainly been a consistent message since the beginning of the new gTLD process, and the original intent of the new gTLD committee in the GNSO was to deal with this in a second round of new gTLDs to avoid gaming in the first round.
The Board has simply made an open call for suggestions. At this stage they would need to be made on a cost recovery basis - ie ICANN is not changing the rules or costs for new gTLDs at this stage ("ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs"). The Board also noted that the application costs are a small proportion of the costs of operating a gTLD at high levels of reliability. The Board would be supportive if a group decided to form a foundation that organizations could donate to, or would be supportive if some in the industry offered some in-kind contributions (e.g some staff support or computing resources) to helping applications from the developing world.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
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
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. Stéphane Le 20 mars 2010 à 06:41, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
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
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 Stéphane 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. Stéphane Le 20 mars 2010 à 06:41, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :
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
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: 'Stphane 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 Stphane 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. Stphane 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
Rafik I agree that any registry can be run cheaper but there is a basic set of obligations to be met by a registry. My main point is that "dis-advantaged entities" that may want a TLD will exist in all nations. To me, if we consider changing the rules, then we would have to treat all "dis-advantaged entities" equally regardless of location. Defining a "dis-advantaged entities" will be challenging as in even developing regions, there are many multi-national entities that are clearly not disadvantaged. Take care Terry -----Original Message----- From: rafik.dammak@gmail.com [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 6:40 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: 'Stphane 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 Stphane 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. Stphane 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
Hello Rafiq,
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.
There are two papers available on the ICANN component of the costs. See: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en. pdf and http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-04oct09-en. pdf There is also a paper on a benchmarking study on what is involved in operating a registry. This was conducted by KPMG and compared 7 gTLDs and 6 ccTLDs across 10 countries. See: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/benchmarking-report-15feb10-en. pdf Note that there are also some letter of credit requirements etc to be able to provide funding to operate a registry for I think three additional years, if a registry operator chooses to cease providing that function. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I, personally am a little astounded by the principle and effort. Perhaps I am missing the point. Excuse me for sounding perhaps a little arrogant (you shouldn't be shocked by now) but I am not sure why such support needs to be provided at all. I'd love to have a telco licence in my country or to have bid for some spectrum but alas, I didn't have the funds and missed out. Perhaps I should apply to the government for assistance so that I can run my own cell phone number allocation and give them out to my constituents to improve their communication. Why is this situation any different? It costs a substantial amount of money to run a TLD and rightly so. It is critical infrastructure and should not be taken lightly. I am not sure why the fuss has been around the $185,000 any way. If you are having trouble with that, then look away, because ICANN's tech team have stipulated EPP Registry's, sophisticated DNS and disaster recovery just to name a few, not to mention the Registry failover financial instrument. TLD's aren't for everyone and they shouldn't be. If that means they are exclusively for the rich then unfortunately that is the way the worldturns. As I say, anyone want to start up a foundation to fund me to secure an Oil Drilling license in the North Sea? Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Sunday, 21 March 2010 1:43 PM To: 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 Rafiq,
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.
There are two papers available on the ICANN component of the costs. See: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en. pdf and http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-04oct09-en. pdf There is also a paper on a benchmarking study on what is involved in operating a registry. This was conducted by KPMG and compared 7 gTLDs and 6 ccTLDs across 10 countries. See: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/benchmarking-report-15feb10-en. pdf Note that there are also some letter of credit requirements etc to be able to provide funding to operate a registry for I think three additional years, if a registry operator chooses to cease providing that function. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
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: 'Stphane 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 Stphane 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.
Stphane
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
Well said, Chuck. I agree. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:32 AM To: rafik.dammak@gmail.com; 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 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: 'Stphane 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 Stphane 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.
Stphane
Le 20 mars 2010 06:41, Bruce Tonkin a crit :
Hello Chuck,
This is interesting Bruce. I had no idea that this motion
about financial support;
Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for
was talking the Board to
reduce the application fees for developing countries.
The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put forward some proposals. It was my input (which I also stated during the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may help, but also support in terms of resources. I gave the example that in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers operated by larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I think that we are having the wrong argument here. For over three years, every time that the issue of preferential prices for developing countries (or other disadvantaged groups) was raised, that answer was that ICANN would consider it in the next round and not the initial new gTLD application process. The answer had some rationale behind it, including the lack of clarity on what the "right" price should be, the worry about gaming, and the veiled hope that auctions in the first round might make funding available for preferred pricing in the next round. All of that being said, the reaction of those from developing countries to the official party line (that is, wait until next time) was often: - it was taken as staff stone-walling; - ICANN (ie staff) did not really understand; - ICANN did not care. This Board resolution, as vague as it is, sends a very different message. The Board cares and understands. Perhaps if money was more readily available this year, the message might have been even more encouraging, but that is not the case. But in my mind the important message is that the Board has send a very different message from what we have been hearing from staff for several years. I don't know whether we can translate the motion into action that will really help in the coming application round, but we can try. Alan At 21/03/2010 10:32 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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: 'Stphane 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 Stphane 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.
Stphane
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, NCUC/SG has been having a rather lively debate on pricing and developing countries and there is a group forming that wants to look into this. Quite a few people have expressed interest in participating. Not clear whether it'd make sense for all of them to directly join the joint GNSO-ALAC effort or if we should run a parallel activity with a few representatives serving as connectors, TBD. Either way, there's definitely interest from our side.... Best, Bill On Mar 20, 2010, at 2:41 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
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
*********************************************************** 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 ***********************************************************
Glad to hear there is lots of interest. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 11:17 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
Hello,
NCUC/SG has been having a rather lively debate on pricing and developing countries and there is a group forming that wants to look into this. Quite a few people have expressed interest in participating. Not clear whether it'd make sense for all of them to directly join the joint GNSO-ALAC effort or if we should run a parallel activity with a few representatives serving as connectors, TBD. Either way, there's definitely interest from our side....
Best,
Bill
On Mar 20, 2010, at 2:41 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
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
*********************************************************** 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 ***********************************************************
participants (10)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Alan Greenberg -
Bruce Tonkin -
Caroline Greer -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
rafik.dammak＠gmail.com -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Terry L Davis, P.E. -
William Drake