Thank you very much Mawaki for the detailed response to my questions. I personally believe that you make some extremely valid points that are consistent with the RyC positions communicated in our input to the process. Chuck Gomes VeriSign Information Services

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:29 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of discussion on application fees in Amsterdam

Hi Chuck,

my responses in line below.

--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

...

...

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

5. It should also be noted that the possible extra-costs that may result from the differences in the applicants' working languages

as

...

well as legal systems (as opposed to a specific dominant language and legal system) should not be held against them, and be left to the expense to the concerned communities. After all, the Internet is and must remain a global facility both from the user and demand side and from the operation and supply side.

Gomes: Mawaki - What do you mean by "should not be held against them"? If you mean that the fact that extra costs to evaluate their application because of legal and/or language issues should not be used in any negative way to evaluate their application, I would agree with you. But if you mean that they should not have to bear the extra costs,

I mean both, actually. I'm glad to see we are totally in agreement on this first part.

...

then that raises an additional question: who should bear the costs? The RyC has communicated that its members do no believe that any applicants should have to subsidize application costs for other applicants. Do you agree or disagree with this position of the RyC? If you agree,

Yes, my turn to agree with you (and the RyC) here.

...

then are you suggesting that ICANN should charge the extra costs to such applicants or that ICANN should find funds elwewhere in its budget to cover the extra costs?

The latter, and let me clarify again. What I'm saying is the whole ICANN as the Internet coordination and governance (or some say regulatory) body could try to secure resources to make these processes as even as possible to all potential players. Or to work harder, and with good will, towards equal real chances (as much as possible, I know it's never perfect) of market entry for those potential players. It clearly has a benefit as well as a cost, either symbolic, material or both, to be the authority that everybody in the industry looks at and often relies on, at one level or the other. We, as ICANN, need to accept to bear that cost toward the whole community, and it may have different flavors depending on the specificties of the various groups of participants, the regions, their top issues and priorities, etc. in connection with ICANN business.

To exemplify, let me take the case of a developing Non-English speaking country (and there are many, so I'm virtually talking of regions size-wise). We need to realize that it already has a cost, rather enorm, for them that this whole business is conducted in a language that is not theirs. For many, this will result, among other things, in 8, 10 or more years lagging behind and even locked out of the business. Their poor institutional and economic development doesn't help either, of course, and that's not ICANN's fault. But the result is that it is again those who have less who still get less, falling deeper behind, while paying the same market price as every one if not more because of their poor organization (access, international bandwidth and interconnections, etc.)

So are we going to tell them, not only they have to pay the same fees (in absolute value) that is required from their counterparts from markets and economies much much more developed than theirs where the relative value of those fees are unbearable, not only that, but also they will need to hire lawyers with international competence to translate the legal and contractual instruments as well as prepare their application to ICANN in English before they have one slight chance to compete? We in fact don't need to utter or write a word; by just choosing not to address this issue, we may be meaning that in the eyes of people who are concerned, and in the long run (meaning right now, already) the result is the same.

Thanks Chuck for asking, and thank you all for your attention; sorry for the lengthy posting... it's been some time, eh?

Mawaki