RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
That's just all the more reason to accept my amendment as friendly. If it is not considered friendly then it's clear to me that Rafik and Olga have something different in mind. Regardless of the Board motion mentioning it, this motion needs to be clear that it has picked up on that fact and that the WG will proceed accordingly. If that is not clear, it is unlikely the RrSG will support it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 1:48 pm To: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org> Tim, the Boards motion, which is directly referenced in the proposed motion includes "Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs". Why is it necessary to re-iterate it again? Alan At 30/03/2010 12:58 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Rafik,
Then I'm confused because you said:
"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!)."
All I am asking is that the motion is clarified to make your point - "it is not ICANN which will fund!" Would you please propose such an amendment that is acceptable? The RrSG would like to be able to support the motion.
Thanks, Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>
Hello,
unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment.
Regards
Rafik
2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
Rafik/Olga,
Do you accept this as a friendly amendment?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:20 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look for funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to possibly resolve this concern, I would like to make that evident in the motion and propose this friendly amendment:
Add the following to the first Resolve:
keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs
So the first Resolve would read:
Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs;
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
Hello,
I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council working group on new gTLD applicant support the motion document is attached.
Regards
Rafik
Rafik, Olga, I think it would clearly be useful for you to provide some explanation as to why you don't consider Tim's amendment as friendly. There may be very good reasons for that, but by not explaining them, it simply raises suspicions around this motion. Thanks, Stéphane Le 31 mars 2010 à 15:47, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
That's just all the more reason to accept my amendment as friendly. If it is not considered friendly then it's clear to me that Rafik and Olga have something different in mind. Regardless of the Board motion mentioning it, this motion needs to be clear that it has picked up on that fact and that the WG will proceed accordingly. If that is not clear, it is unlikely the RrSG will support it.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 1:48 pm To: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org>
Tim, the Boards motion, which is directly referenced in the proposed motion includes "Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs". Why is it necessary to re-iterate it again?
Alan
At 30/03/2010 12:58 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Rafik,
Then I'm confused because you said:
"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!)."
All I am asking is that the motion is clarified to make your point - "it is not ICANN which will fund!" Would you please propose such an amendment that is acceptable? The RrSG would like to be able to support the motion.
Thanks, Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>
Hello,
unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment.
Regards
Rafik
2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
Rafik/Olga,
Do you accept this as a friendly amendment?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:20 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look for funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to possibly resolve this concern, I would like to make that evident in the motion and propose this friendly amendment:
Add the following to the first Resolve:
keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs
So the first Resolve would read:
Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs;
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
Hello,
I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council working group on new gTLD applicant support the motion document is attached.
Regards
Rafik
Hello, After discussion with NCSG, we decided to accept the amendment and would like to reword it: "keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs" Regards Rafik 2010/3/31 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Rafik, Olga,
I think it would clearly be useful for you to provide some explanation as to why you don't consider Tim's amendment as friendly.
There may be very good reasons for that, but by not explaining them, it simply raises suspicions around this motion.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 31 mars 2010 à 15:47, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
That's just all the more reason to accept my amendment as friendly. If it is not considered friendly then it's clear to me that Rafik and Olga have something different in mind. Regardless of the Board motion mentioning it, this motion needs to be clear that it has picked up on that fact and that the WG will proceed accordingly. If that is not clear, it is unlikely the RrSG will support it.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 1:48 pm To: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org>
Tim, the Boards motion, which is directly referenced in the proposed motion includes "Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs". Why is it necessary to re-iterate it again?
Alan
At 30/03/2010 12:58 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Rafik,
Then I'm confused because you said:
"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!)."
All I am asking is that the motion is clarified to make your point - "it is not ICANN which will fund!" Would you please propose such an amendment that is acceptable? The RrSG would like to be able to support the motion.
Thanks, Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>
Hello,
unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment.
Regards
Rafik
2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
Rafik/Olga,
Do you accept this as a friendly amendment?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:20 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look for funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to possibly resolve this concern, I would like to make that evident in the motion and propose this friendly amendment:
Add the following to the first Resolve:
keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs
So the first Resolve would read:
Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs;
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
Hello,
I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council working group on new gTLD applicant support the motion document is attached.
Regards
Rafik
Hi, I support the rewording proposed by Rafik. Regards Olga 2010/3/31 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>
Hello,
After discussion with NCSG, we decided to accept the amendment and would like to reword it: "keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs"
Regards
Rafik
2010/3/31 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Rafik, Olga,
I think it would clearly be useful for you to provide some explanation as to why you don't consider Tim's amendment as friendly.
There may be very good reasons for that, but by not explaining them, it simply raises suspicions around this motion.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 31 mars 2010 à 15:47, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
That's just all the more reason to accept my amendment as friendly. If it is not considered friendly then it's clear to me that Rafik and Olga have something different in mind. Regardless of the Board motion mentioning it, this motion needs to be clear that it has picked up on that fact and that the WG will proceed accordingly. If that is not clear, it is unlikely the RrSG will support it.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 1:48 pm To: "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org>
Tim, the Boards motion, which is directly referenced in the proposed motion includes "Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs". Why is it necessary to re-iterate it again?
Alan
At 30/03/2010 12:58 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Rafik,
Then I'm confused because you said:
"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!)."
All I am asking is that the motion is clarified to make your point -
"it
is not ICANN which will fund!" Would you please propose such an amendment that is acceptable? The RrSG would like to be able to support the motion.
Thanks, Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org>
Hello,
unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment.
Regards
Rafik
2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
Rafik/Olga,
Do you accept this as a friendly amendment?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:20 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look for funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to possibly resolve this concern, I would like to make that evident in the motion and propose this friendly amendment:
Add the following to the first Resolve:
keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs
So the first Resolve would read:
Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs;
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
Hello,
I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council working group on new gTLD applicant support the motion document is attached.
Regards
Rafik
participants (4)
-
Olga Cavalli -
Rafik Dammak -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz