<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>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</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Bruce<BR>
<BR>
Many thanks for that additional information.<BR>
<BR>
Kind regards<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----------------<BR>
Caroline Greer<BR>
Director of Policy<BR>
dotMobi<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <owner-council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
To: GNSO Council <council@gnso.icann.org><BR>
Sent: Sat Mar 20 00:48:13 2010<BR>
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<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Hello Caroline,<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>> I missed the Board meeting unfortunately and only have the<BR>
resolution to go on for now. Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of<BR>
assistance / support was envisaged - was there more discussion on this<BR>
at the meeting or was it left open and therefore up to the proposed WG?<BR>
<BR>
It was left open. <BR>
<BR>
During the EOI panel and various other forums during the week in ICANN -<BR>
there were members of the developing world noting that the costs to<BR>
participate in new gTLDs was high. This is certainly been a consistent<BR>
message since the beginning of the new gTLD process, and the original<BR>
intent of the new gTLD committee in the GNSO was to deal with this in a<BR>
second round of new gTLDs to avoid gaming in the first round.<BR>
<BR>
The Board has simply made an open call for suggestions. At this stage<BR>
they would need to be made on a cost recovery basis - ie ICANN is not<BR>
changing the rules or costs for new gTLDs at this stage ("ICANN has a<BR>
requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going<BR>
services to new gTLDs"). The Board also noted that the application<BR>
costs are a small proportion of the costs of operating a gTLD at high<BR>
levels of reliability. The Board would be supportive if a group<BR>
decided to form a foundation that organizations could donate to, or<BR>
would be supportive if some in the industry offered some in-kind<BR>
contributions (e.g some staff support or computing resources) to helping<BR>
applications from the developing world.<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
Bruce Tonkin<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>