<html>
<body>
Adrian, <br><br>
NEED is a rather loaded term. WANTS, COULD BENEFIT FROM, ASPIRES TO each
may describe a particular situation better.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 22/03/2010 07:23 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Great points Andrei.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
You can certainly use the internet without one.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
<b>Adrian Kinderis</b><br><br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Andrei
Kolesnikov<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:39 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Rafik Dammak'; 'Gomes, Chuck'<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Terry L Davis, P.E.'; owner-council@gnso.icann.org;
'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Bruce Tonkin; 'GNSO Council'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> 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<br>
<br>
Rafik, guys,<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
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. <br>
And if there are multiple sponsors and multiple recipients, we can reach
a certain balance. <br>
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?<br>
<br>
All best, <br>
<br>
--andrei<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrei Kolesnikov<br>
Coordination Center for TLD .RU<br>
Director<br>
<a href="http://cctld.ru/" eudora="autourl">http://cctld.ru</a><br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Rafik
Dammak<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 22, 2010 7:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Stéphane
Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO Council<br>
<b>Subject:</b> 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<br>
<br>
Hi Chuck,<br><br>
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? <br>
<br>
@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)<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Rafik<br>
<br>
2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Chuck<br><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From:
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
>
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
>
<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a><br>
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM<br>
> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.;
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>;<br>
> 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Bruce Tonkin'<br>
> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<br>
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC -<br>
> GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing<br>
> support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for<br>
> and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board<br>
> Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti<br>
><br>
><br>
> Hello All,<br>
><br>
> In my point of view, it sounds that you are wrongly using the<br>
> principle of equality in this case which looks more like<br>
> discrimination against applicants for developing regions. Why<br>
> you want a registry from developing regions to have the same<br>
> budget of registry in developed country?there are a lot of<br>
> way to cut costs.<br>
><br>
> Yes, a registry in developing region can be run with respect<br>
> to all ICANN requirements in cheaper way than in developed
country.<br>
> That is why I would like if possible that Bruce point to<br>
> documents (if they exist) explaining in details the why of<br>
> such requested costs for running a regisrty from ICANN<br>
> perspective?but also for the application fees as the<br>
> explanation of cost recovery remains vague and abstract.<br>
><br>
> Thank you,<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> Rafik<br>
> BlackBerry from DOCOMO<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: "Terry L Davis, P.E."
<<a href="mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net">tdavis2@speakeasy.net</a>
><br>
> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53<br>
> To: 'St phane Van
Gelder'<<a href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">
stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>>;<br>
> 'Bruce
Tonkin'<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>><br>
> Cc: 'GNSO Council
'<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
><br>
> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC -<br>
> GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing<br>
> support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for<br>
> and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board<br>
> Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti<br>
><br>
><br>
> Stephane<br>
><br>
> My feelings also.<br>
><br>
> To me, we would have to treat all "dis-advantaged
enties"<br>
> alike regardless<br>
> of their nationality as there will be many entities in every<br>
> country for<br>
> which the TLD cost is too high. My first question to any of<br>
> them though<br>
> would be to ask if the entry cost is too high, do you<br>
> actually have the<br>
> resources then to run a TLD?<br>
><br>
> Feels more like a "tar pit" than a can of worms.<br>
><br>
> Take care<br>
> Terry<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From:
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
>
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On<br>
> Behalf Of St phane Van Gelder<br>
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:57 AM<br>
> To: Bruce Tonkin<br>
> Cc: GNSO Council<br>
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG
"to<br>
> develop a sustainable approach to providing support to<br>
> applicants requiring<br>
> assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in<br>
> response to the ICANN<br>
> Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti<br>
><br>
><br>
> I had understood the motion to be referencing financial
support.<br>
><br>
> But to me it really doesn't look like much of a solution. If<br>
> the aim is to<br>
> help applicants with lesser means, then this motion is so<br>
> vague as to be<br>
> totally moot. If the Board really has a desire to explore the<br>
> possibility of<br>
> catering to applicants with different financial profiles, I<br>
> think we then<br>
> spill into the notion of categories of applicants that the<br>
> GAC has been<br>
> pushing for and we then open up several new cans of worms<br>
> that can only lead<br>
> to more delays.<br>
><br>
> Just my personal five cents.<br>
><br>
> St phane<br>
><br>
> Le 20 mars 2010 06:41, Bruce Tonkin a crit :<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > Hello Chuck,<br>
> ><br>
> >><br>
> >> This is interesting Bruce. I had no idea that this
motion<br>
> was talking<br>
> >> about financial support;<br>
> ><br>
> > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for<br>
> the Board to<br>
> > reduce the application fees for developing countries.<br>
> ><br>
> > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of
solving the<br>
> > issue of participation - and left it open for the community to
put<br>
> > forward some proposals. It was my input (which I
also<br>
> stated during<br>
> > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that
may<br>
> > help, but also support in terms of resources. I
gave the<br>
> example that<br>
> > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary
nameservers<br>
> operated by<br>
> > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost.<br>
> ><br>
> > Regards,<br>
> > Bruce Tonkin<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>