<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16981" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=678133220-22032010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good
ideas.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=678133220-22032010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=678133220-22032010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Chuck</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Rafik Dammak
[mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 22, 2010 12:52
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></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Hi Chuck,
<DIV><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? </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>@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)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Regards</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Rafik</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</A>></SPAN><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">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><FONT
color=#888888><BR>Chuck<BR></FONT>
<DIV class=im><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A><BR>>
[mailto:<A
href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of<BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>> <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>>
[mailto:<A
href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">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></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>