<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=RU link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Rafik, yes, there are *<b>recommended</b>* set up ($26.000) and
recurring fees (3% revenue) and we consider this fare deal and important thing
to do. The price tag question is very hot. But the misbalanced revenue sheet
of ICANN is also real. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>What about next revolutionary thing – the ICANN investment bank
to balance internet unfairness of this world? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>--andrei<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.co</span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>m] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:34 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrei Kolesnikov<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Gomes, Chuck; 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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Andrei,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I am not sure why and how you can talk about "quality
applicants", for pricing and fees it is legitimate to ask why
such high pricing and should be discussed. the fear is that is only a way to
keep the status quo and limit the market to known entities.<br>
the IDN ccTLD is good example but I am not sure that there is a fee for the
fast track process?<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/">http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/</a> .
we shouldn't also be worried for the technical and operational side as many of
those countries were preparing for long time to have IDNs.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>well, I don't see in the language in the board resolution
any mention that ICANN will subsidize applicants. my understanding is that the
community should be original to find other entities (let's say World bank or
international development agencies) to help and
support prospective applicants from developing countries and
other approaches too in addition to that. don't worry ICANN will
still make profits.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>your idea of "mature" g and cc TLD taking care of
everything may interest some but not all. it is not sustainable and
there is real desire and willing to be independent.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>anyway, there are two problems : the fees costs and operations
cost as defined by the staff. both can be fairly discussed and there are many
ways to discuss them without lowering any standards or requirements for
stability and security etc etc.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>for communities looking for development and
progress, humanitarian services aren't the response and just look as
aid and assistance. don't alienate people.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Rafik <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>2010/3/23 Andrei Kolesnikov <<a
href="mailto:andrei@cctld.ru">andrei@cctld.ru</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Rafik, guys,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>I don’t support the idea of
application fee vary by “sort of applicant” – whatever it is: economy, nation,
planet, 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 – run 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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>And if there are multiple
sponsors and multiple recipients, we can reach a certain balance. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>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?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>All best, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>--andrei</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>--</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Andrei
Kolesnikov</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Coordination
Center for TLD .RU</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'>Director</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><a
href="http://cctld.ru" target="_blank">http://cctld.ru</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> <a
href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">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.; <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce
Tonkin; GNSO Council</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><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<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hi
Chuck,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>@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)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Rafik<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>2010/3/21
Gomes, Chuck <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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>
<span style='color:#888888'><br>
Chuck</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>>
<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank">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"
target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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"
target="_blank">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>>;<br>
> 'Bruce Tonkin'<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au"
target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>><br>
> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank">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" target="_blank">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">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>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>