<html>
<body>
As has already been pointed out, I don't think the Board or anyone else
mentioned fast track. What I thought we were talking about was getting
certain groups off of the "extremely slow track - wait for next
time".<br><br>
And the type of support we are talking about would not likely get past a
rudimentary examination if the "non-profits" we may be
including have a problem of where to stash all of their money.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 23/03/2010 04:52 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">My reading of Tim’s email is
that non-profit gTLD’s et al are already catered for in the new gTLD
Process as it stands and that there should be no need, at this late
stage, to provide a carve out or fast track especially for those
groups.<br>
<br>
I think we all understand the importance and relevance of humanitarian
efforts. That is why they are catered for within the DAG as it
stands.<br>
<br>
I agree with Tim, if my reading is correct, that delays caused by this
late consideration are not helpful nor desirable. <br>
<br>
Finally I wouldn’t want this motion to centre on ‘non-profits’ alone.
There are many non-profits that would scoff at only having to pay $185k
fee to apply (it may help them keep their ability to not declare a profit
after allJ).<br>
<br>
Tim, sorry if I misrepresented your point.<br>
<br>
<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>Olga
Cavalli<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:25 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> tim@godaddy.com; cgomes@verisign.com;
owner-council@gnso.icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com;
tdavis2@speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Bruce Tonkin;
council@gnso.icann.org; Margie.Milam@icann.org<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,<br>
I support Debbie´s comments.<br>
regards<br>
Olga<br>
2010/3/23
<<a href="mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org">
HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org</a>><br>
Tim,<br>
<br>
I am sorry to hear that you think discussion of a processes related to
non-profit gTLDs is not “urgent.” I certainly understand the
concern shared by many related to ICANN staff and Councilors
limited resources and timing; however, I think we do ICANN a
disservice by discrediting the importance non-commercial use new gTLDs
and minimizing the voice of certain stakeholders based on the lack of
commercialization of new gTLDs. I would hope many may come to
understand that there are “urgent” and important non-commercial uses for
new gTLDs. For example, humanitarian, educational and philanthropic
activity is very meaningful to communities worldwide. <br>
<br>
I hope there is a way to get this process right without delay.
Delay helps no one. However, dismissing groups as suggested below
for the sake of speed is very disconcerting.<br>
<br>
Debbie<br>
<br><br>
<b>Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel</b> <br>
<b>American Red Cross</b> <br><br>
Office of the General Counsel <br>
2025 E Street, NW <br>
Washington, D.C. 20006 <br>
Phone: (202) 303-5356 <br>
Fax: (202) 303-0143 <br>
<a href="mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org">HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org</a>
<br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></div>
<b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of
</b><a href="mailto:tim@godaddy.com">tim@godaddy.com</a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:57 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck;
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>; Rafik Dammak<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Terry L Davis, P.E.; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO
Council; Margie Milam<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>
Does this need to be in place for the first round? I would find it hard
to support assistance for any applicant wanting to apply for a
commercially viable gTLD for profit. So if this would apply mainly to
non-profit community types it seems it isn't urgent.<br>
<br>
I'd hate to have another fasttrack process going where we don't have time
to really work out the best solution.<br><br>
Tim<br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></div>
<b>From: </b>"Gomes, Chuck"
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Date: </b>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400<br>
<b>To: </b>Rafik
Dammak<<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">
rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Terry L Davis,
P.E.<<a href="mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net">tdavis2@speakeasy.net</a>
>;
<<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>>; Stéphane Van
Gelder<<a href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">
stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>>; Bruce
Tonkin<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>; GNSO
Council<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">
council@gnso.icann.org</a>>; Margie
Milam<<a href="mailto:Margie.Milam@icann.org">
Margie.Milam@icann.org</a>><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>
A motion is being prepared for GNSO Council action on 1 April. The
ALAC also has this on their agenda today. The motion will likely
task the WG with first developing a charter that would need to be
approved by the participating SO's and AC's.<br>
<br>
Rafik - would you like to make the motion? Margie is preparing a
draft motion; once I have it, I would be happy to send it to you so you
can make it. The deadline for motions is tomorrow, 24 March.<br>
<br>
Chuck<br>
<dl>
<dd> <br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></div>
<dd>From:</b> Rafik Dammak
[<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Monday, March 22, 2010 8:57 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br>
<dd>Cc:</b> Terry L Davis, P.E.;
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO
Council<br>
<dd>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>
<dd>yes definitely. what is the process for starting this joint-wg? <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Rafik<br>
<dd>2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br>
<dd>Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good ideas.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Chuck<br>
<dl>
<dd> <br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></div>
<dd>From:</b> Rafik Dammak
[<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Monday, March 22, 2010 12:52 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br>
<dd>Cc:</b> Terry L Davis, P.E.;
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO
Council <br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Hi Chuck, <br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>@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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Regards<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Rafik<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Chuck<br><br>
<dd>> -----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>> From:
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>>
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
<dd>>
<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a><br>
<dd>> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM<br>
<dd>> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.;
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>;<br>
<dd>> 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; 'Bruce Tonkin'<br>
<dd>> Cc: 'GNSO Council '<br>
<dd>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC -<br>
<dd>> GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to
providing<br>
<dd>> support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for<br>
<dd>> and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN
Board<br>
<dd>> Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Hello All,<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> In my point of view, it sounds that you are wrongly using
the<br>
<dd>> principle of equality in this case which looks more like<br>
<dd>> discrimination against applicants for developing regions.
Why<br>
<dd>> you want a registry from developing regions to have the
same<br>
<dd>> budget of registry in developed country?there are a lot of<br>
<dd>> way to cut costs.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Yes, a registry in developing region can be run with
respect<br>
<dd>> to all ICANN requirements in cheaper way than in developed
country.<br>
<dd>> That is why I would like if possible that Bruce point to<br>
<dd>> documents (if they exist) explaining in details the why of<br>
<dd>> such requested costs for running a regisrty from ICANN<br>
<dd>> perspective?but also for the application fees as the<br>
<dd>> explanation of cost recovery remains vague and abstract.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Thank you,<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Regards<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Rafik<br>
<dd>> BlackBerry from DOCOMO<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> -----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>> From: "Terry L Davis, P.E."
<<a href="mailto:tdavis2@speakeasy.net">tdavis2@speakeasy.net</a>
><br>
<dd>> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53<br>
<dd>> To: 'St phane Van
Gelder'<<a href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">
stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>>;<br>
<dd>> 'Bruce
Tonkin'<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>><br>
<dd>> Cc: 'GNSO Council
'<<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
><br>
<dd>> Subject: RE: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC -<br>
<dd>> GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to
providing<br>
<dd>> support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for<br>
<dd>> and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN
Board<br>
<dd>> Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Stephane<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> My feelings also.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> To me, we would have to treat all "dis-advantaged
enties"<br>
<dd>> alike regardless<br>
<dd>> of their nationality as there will be many entities in
every<br>
<dd>> country for<br>
<dd>> which the TLD cost is too high. My first question to any of<br>
<dd>> them though<br>
<dd>> would be to ask if the entry cost is too high, do you<br>
<dd>> actually have the<br>
<dd>> resources then to run a TLD?<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Feels more like a "tar pit" than a can of worms.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Take care<br>
<dd>> Terry<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> -----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>> From:
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">
owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>>
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On<br>
<dd>> Behalf Of St phane Van Gelder<br>
<dd>> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:57 AM<br>
<dd>> To: Bruce Tonkin<br>
<dd>> Cc: GNSO Council<br>
<dd>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO
WG "to<br>
<dd>> develop a sustainable approach to providing support to<br>
<dd>> applicants requiring<br>
<dd>> assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in<br>
<dd>> response to the ICANN<br>
<dd>> Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi Meeti<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> I had understood the motion to be referencing financial
support.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> But to me it really doesn't look like much of a solution.
If<br>
<dd>> the aim is to<br>
<dd>> help applicants with lesser means, then this motion is so<br>
<dd>> vague as to be<br>
<dd>> totally moot. If the Board really has a desire to explore
the<br>
<dd>> possibility of<br>
<dd>> catering to applicants with different financial profiles, I<br>
<dd>> think we then<br>
<dd>> spill into the notion of categories of applicants that the<br>
<dd>> GAC has been<br>
<dd>> pushing for and we then open up several new cans of worms<br>
<dd>> that can only lead<br>
<dd>> to more delays.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Just my personal five cents.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> St phane<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Le 20 mars 2010 06:41, Bruce Tonkin a crit
:<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> > Hello Chuck,<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> >><br>
<dd>> >> This is interesting Bruce. I had no idea that
this motion<br>
<dd>> was talking<br>
<dd>> >> about financial support;<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> > Well the focus of much of the public comment has been
for<br>
<dd>> the Board to<br>
<dd>> > reduce the application fees for developing countries.<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> > The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of
solving the<br>
<dd>> > issue of participation - and left it open for the community
to put<br>
<dd>> > forward some proposals. It was my input (which
I also<br>
<dd>> stated during<br>
<dd>> > the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support
that may<br>
<dd>> > help, but also support in terms of resources. I
gave the<br>
<dd>> example that<br>
<dd>> > in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary
nameservers<br>
<dd>> operated by<br>
<dd>> > larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost.<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> > Regards,<br>
<dd>> > Bruce Tonkin<br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>> ><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd> <br><br>
</dl>
<dd> <br><br>
</dl> </blockquote></body>
</html>