<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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{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, guys,<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'>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. <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'>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. <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'>And if there are multiple sponsors and multiple recipients, we
can reach a certain balance. <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'>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?<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'>All best, <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>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>--<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>Andrei Kolesnikov<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>Coordination Center for TLD .RU<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>Director<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>http://cctld.ru<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span 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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Hi Chuck,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><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><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>@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><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>2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <<a
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>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><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<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>> <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>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>