<!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>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><b>From: </b> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
</div><div><b>Date: </b>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400</div><div><b>To: </b>Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak@gmail.com></div><div><b>Cc: </b>Terry L Davis, P.E.<tdavis2@speakeasy.net>; <owner-council@gnso.icann.org>; Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; Bruce Tonkin<Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; GNSO Council<council@gnso.icann.org>; Margie Milam<Margie.Milam@icann.org></div><div><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</div><div><br/></div>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=032163814-23032010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=032163814-23032010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=032163814-23032010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=032163814-23032010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=032163814-23032010><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 8:57
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>yes definitely. what is the process for starting this joint-wg?
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Rafik<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2010/3/23 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">
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><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><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><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 lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Rafik Dammak [mailto:<A
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"
target=_blank>rafik.dammak@gmail.com</A>] <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.; <A href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org"
target=_blank>owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce
Tonkin; GNSO Council
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5><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></DIV></DIV></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>
<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"
target=_blank>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><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<BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>> <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>><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>