[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 Meeti

[Terry L Davis, P.E.]

Stephane

My feelings also.  

To me, we would have to treat all "dis-advantaged enties" alike regardless
of their nationality as there will be many entities in every country for
which the TLD cost is too high. My first question to any of them though
would be to ask if the entry cost is too high, do you actually have the
resources then to run a TLD?

Feels more like a "tar pit" than a can of worms.

Take care
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:57 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: GNSO Council 
Subject: 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 Meeti


I had understood the motion to be referencing financial support.

But to me it really doesn't look like much of a solution. If the aim is to
help applicants with lesser means, then this motion is so vague as to be
totally moot. If the Board really has a desire to explore the possibility of
catering to applicants with different financial profiles, I think we then
spill into the notion of categories of applicants that the GAC has been
pushing for and we then open up several new cans of worms that can only lead
to more delays.

Just my personal five cents.

Stéphane

Le 20 mars 2010 à 06:41, Bruce Tonkin a écrit :

> 
> Hello Chuck,
> 
>> 
>> This is interesting Bruce.  I had no idea that this motion was talking
>> about financial support; 
> 
> Well the focus of much of the public comment has been for the Board to
> reduce the application fees for developing countries.
> 
> The Board instead is saying that there are other ways of solving the
> issue of participation - and left it open for the community to put
> forward some proposals.   It was my input (which I also stated during
> the Board meeting) - that it is not just financial support that may
> help, but also support in terms of resources.   I gave the example that
> in the past, many smaller ccTLDS used secondary nameservers operated by
> larger ccTLDS in developed countries at no cost.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
>