[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

[Rafik Dammak]

hello everybody,

I think that there are misunderstandings about the working group and its
relation with the new gTLD process too.
- the working group should work on finding approaches for applicants
requiring assistance. it means that those applicants have anyway to follow
the same requirements like  any other applicants. the assistance may be
technical (as suggested by Andrei) or/and financial (to find
structure/organizations to fund those projects, it is not ICANN which will
fund!). those efforts are toward applicants from developing regions fro
example (not all of them need assistance) or non-profits (like those
mentioned by Debbie)
in response to Adrian comments, those applicants won't have special
or privileged treatment as they will have the same evaluation process like
others. I am still not in favor in high pricing and fees nor of the
suggested cost for running registry with ALL requirements and with respect
to security, resilience and stability (within NCSG we are working to prove
that) but the working group has another scope, it is just about funding for
applicants having a real and sustainable plan for running registry to
response a community need or for non-profit purpose.
- no link with ongoing implementation process and no possible delay. the
board withdrew the controversial EOI because possible delay. I think Bill
made clearly the point about that.
finally, I agree with Debbie comments. just for remind we talk many times
about public interest within ICANN, I hope to see it effectively now with
that working group.

Regards

Rafik

2010/3/24 <KnobenW at telekom.de>

>  Bill,
>
> that board decision for my impression was too weak, vague - and simple. I
> would have expected more guidance given by the board. So it's up to the
> community to open this barrel. But as long as it affects negatively the
> implementation schedule for new gTLDs I wouldn't do so.
>
>
> Regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *Von:* owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
> *Im Auftrag von *William Drake
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 23. März 2010 23:04
> *An:* GNSO Council List
> *Betreff:* 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
>
>  The board simply asked that a WG develop a sustainable approach to
> supporting applicants requiring assistance.   Isn't it a bit premature to be
> worrying about carve outs, fast tracks, launch delays and all the rest?  Why
> not take this one step at a time....
>
> Bill
>
>  On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
>
>   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.
>  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.
>  I agree with Tim, if my reading is correct, that delays caused by this
> late consideration are not helpful nor desirable.
>  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).
>  Tim, sorry if I misrepresented your point.
>   *Adrian Kinderis*
>
>  *From:* owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:25 AM
> *To:* HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org
> *Cc:* tim at godaddy.com; cgomes at verisign.com; owner-council at gnso.icann.org;
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com; tdavis2 at speakeasy.net;stephane.vangelder at indom.com;
> Bruce Tonkin; council at gnso.icann.org; Margie.Milam at icann.org
> *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
>
> Hi,
> I support Debbie´s comments.
> regards
> Olga
>  2010/3/23 <HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>
>  Tim,
>  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.
>  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.
>  Debbie
>
> *Debra Y. Hughes** l** Senior Counsel*
> *American Red Cross*
>
> Office of the General Counsel
> 2025 E Street, NW
> Washington, D.C. 20006
> Phone: (202) 303-5356
> Fax: (202) 303-0143
> HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *tim at godaddy.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:57 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; owner-council at gnso.icann.org; Rafik Dammak
> *Cc:* Terry L Davis, P.E.; Stéphane Van Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; GNSO
> Council; Margie Milam
> *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
>  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.
>
> I'd hate to have another fasttrack process going where we don't have time
> to really work out the best solution.
>
> Tim
>  ------------------------------
>  *From: *"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>  *Date: *Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:41:55 -0400
>  *To: *Rafik Dammak<rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>  *Cc: *Terry L Davis, P.E.<tdavis2 at speakeasy.net>; <
> owner-council at gnso.icann.org>; Stéphane Van Gelder<
> stephane.vangelder at indom.com>; Bruce Tonkin<
> Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; GNSO Council<council at gnso.icann.org>;
> Margie Milam<Margie.Milam at icann.org>
>  *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
>  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.
>  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.
>  Chuck
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 22, 2010 8:57 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council at gnso.icann.org; Stéphane Van
> Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; 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
>  yes definitely. what is the process for starting this joint-wg?
>
> Rafik
>  2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
>  Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up with some good ideas.
>  Chuck
>
>  ------------------------------
>  *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 22, 2010 12:52 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council at gnso.icann.org; Stéphane Van
> Gelder; Bruce Tonkin; 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
>   Hi Chuck,
>
> 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?
>   @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)
>   Regards
>   Rafik
>   2010/3/21 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of
>  > rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:40 PM
> > To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; owner-council at gnso.icann.org;
> > 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; '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
> >
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > In my point of view, it sounds that you are wrongly using the
> > principle of equality in this case which looks more like
> > discrimination against applicants for developing regions. Why
> > you want a registry from developing regions to have the same
> > budget of registry in developed country?there are a lot of
> > way to cut costs.
> >
> > Yes, a registry in developing region can be run with respect
> > to all ICANN requirements in cheaper way than in developed country.
> > That is why I would like if possible that Bruce point to
> > documents (if they exist) explaining in details the why of
> > such requested costs for running a regisrty from ICANN
> > perspective?but also for the application fees as the
> > explanation of cost recovery remains vague and abstract.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rafik
> > BlackBerry from DOCOMO
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2 at speakeasy.net>
> > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:32:53
> > To: 'St phane Van Gelder'<stephane.vangelder at indom.com>;
> > 'Bruce Tonkin'<Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> > Cc: 'GNSO Council '<council at gnso.icann.org>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > 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 St phane 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.
> >
> > St phane
> >
> > Le 20 mars 2010   06:41, Bruce Tonkin a  crit :
> >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>     ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>  www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100324/dc5b0acb/attachment.html>