[council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG

[Alan Greenberg]

I support the recent statements of Rafiq and 
Debbie, and I am not sure I can say this any 
clearer than they already have, but there has 
been no talk of an applicant paying to ICANN a 
lesser fee.  Some of us would like to see that at 
some point, but that is not what we are discussing now.

The Board's resolution as I understand it, (and 
based on discussions with several Board members, 
I think I do understand) is to investigate ways 
of easing the burden (whether with money or 
skills or whatever) on the applicant, but NOT at the expense of ICANN.

Alan

At 24/03/2010 10:26 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>If any applicant pays less than cost they are indirectly asking the
>community to partially fund them. ICANN's funds come from the community
>in the form of various fees imposed through registries and registrars
>and through donations to a lesser degree. It may be noble to advocate or
>consider giving certain applicants an opportunity to apply below costs,
>but it will not be as easy as some may think to figure out how we
>determine who should or shouldn't get such consideration.
>
>Tim
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>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
>From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:05 am
>To: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>
>Cc: HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org, tdavis2 at speakeasy.net,
>stephane.vangelder at indom.com, Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au,
>council at gnso.icann.org, Margie.Milam at icann.org,
>owner-council at gnso.icann.org, cgomes at verisign.com
>
>Tim,
>
>where did you see any mention that applicants asking community to
>partially fund them?
>when Debbie is talking about non-profit applicants like foundations,
>NGO, philanthropy, it doesn't mean that she is talking about Redcross,
>she is advocating for all those prospective non profits applicants which
>community can help them through developing a sustainable approach to
>provide support.
>
>
>Regards
>
>
>Rafik
>
>2010/3/24 Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>
>Regardless of what comes out of this discussion, there is nothing
>preventing a non-profit from applying for a new gTLD in the first round.
>But the costs have been established based on cost recovery. So any
>applicant who is allowed to apply at below costs is asking the community
>to partially fund their application. In my opinion, that should not
>happen, but if it does there should be a very high bar for
>qualification. Given the fund raising capabilities of the Red Cross I
>don't see it hitting that bar, in my opinion.
>
>Regardless, the GNSO has gone through a PDP on new gTLDs. An
>implementation of the resultant policy is nearly complete. If we are
>going to amend the policy to consider different categories of applicants
>for any reason, it should go through a full PDP process, in my opinion.
>
>
>Tim
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>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
>
>From: <HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>
>
>
>Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 7:37 am
>To: <tim at godaddy.com>, <owner-council at gnso.icann.org>,
><cgomes at verisign.com>, <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>Cc: <tdavis2 at speakeasy.net>, <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>,
><Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>, <council at gnso.icann.org>,
><Margie.Milam at icann.org>
>
>Tim,
>I acknowledge your opinion -- that’s fine --and I respectfully
>disagree.  I think the considerations of commercial enterprises and
>non-commercial organizations should be equally considered and I believe
>that conversation is important or urgent.  While some may think that not
>for profit does not equal “need,” I hope others will agree not for
>profit equals “important enough not be dismissed.”
>
>Although I certainly a proud employee of the American Red Cross, it is
>disappointing for you to assume that the position I am advocating is
>simply to benefit my own organization.  When I applied to volunteer as a
>GNSO Councilor, it was to share the perspective of not for profit
>organizations (many of whom I collaborate with ­ large and smaall), not
>only the perspective of Red Cross.  Perhaps my perspective of my
>volunteer role is very different than others on the Council and that’s
>okay.  For me, to advocate simply for the benefit of Red Cross is short
>sighted and contrary to the best interests of policy development.
>
>Happy to talk about this more offline.
>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: tim at godaddy.com [mailto:tim at godaddy.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:40 PM
>To: Hughes, Debra Y.; owner-council at gnso.icann.org; cgomes at verisign.com;
>rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>Cc: tdavis2 at speakeasy.net; stephane.vangelder at indom.com;
>Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au; 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
>
>
>With all due respect, new gTLDs will not solve any urgent problem for
>anyone. And I do not consider the Red Cross as an organization that
>needs help with the cost of applying. Non-profit does not automatically
>translate into "need."
>
>Tim
>
>From: <HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>
>
>Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:53:20 -0400
>
>To: <tim at godaddy.com>; <cgomes at verisign.com>;
><owner-council at gnso.icann.org>; <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>
>Cc: <tdavis2 at speakeasy.net>; <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>;
><Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; <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
>
>
>
>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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >