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

[Alan Greenberg]

The problem becomes somewhat easier from an ICANN 
point of view in that the "we" who must do the 
categorizing is not "us" - ICANN.

The WG is to look at ways of finding support for 
various "needy" new gTLD applicants. But I can't 
see any need for us to evaluate specific ones. 
The donors will make that value judgement. Or 
perhaps the WG will recommend that ICANN sets up 
a foundation to act as the intermediary and it will establish criteria.

Alan

At 26/03/2010 09:05 PM, Terry L Davis wrote:

>Debbie
>
>I would hope that we can separate "non-profit service orgs" from
>"dis-advantaged".  I believe they represent two 
>entirely different needs and thus
>unfortunately probably two different application processes.
>
>That said, this was my first concern!  How do we catagorize "dis-advantaged"
>orgs.  If we can figure this out such that the 
>"non-profit purely international
>service orgs" are not lumped into "dis-advantaged" I think that is the correct
>way forward.
>
>Take care
>Terry
>
>On Tue Mar 23 12:53 ,  sent:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Tim,
> >
> >Â
> >
> >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. Â 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.
> >
> >Â
> >
> >I hope there is a way to get this process right
> >without delay. Â Delay helps no 
> one.  However, dismissing groups as suggested below
> >for the sake of speed is very disconcerting.
> >
> >Â
> >
> >Debbie
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >Debra Y. Hughes l Senior
> >Counsel
> >
> >American Red Cross
> >
> >Office of the General CounselÂ
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Â
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Â
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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?
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Rafik
> >
> >
> >
> >2010/3/23 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >Maybe the joint WG will be able to come up
> >with some good ideas.
> >
> >Â
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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?Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >@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)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Rafik
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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. Â Some have higher security needs than others. Â Some need a
> >more global infrastructure than others. Â Some have lower costs in their
> >region and in other places in the world. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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. Â  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. Â  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
> >
> >> >
> >
> >> >
> >
> >> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >