[council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT

[Alan Greenberg]

Tim, the Boards motion, which is directly referenced in the proposed 
motion includes "Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the 
costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs". 
Why is it necessary to re-iterate it again?

Alan

At 30/03/2010 12:58 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>Rafik,
>
>Then I'm confused because you said:
>
>"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!)."
>
>All I am asking is that the motion is clarified to make your point - "it
>is not ICANN which will fund!"  Would you please propose such an
>amendment that is acceptable? The RrSG would like to be able to support
>the motion.
>
>
>Thanks,
>Tim
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON
>NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
>From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>Date: Tue, March 30, 2010 11:33 am
>To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>Hello,
>
>unfortunately, I cannot see it as friendly amendment.
>
>
>Regards
>
>
>Rafik
>
>2010/3/30 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
>
>Rafik/Olga,
>
>Do you accept this as a friendly amendment?
>
>Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>
>
> > [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:20 PM
> > To: GNSO Council
> > Subject: RE: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING
> > GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
> >
> >
> > Since it seems to be agreed that what is intended is to look
> > for funding opportunities outside of ICANN's own budget to
> > possibly resolve this concern, I would like to make that
> > evident in the motion and propose this friendly amendment:
> >
> > Add the following to the first Resolve:
> >
> > keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to recover the costs of
> > new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs
> >
> > So the first Resolve would read:
> >
> > Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a
> > joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request
> > by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to
> > new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and
> > operating new gTLDS, keeping in mind ICANN's requirement to
> > recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going
> > services to new gTLDs;
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [council] MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP
> > ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT
> > From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> > Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 9:43 am
> > To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>, Council GNSO
> > <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I want to submit motion to approve joint SO/AC council
> > working group on new gTLD applicant support the motion
> > document is attached.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> >