Danny,

In the context of the new gTLD policy, I requested a few adds to the last amsterdam outcome and had to explain (excerpt below) replying to a question posted by colleague on the committee (I think I posted here a while ago my suggested edits, but I can repost them.) I was wondering if this can also inform the debate in the rapporteur group B; if so, thanks to consider.

Mawaki

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <[log in to unmask]>; Council GNSO <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2006 8:29:12 PM
Subject: RE: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of discussion on application fees in Amsterdam

Hi Chuck,

my responses in line below.

--- "Gomes, Chuck" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


> > 
> > --- Bruce Tonkin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 5. It should also be noted that the possible extra-costs that may
> > result from the differences in the applicants' working languages
> as
> > well as legal systems (as opposed to a specific dominant language
> and
> > legal system) should not be held against them, and be left to the
> > expense to the concerned communities. After all, the Internet is
> and
> > must remain a global facility both from the user and demand side
> and
> > from the operation and supply side.
> 
> Gomes: Mawaki - What do you mean by "should not be held against
> them"?
> If you mean that the fact that extra costs to evaluate their
> application
> because of legal and/or language issues should not be used in any
> negative way to evaluate their application, I would agree with you.
>  But
> if you mean that they should not have to bear the extra costs,

I mean both, actually. I'm glad to see we are totally in agreement on
this first part.

 
> then that
> raises an additional question: who should bear the costs?  The RyC
> has
> communicated that its members do no believe that any applicants
> should
> have to subsidize application costs for other applicants.  Do you
> agree
> or disagree with this position of the RyC? If you agree, 

Yes, my turn to agree with you (and the RyC) here.


> then are you
> suggesting that ICANN should charge the extra costs to such
> applicants
> or that ICANN should find funds elwewhere in its budget to cover
> the
> extra costs?
>  

The latter, and let me clarify again. What I'm saying is the whole
ICANN as the Internet coordination and governance (or some say
regulatory) body could try to secure resources to make these
processes as even as possible to all potential players. Or to work
harder, and with good will, towards equal real chances (as much as
possible, I know it's never perfect) of market entry for those
potential players. It clearly has a benefit as well as a cost, either
symbolic, material or both, to be the authority that everybody in the
industry looks at and often relies on, at one level or the other. We,
as ICANN, need to accept to bear that cost toward the whole
community, and it may have different flavors depending on the
specificties of the various groups of participants, the regions,
their top issues and priorities, etc. in connection with ICANN
business.

To exemplify, let me take the case of a developing Non-English
speaking country (and there are many, so I'm virtually talking of
regions size-wise). We need to realize that it already has a cost,
rather enorm, for them that this whole business is conducted in a
language that is not theirs. For many, this will result, among other
things, in 8, 10 or more years lagging behind and even locked out of
the business. Their poor institutional and economic development
doesn't help either, of course, and that's not ICANN's fault. But the
result is that it is again those who have less who still get less,
falling deeper behind, while paying the same market price as every
one if not more because of their poor organization (access,
international bandwidth and interconnections, etc.) 

So are we going to tell them, not only they have to pay the same fees
(in absolute value) that is required from their counterparts from
markets and economies much much more developed than theirs where the
relative value of those fees are unbearable, not only that, but also
they will need to hire lawyers with international competence to
translate the legal and contractual instruments as well as prepare
their application to ICANN in English before they have one slight
chance to compete? We in fact don't need to utter or write a word; by
just choosing not to address this issue, we may be meaning that in
the eyes of people who are concerned, and in the long run (meaning
right now, already) the result is the same.

Thanks Chuck for asking, and thank you all for your attention; sorry
for the lengthy posting... it's been some time, eh?

Mawaki