Hi,

I agree with this approach.

a.



On 20 Mar 2010, at 13:23, William Drake wrote:

> Hi Rafik
> 
> As I said, the agendas may not be entirely coterminous.  But read Bruce Tonkin's explanatory messages to Rgy/Rgr folks on the council list, he says the board's broad language was an open call for suggestions in response to various people's (including our) expressions of concern about new gTLD pricing in Nairobi.  The mandate of the proposed WG would be to respond to that, and while other options undoubtedly will be on the table, there's no reason why directly the addressing the problem could not be too, there's nothing agreed yet that makes it "only focused" on other responses.  It's a matter of agenda setting on the charter and beyond, and while there'd undoubtedly be push back, there can be push forward as well.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Mar 20, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 
>> Hello Bill,
>> 
>> to my understanding, the joint working group is only focused to look for funding approaches and support for applicants .
>> within NCSG/NCUC the discussion was more about pricing and to prove that is feasible and possible to run a registry fairly reaching all requirements in cheap way than expected by ICANN. that is why we want to learn from ccTLD experience.
>> in GNSO, I think that registrars and registries don't think that is possible, let us show to them that they are wrong :)
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2010/3/21 William Drake <[log in to unmask]>
>> A larger context that any NCUC/SG work on pricing etc could plug into, although the agendas my not be entirely coterminous
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: March 19, 2010 12:10:36 PM GMT-03:00
>>> To: "GNSO Council" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: [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 Meeting
>>> 
>>> I will add the following item to our agenda for the Council meeting on 1 April.  It seems to me that it would be helpful to try to form the joint community WG as soon as possible after our 1 April meeting and task them with developing a proposed charter for the longer term work of the group.
>>>  
>>> Thoughts?
>>>  
>>> Please inform your respective groups of this task that was initiated by the Board in Nairobi and seek their input.
>>>  
>>> Thanks, Chuck
>>> 
>>> From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:42 PM
>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; [log in to unmask]; ICANN AtLarge Staff; [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: 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 Meeting
>>> 
>>> To:  Mr. Chuck Gomes, 
>>> Chair of the GNSO
>>> 
>>> Regarding: 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 Meeting.
>>> 
>>> Chuck further to our recent conversation on the matter of next steps in response to Board Resolution 20 (copied below) of the ICANN Board Meeting held March 12th in Nairobi, as this matter has clear and important interest and ramifications to our SO and AC (the matter of costs for developing countries and for some community based applicants has been of continued concern to At-Large)  I am writing to you as Chair of the GNSO to formally request the GNSO's consideration of the ALAC and GNSO forming a Joint WG to explore options regarding applicant assistance in the application for and operation of new gTLDs, that may be required in some exceptional circumstances, in response to this resolution. 
>>> 
>>> This new gTLD Applicant Assistance Program WG should be open to all stakeholders, and once formed, a call to join this Joint WG as either participant or observer should go out to all parts of ICANN. 
>>> 
>>> ALAC  will if the GNSO is in agreement formally propose the creation of this WG at our meeting of March 23rd and look forward to feedback from you on how the GNSO wishes to proceed with  the WG's charter, administration etc., so that we can begin activity in a timely manner to ensure a first report on WG activities can be available at the Brussels Meeting and so that if we deem it appropriate that at this meeting an opportunity can be taken for community consultation with a workshop or similar activity.
>>> 
>>> In advance of the GNSO's formal response to this Joint WG proposal I will be adding this matter to our Agenda of the 23rd and asking the ALAC's gtld-wg to consider how it  wishes to engage and integrate in this activity as either a committee of the whole, with the formation of a topic specific Work Team and/or nomination of specific representatives to this new WG.  I will; also request that our staff prepare a Wiki space/commons linked to the gtld-wg space where the proposed Joint ALAC-GNSO-WG can operate and where the wider ICANN Community and stakeholders can openly contribute. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Board resolution 20 in Nairobi:
>>>  
>>> "20. Support for Applicants Requesting New gTLD Applicants
>>> Whereas, the launch of the New gTLD Program will bring fundamental change to the marketplace, including competition and innovation;
>>> 
>>> Whereas, the evolution of relationships and restrictions on relationships between registries and registrars have been a center of discussion and analysis;
>>> 
>>> Whereas, the introduction of new gTLDs will bring change and opportunity for innovation, new services and benefits for users and registrants;
>>> 
>>> Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives;
>>> 
>>> Whereas, ICANN has a requirement to recover the costs of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; and
>>> 
>>> Whereas numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing countries.
>>> 
>>> Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an inclusive New gTLD Program.
>>> 
>>> Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs ."
>>> 
>>>  
>>> CI 
>>> 
>>> Kindest regards,
>>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
>>> ALAC Chair 2007-2010
>>> 
>> 
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake  
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>   Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
>> 
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake  
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> [log in to unmask]
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
>