Thanks Bill, but I think that Bruce really highlighted that the board don't really discussing about the pricing according to the resolution. Rafik 2010/3/21 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> > 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 > > *********************************************************** > > >