RE: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Definitely an intriguing idea.  Without intending to detract from the idea at 
all, I can hear the members of the cc community now: "We don't want ICANN to do 
much of what they do for us, we just want the IANA support."  Of course, they 
likely don't even cover the costs for that.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:40 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Edmon Chung
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2
> 
> I like the idea and the approach.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 16/06/09 18:33, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > 
> > Regardless of what else is said or done, I would like to point out 
> > that the FY10 estimated costs for supporting various aspects of 
> > ccTLDs, ccNSO, and ccTLD IDNs is $9MM. However, only $1.6MM 
> is being 
> > projected for FY10 fees (voluntary) collected from ccTLDs. And note 
> > that in FY09 while $2.3MM in ccTLD fees was projected, only 
> $500,000 
> > is expected to materialize.
> >  
> >  See pages 8 & 9 of the Expense Analysis:
> >  http://www.icann.org/en/financials/eag-analysis-29may09-en.pdf
> >  
> >  See page 40 of the FY10 Opperating Plan and Budget:
> >  
> > 
> http://www.icann.org/en/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v1-fy10-17ma
> > y09-en.p
> > df
> >  
> > Would it be out of line if the GNSO were make a statement 
> that ICANN 
> > should have a firm *commitment* from ccTLD operators as to how they 
> > intend to cover ICANN's costs *before* any rollout of ccTLD IDNs of 
> > any kind? This would just be a firmer re-statement of our position.
> >  
> > Tim
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>