RE: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed.

Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2009 2:40 AM
To: Tim Ruiz; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Chuck Gomes; 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-fy10-17may09-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
> 
>