RE: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I guess I may be shot for raising the issue, but 
do we really want to be making statements about 
ccTLD policy and how ICANN manages (or doesn't 
manage) them? I suspect we would not take too 
kindly to the ccNSO making pronouncements about gTLD issues.
Alan

At 16/06/2009 03:03 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >