Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I am sure that as a member of ALAC, you are free to make such comments  
about the ccNSO.  I do not see why others would not be.
Personally, I think it is very fair for the council whose task it is  
to be responsive to the GNSO, the organization whose collective  
membership - including the gTLD registrants and those contracted to  
provide them services - provide 93.8% (I think that is the number) of  
the 2010 budget, are entitled to make some comment relating to the  
fact that the way is being eased by ICANN for IDNccTLDS while being  
made more difficult for new gTLDS, including IDNgTLDs.  I think it is  
also reasonable to pay attention to the needs of non governmental  
organizations in those regions of the world where  non-roman character  
are prevalent for gTLDS as opposed to ICANnN granting the market to  
the government controlled players.
In my personal opinion, the issue here is fairness.  going into the  
root at the same time is fair.  Anything else is problematic.
As for the ccNSO not taking it kindly, I can only hope that continuing  
our discussions in a bilateral manner will help bring greater  
understanding of the SO's respective positions.  We are all aware that  
we have differences of opinion.
a.



On 17 Jun 2009, at 02:54, Alan Greenberg wrote:

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