<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2
- To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:44:54 -0400
I agree completely with your comment and would
(if asked) support them. The difference between
what you said and the previous discussion is that
you are raising issued of fairness to gTLDs and
having a level playing field as opposed to
targeting advice on how to fix that problem by
adjusting ICANN ccTLD policy. The result may be
the same, and there may be little alternative to
the suggestions I was commenting on, but I don't
see it as the role of the GNSO to raise those particular solutions.
Alan
At 17/06/2009 06:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
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
> >
> >
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|