RE: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2

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

Excellent discussion.  I don't think that anyone is talking about 'adjusting 
ICANN ccTLD policy' but rather suggesting that ccTLD players need to bear their 
share of support for ICANN support.  There is no ICANN ccTLD policy that gives 
ccTLDs greater priority of introducing IDN TLDs over IDN gTLDs, although I know 
there are some who think there should be.  And to the extent that efforts there 
are efforts to create such a policy, then it would be incumbent on the GNSO to 
speak up because that would have a direct impact on GNSO stakeholders.

There will be ccTLD policies that impact the GNSO and vice versa.  In those 
cases it essential that both SO's provide input into the policy development 
process.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:45 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2
> 
> 
> 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
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
>