RE: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was not 
referring to "policy" as in the P in PDP. I meant 
it in reference to the overall policies under 
which ICANN manages (or doesn't) ccTLDs. And that 
includes the fees that they may pay, and the 
contracts/MOUs they may have (or not have).
Alan

At 17/06/2009 08:21 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >