RE: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck, these issues are indeed a concern for the 
GNSO and implicitly all gTLD domain registrants. 
I am just suggesting that the wording stress that 
aspect and not the details of a (or *the*) solution.
Alan

At 17/06/2009 03:19 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Don't you think that those issues become a 
> concern for the GNSO to the extent that GNSO 
> related fees are require to sustain the ccNSO 
> because of the fee and contract structure that exists?
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:42 PM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] IDNG WG Motion Draft2
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >