RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Board resolutions

[carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All.:

A couple of questions after September 25 adopted resolutions.
What was about, ICANN Nairobi Board resolution?
We have never understood the idea?
Which interest are important?
And, What about the posibilities for needy applicants?
 What means our WG work, now?



 sorry ....., are we ok?

out of joke, I'm  disappointed, and I believe, if it is the general feeling, we 
must make an statement on this sense, or conclude our work with a final 
declaration saying what we are our feelings right now.

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
ALAC member by LACRALO - ICANN
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org 




> From: avri@xxxxxxx
> Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Board resolutions
> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:17:06 -0400
> To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> There is a list of resolutions adopted by the board on 25 September.
> 
> http://icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm
> 
> in terms of the issue before this group:
> 
> 
> "2.2 New gTLD Applicant Support
> 
> "Support to applicants will generally include outreach and education to 
> encourage participation across all regions, but any direct financial support 
> for applicant fees must come from sources outside of ICANN.
> 
> "Staff will publish a list of organizations that request assistance and 
> organizations that state an interest in assisting with additional program 
> development, for example pro-bono consulting advice, pro-bono in-kind 
> support, or financial assistance so that those needing assistance and those 
> willing to provide assistance can identify each other and work together.
> 
> "Owing to the level of uncertainty associated with the launch of new gTLDs, 
> the fee levels currently in the Applicant Guidebook will be maintained for 
> all applicants."
> 
> My first instinct is to ...(probably should keep that private)
> 
> My second instinct is to say that despite this unfortunate resolution by the 
> Board, this group continue and complete its work.  Perhaps between the GAC's 
> latest letter where they state:
> 
> "The GAC therefore urges ICANN to set technical and other requirements, 
> including cost considerations, at a reasonable and proportionate level in 
> order not to exclude stakeholders from developing countries from 
> participating in the new gTLD process."
> 
> and the Board resolution:
> 
> "Whereas, on 23 September 2010, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) 
> provided comments on version 4 of the draft Applicant Guidebook.
> 
> "Resolved (2010.09.25.02), staff is directed to determine if the directions 
> indicated by the Board below are consistent with GAC comments, and recommend 
> any appropriate further action in light of the GAC's comments."
> 
> There may be some hope that a well considered proposal may yet be considered.
> 
> But I must say that personally, I am rather disappointed in the ICANN Board's 
> resolutions at this moment in time.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> a.
> 
>