[council] FW: Proposal to form a Joint ALAC - GNSO WG "to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDs" in response to the ICANN Board Resolution 20 at the Nairobi

[Rafik Dammak]

Thank you Avri,
I think that the comments are getting worse in the GNSO ML and we have
clearly the opposition from councilors (mostly from contracted party) from
rich countries.

Rafik

2010/3/21 Avri Doria <avri at ltu.se>

> On 20 Mar 2010, at 13:30, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
> > If you are already defining what the outcome/goal of the working group
> > has to be, there is no reason for a working group.
>
>
> on the contrary.  we have a hypothesis.
>
> perhaps WG is the wrong name, since Wg now come with baggage.
> i am more the willing neologize a new name for a the small band that tries
> to disprove the hypothesis that:
>
> - a well formed, but small, TLD registry operation that meets ICANN
> requirements can be run for far less in development regions then it would
> cost to run the same size registry in the developed world.
>
> if this can't be disproved and someone can show a reasonable cost breakdown
> for a well formed Registry in a development region, then perhaps we can
> dispel the perpetual comments that come like:
>
>
> from http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08596.html
>
> snip
>
> > My first question to any of them though
> > would be to ask if the entry cost is too high, do you actually have the
> > resources then to run a TLD?
>
> and this goes some way to dispelling one of the perpetual remarks one hears
> whenever one tries to talk about lowering the prices (and just because the
> staff says fees won't be lowered does  not make that necessarily true)  or
> establishing a fund to help those who want to try and create a TLD despite
> most of the rich people's world of ICANN being united against them.
>
> a.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100321/1bb89bb2/attachment.html>