Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Fee waiver / reduction?

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

We could start with the same list that people want to use for special 
privileges.

A fee waiver for anyone the GAC says is worthy.

avri

On 25 Apr 2013, at 16:34, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> Doing that would then would require that we agree on criteria for who would 
> be eligible for fee waivers and that would put us into another process that 
> would be fairly subjective and possible require a mechanism for applying the 
> criteria.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:14 PM
>> To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx)
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Fee waiver / reduction?
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> personal view
>> 
>> while I am loathe to agree to any a-priori special reservation privileges for
>> anyone,
>> 
>> I am supportive of fee wavers for everything so that the existing RPMs can be
>> used by qualifying charities and fellow public service organizations  without
>> further expense.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 25 Apr 2013, at 14:13, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> thanks again for a constructive discussion yesterday. I would like to obtain
>> some feedback from you regarding the question of a fee waiver for the
>> beneficiaries of protections.
>>> 
>>> Fee waivers (and standing) could be considered for:
>>> 
>>> - Objections against applications for gTLDs / Top Level
>>> - Applications to the TMCH
>>> - URS
>>> - UDRP
>>> 
>>> As you know, we have structured our discussion yesterday along the proposed
>> recommendations by the RySG. A fee waiver was not part of that set of
>> recommendations and I would like to better understand whether the WG
>> members wish / do not wish such recommendation to be added.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Thomas
>>> 
>>> =============
>>> thomas-rickert.tel
>>> +49.228.74.898.0
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>