RE: [gnso-osc-csg] GNSO CSG Meeting Tomorrow: 15 January 1400 UTC -- Comments Received

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I apologise in advance but I may only be able to participate in the call
for about 30 minutes because of a conflicting meeting.  In case I am not
on the call when the following items are discussed, here are my comments
in advance.
 
Regarding 1, 2 & 3 below
I think I could live with either Victoria's wording in 1 or Claudio's in
2.  I believe that Victoria makes a valid point in 3 that Claudio's
wording appears to only recommend exploring the concept, whereas
Victoria's wording recommends going a step further.  In my opinion,
Victoria's suggested wording still gives each SG or constituency the
flexibility to define their own mechanism for handling such cases so
implementing it would not require a one-size fits all approach.
 
Regarding 4, translation
Translation is definitely not a trivial expense.  ICANN devotes hundreds
of thousands of dollars to translation and they only translate a subset
of their documents and meetings.  Also, translation needs will vary by
SG or constituency.  Should translation be recommended in a case where
one member out of several hundred needs translation?  I suggest that we
be very careful how we word any recommendations in this regard to
address both availability of funds and need.  Any recommendations we
make should probably be 'recommended best practices based on cost
effectiveness and demonstrated need'.
 
Regarding 4, membership for individuals
The RySG is in the same situation as the RrSG.  Unless a registry was a
sole proprietorship (and I am not even sure that ICANN would enter into
a registry agreement with a sole proprietorship), the concept of
membership for individuals does not work.  As I suggested in previously
provided edits, "as applicable" is needed.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
        Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:58 PM
        To: gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] GNSO CSG Meeting Tomorrow: 15 January
1400 UTC -- Comments Received
        
        
        Dear Work Team members,
        
        I have reviewed the comments received on the list in
anticipation of our call tomorrow to discuss Task 1, Subtask 1.  Note
that this call is scheduled for two hours in case we need the time.
Here are the consolidated comments from the list.  Suggested changes to
the text that have been suggested, but not commented on by all Work Team
members, are included in the document on the wiki but in curly brackets
{} as well as in capital letters.  Please see the link at:
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_stakeholder_group_
operations_work_team_task_1_subtask_1.  For brief notes of our
discussion on 08 January see:
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team.
        
        If you have questions concerning the comments or if I have
missed anyone's comments, please let me know.  Thank you.
        
        Best regards,
        
        Julie
        
        1.  Text Provided by Victoria on 08 January on Section 1, Item C
- appended text in curly brackets and all caps.
        
        All GROUPs shall improve inclusiveness and representativeness
and shall explore the possibility to have differential fee structures
based on ability to pay , in order to encourage increased representation
from those living in less developed economies. {ALL GROUPS SHOULD HAVE A
MECHANISM FOR ANY POTENTIAL MEMBER TO APPLY FOR A HARDSHIP RELIEF FROM
THE NORMAL FEE SCALE}.
        
        2.  Text Provided by Claudio on 09 January on Section 1, Item C
- in curly brackets and all caps.  
        
        All GROUPs shall improve inclusiveness and representativeness
and shall explore the possibility to have differential fee structures
based on ability to pay, {OR HARDSHIP PROVISIONS}, in order to encourage
increased representation from those living in less developed economies.
        
        3.  Additional comments on Claudio's text:  Victoria asked,
"would that then render it only an obligation to 'explore' having a
hardship provision --not a recommendation to have one?"  Tony and Krista
commented that they agreed with Claudio's suggested text.
        
        4. Comments from Krista on 11 January:
        
        

        *       Translation into other languages.  I still am unclear as
to who pays for the translation.  I checked the Toolkit document
(Subtask 1.4) and did not see where it provided for language
translation.  If that is the case, I think 1). It should be made clear
in Subtask 1.1 if translation is at the expense of the GROUP, and 2). If
that is the case I don't agree with Victoria's statement on the call
that the costs of translation is minimal.  Costs are relative and
depending on the budget of a GROUP this may not be feasible.   
        *       Section 2b discussion regarding all GROUPs being open to
individuals - This provision does cannot apply to ALL GROUPs, and should
continue to state that GROUPs are open to individuals "as applicable".
In order to be a member of the RrSG, one must be business that is an
accredited registrar.  I believe this same requirement applies to the
RySG, ISPCPC, etc., not to mention future GROUPs which are currently
undefined.  I believe this is another example of a place where one size
does not fit all and we must be careful we don't try to make "it" fit.