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

[Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck.

A general comment for the team, in regards to 1,2,& 3 below.

I am OK making it a recommendation that GROUPs have these provisions, not just 
merely a recommendation that they "explore" having them.

However, I think we need to edit the language in 1 to make it consistent (as it 
is now, the first sentence states: "...and shall explore the possibility to 
have differential fee structures based on ability to pay")

I suggest the following edit to accomplish this:

All GROUPs shall strive to improve inclusiveness and representativeness. We 
recommend that GROUPs have either a differential fee structure based on the 
ability to pay, in order to encourage increased representation from those 
living in less developed economies; or hardship provisions that entitle any 
potential member to apply for hardship relief from the normal fee scale.

Claudio




From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:55 PM
To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] GNSO CSG Meeting Tomorrow: 15 January 1400 UTC -- 
Comments Received

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.