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

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

Thanks Claudio.  That works for me.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 5:27 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] GNSO CSG Meeting Tomorrow: 15
January 1400 UTC -- Comments Received
        
        

        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.