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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Krista,

That is correct.  The Work Team discussed the document as far as Section 1, 
Paragraph B.  We will continue the discussion tomorrow, including suggested 
changes to the text made in comments on the list.

Best regards,

Julie


On 1/14/10 5:02 PM, "Krista Papac" <Krista.Papac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks for the recap Julie.

If I'm not mistaken and based on the MP3 from last week's call, the team was 
only able to get through a portion of Subtask 1.1 recommendation so we not only 
need to address the below open items from the portion discussed, but also need 
to finish discussing the rest of the document.  If I am mistaken, can someone 
from the team please let me know.

Thanks!
Krista


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:58 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.

________________________________

The information contained in this email message and its attachments is intended 
only for the private and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above, 
unless the sender expressly agrees otherwise. Transmission of email over the 
Internet is not a secure communications medium. If you are requesting or have 
requested the transmittal of personal data, as defined in applicable privacy 
laws by means of email or in an attachment to email you must select a more 
secure alternate means of transmittal that supports your obligations to protect 
such personal data. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient 
and/or you have received this email in error, you must take no action based on 
the information in this email and you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, misuse, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us 
immediately by email and delete the original message.