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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
thanks to all who have contributed with text and comments, and also
thank you very much Julie for updating the wiki and sending a summary
of all comments.
The idea for tomorrow´s call is keep on working on Subtask 1.1 draft document.
Thanks and regards
Olga

2010/1/14 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.
>
>