ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG draft charter

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, "soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG draft charter
  • From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 07:44:06 -0700

Hi Avri and all,
The deadline for putting forward the motion is 12 May - I believe we're good as 
long as it is 12 May somewhere on the globe (Hawaii..) - and I've understood 
that Rafik is in the starting blocks to move.

As to alternative formulations we could incorporate Elaine's proposal (to say 
"subsidized") and use square brackets, like this:
Objective 2: To identify how the application fee can be [reduced/subsidized] to 
accommodate applicants that fulfill appropriate criteria to qualify for this 

Hope this is helpful
All the best

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:14 PM
To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG draft charter


My offer of an Objective 2 was only an attempt to find a compromise between the 
positions as I was reading.  If it is not acceptable as such a compromise, it 
should not be considered one of the candidates.

As for what we offer the Council n Object 2. If we can't decide, we can offer 
an alternative and ask them to choose.  And while I think it is better if we 
can choose, we should not hold up the charter on that basis.

When is the hard stop?

Ad what are the contending objectives?  I only saw the one object 2 with 
several issues.  I may have missed seeing an alternate solution.


On 11 May 2010, at 16:05, Olof Nordling wrote:

> Dear all (and the co-chairs in particular),
> Well, there has been quite a few comments on the wording of Objective 2 in 
> the draft WG charter, with no clear (not to me, at least) conclusion. Knowing 
> that there is a hard deadline for the GNSO side to put forward a motion on 
> the charter by tomorrow in order to have it addressed by the GNSO Council 20 
> May, I wonder whether a) it is worthwhile to extend the discussion time on 
> the list 24 hours more to reach a conclusion, or b) proceed with the draft as 
> is to get GNSO Council feedback or c) do it in some other way.
> I leave this for our co-chairs nimble consideration and wise decisions.
> Very best regards
> Olof

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy