ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG draft charter
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 11:00:42 +0200


Thanks for this.

In any case we should get the Motion and the Charter submitted in time - 
whatever formulation we think is closest.  As the conversations go on and we 
get close to consensus, we can always offer an amendment.

So perhaps, unless my latest formulation is accepted (and I will keep trying), 
perhaps we can go with the formulation you offer below and then amend it as 


On 11 May 2010, at 16:44, Olof Nordling wrote:

> 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 benefit.
> Hope this is helpful
> All the best
> Olof
> -----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
> Hi,
> 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.
> Thanks
> a.
> 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