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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Olof,

yes, I refereed to the wiki link
https://st.icann.org/so-ac-new-gtld-wg/index.cgi?so_ac_new_gtld_applicant_support_working_group
in
the motion.
I will send the motion now for GNSO council consideration.

Regards

Rafik

2010/5/12 Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>

>  Dear Rafik,
>
> I’ve now modified the draft charter on the Wiki so the easiest way is to
> refer to the Wiki link https://st.icann.org/so-ac-new-gtld-wg/index.cgi in
> the motion. Then, the Wiki version can be modified as consensus emerges,
> without craving any change of the motion as such.
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
> All the best
>
> Olof
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:31 PM
> *To:* Olof Nordling
> *Cc:* Avri Doria; soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>
> *Subject:* Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG draft charter
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> it is OK for me to proceed like that,
>
> @Olof can you please put the last version of the charter?
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
> 2010/5/12 Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Hi Avri and Rafik and all,
> Thanks for directions! Knowing that Rafik is ready to take the motion to
> the GNSO Council list today - and knowing that it will soon be getting
> rather late for Rafik in Japan - the fallback option you mention may be the
> best way to go. (and then amend as necessary)
> Rafik - OK for you?
>
> All the best
> Olof
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:01 AM
> To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG draft charter
>
>
> Hi,
>
> 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 necessary.
>
> a.
>
> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>