RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Current Draft Report JAS WG, version 2.8 - including August 27 reviews

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

 

As for the financial instrument issue, I find the explanation and the
proposal of Danny Younger excellent (see his comment). I will try here after
to draft a proposal of recommendation to add in our final report (after the
line 161):

 

While registrant protection is critical and critical registry functions must
be sustained for an extended period of time in the event of registry
failure, the WG considers the financial instrument obligation as a huge
barrier for the needy applicants. It recommends either to:

 

*       Pre-designate a successor operator to eliminate the risk for the
registrants as it was done previously for dot net and dot org, and thus
waive the financial security instrument

 

*       Or reduce the security period for the financial instrument from 3
years to 6 months, which is the double of the prevision of the ICANN gTLD
Registry Failover Plan (15 June 2008). 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Directeur exécutif

Fédération Méditerranéenne des Associations d'Internet

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  _____  

De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Karla Valente
Envoyé : samedi 28 août 2010 03:19
À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Current Draft Report JAS WG, version 2.8 -
including August 27 reviews
Importance : Haute

 

Dear all,

 

Please find attached the Draft Final Report version 2.8 (Aug 27) in word and
PDF, also available at the Wiki. Please note:

 

1.      I incorporated the changes discussed during the Aug 27 conference
call. Please let me know if I misrepresented or forgot anything.

2.      I attempted to format and standardize the document to be easier to
continue our review. Let me know if there are issues.

3.      Highlighted in blue – what still needs to be discussed

4.      Highlighted in yellow – I need clarifications from Avri/Evan

5.      Identified during the conference call as needing further
review/discussion: lines 185 and 238

 

I believe we also still need to

1.      Agree on the executive summary for the Board Sept retreat

2.      Agree on the document structure using the proposed addenda approach

3.      Review the summary discussion of public comments – this is to be
included in the final report, but also published separately as response to
public comments

 

Have a nice weekend.

 

Karla