RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: feedback on the recommendations for board summary - can we clarify?

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Avri, WG,

Thank you for the fast reply. 

I would like to point that when we produce the summary papers for the Board, 
one of our most important goals, beside describing the issues as clearly and 
succinctly as possible, is to ensure:

a. The board knows what are the next steps and impact, if any (including 
timeline, DAG, etc)
b. The board knows what action is expected from them at this point, if any

Thank you all.

Karla



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 11:50 AM
To: SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: feedback on the recommendations for board 
summary - can we clarify?


Hi Karla, 

Thanks for sending the feedback on to the group.

I think these are good questions that we should answer and should perhaps tune 
the document to make sure the points are clear.  I suggest we go through them 
after going through the existing comments and before returning to the document. 
 Some of the actions and work suggested by these questions may be items for 
follow on work by our group.

In the meantime I invite the members of the group to suggest their answers.  If 
we get enough content on the list, perhaps we can add some suggested text to 
the doc before the next pass at it.

Thank you and please extend my thanks for the staff members who offered these 
comments.

a.


On 1 Sep 2010, at 14:42, Karla Valente wrote:

> Dear Avri, Evan:
>  
> I briefly discussed with some new gTLD team members our WG draft final 
> proposal and the fact that we want to present a summary of the 
> recommendations to the Board for the September retreat.  Below is some 
> feedback I would like to share  with you. I suggest that we, at least for the 
> Board September summary and next steps section of the Final Proposal, we 
> could be clearer about the following:
>  
> *         In terms of the group's outcome, it is hard to tell what is being 
> recommended.  For example in A, application fee aspects, is the WG suggesting 
> that ICANN should make all of those adjustments or  simply pick one? 
>  
> *         Similarly in B, is the WG suggesting that ICANN should provide all 
> of those means of support or is it meant more as a menu?
>  
> *         Is this expected to be implemented for the first round?
>  
> *         Does the WG expect any modification to the Draft Applicant 
> Guidebook to incorporate these proposals?
>  
> *         Will the final proposal go through public comments again?
>  
>  
> Thank you,
>  
> Karla
>  
>