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

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

Karla and all,

 

As for your interrogations, here are my personal answers:

 

*         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? 

 

All of them

 

*         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?

 

Some are the responsibility of ICANN, others not.

 

*         Is this expected to be implemented for the first round?

 

The resolution 20 didn’t speak about rounds. Our recommendations are for the
upcoming round (should it be first or unique one)

 

*         Does the WG expect any modification to the Draft Applicant
Guidebook to incorporate these proposals?

 

Our Recommendations can induce modifications on the final version of the
DAG. But it can also be a separate document since it deals with exceptions,
not the general case.

 

*         Will the final proposal go through public comments again?

 

If we have time, yes. The feedback of the community is of a great
importance.

 

*       What are the next steps and impact, if any (including timeline, DAG,
etc) 

 

Next steps are to be refined. The impact on the timeline could be of some
mouths.  

 

*       What action is expected from the board at this point, if any

 

Their quick feedback on our Summary paper.

 

 

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

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director 

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

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

 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Karla Valente
Envoyé : mercredi 1 septembre 2010 20:01
À : Avri Doria; SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: feedback on the recommendations for
board summary - can we clarify?

 

 

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

>  

>