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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

my responses to the questions:

2010/9/11 Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> My responses to the questions posed by Karla for the final draft:
>
>
> ·         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?
>
>
>
> These suggestions are all viable ways of reducing the fee.  The board
> should pick as many as the majority will support.
>
>
the WG is recommending different possibilities to resolve the issue of high
fees , the board can pick as many as it want. but for flexibility sake , it
is better to pick the whole set of recommendation

>
> ·         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?
>
>
>
>
> The board should pick as many as the majority will support.
>
>
idem

>
> ·         Is this expected to be implemented for the first round?
>
>
>
> The suggestions are intended for the new gTLD application program.  The
> working group recognizes the program is evolving and some adjustments could
> be made in subsequent rounds-so the support program also should be
> modifiable.
>
>
for inclusion purpose, those recommendations should be implemented for all
rounds.so needy applicants cannot be excluded in additional rounds

>
> ·         Does the WG expect any modification to the Draft Applicant
> Guidebook to incorporate these proposals?
>
>
> No, the working group offers these suggestions in light of the current
> applicant guidebook.  The program is in addition to the applicant guidebook.
>
>
those recommendation can be an addendum to ADG and no need to change the
current guidebook

>
> ·         Will the final proposal go through public comments again?
>
>
> The proposals are placed in front of the board for their consideration.  If
> the board directs staff to create a program based on the recommendations,
> than that program should go through public comments.
>
>
idem

Rafik

>