Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Financial instrument

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This sounds like a reasonable approach.

Tony Harris
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tijani BEN JEMAA 
  To: 'SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx' ; 'Avri Doria' 
  Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:11 PM
  Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Financial instrument


  Avri and all,

   

  As promised, here is my language proposal regarding the Financial Instrument:

   

  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 to 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). 

   

  NB:  Richard proposed 12 months

   

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

  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