Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Consensus survey

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 14 October 2010 13:56, Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> - in Question 6, when the poll says "the other criteria" are you talking
> about items a-e that are mentioned in the document?  I assume so, but would
> like to know.
>

That is correct. I didn't really think there was a different way to
interpret this.



> - in Question 8, when the poll says "Given that Registrars may not be open
> to this specific proposal (voluntary contributions to a development fund),
> it should not be included in the JAS report"  what are we asking?  I assume
> that if you want the voluntary contributions to be included you would vote
> "disagree", but it was unclear.
>


And you are correct. If you want it included, then you disagree with the
proposal as worded.



> - in Question 13, have we defined a "marketing-oriented gTLD" anywhere?  I
> didn't remember discussion using this term.
>


We have referred to brand-oriented TLDs before, so you can consider it that
way.


  - in Question 14, again this is one where we can simplify the language I
> think.  I believe you are asking if there should be an exception to the rule
> that recommends against support for entities that mostly/completely
> government sponsored.  Is this what we are asking?  If so, can we re-frame
> the question?
>


I agree that the wording does seem clumsy and I apologize. The gist from the
survey question is to determine that there may be some exceptions to the
government-funding restrictions. While there is certainly some room to
clarify the point, I recall divergence on whether there should be certain
exceptions to the restriction against applications with government funding.

But we can and should definitely revisit the final wording.

- Evan