[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the phone call.
Hi, Woke up a 4 am and saw the recording was ready, so decided to listen to the call instead of going back to sleep. Sorry I could not join you on the call.. --- 1. One issue related to unusual poll results. I believe it has to be put down to the fact that some people who have been following the progress of the WG remotely have different views. And that is part of it, once forced to take a position between two options, they make a decision as opposed to not really caring and acquiescing to whatever the more active members of the group had done. Perhaps Eric is right and we need an answer on all questions that reads: x. Don't really care, willing to go along with the prevalent view in order to build consensus. ---- 2. As for calling it a milestone report, I am desperately sorry that I confused you all. It is not that we are not finishing our work, we are finishing the work we were assigned. It is just that we are asking to do more work, that seems to require updating our charter, work we believe we can't do without an update to the charter. The understanding on Final Reports is an intention to close a WG, in this case, we are stating that we have finished the work we were initially assigned, but we think there is more work to do beyond that initial set of work ad we don't suggest closing the group. It is not an interim report, nor is It a draft. It is Final, or rather would be, except that we want to update our charter so that we can do the other work that has been identified as necessary. By not calling it Final, I hope we can continue working while waiting for a response to the update. I have changed the note in the status of this document to read: The Working Group has met its initial goals and milestones and is making a Final Report on those in this report. As part of this report a series of additional work items are discussed with the view that the chartering organizations update the charter of the working group so that it can continue the work. ---- 3. Re 2.2 (6) I believe there was Consensus that this fee should be reduced but that we do not know how. I think Elaine was right, I removed too much content. I think that as 2.2 (6) current reads, it makes no sense at all. I suggest either putting back in the first paragraph with a slight amendment or removing all of 2.2 (6) it should either read (i added the second sentence): The Fixed/Variable cost of US$100,000 is based on a total cost of a previous round of applications and might not be relevant to the new gtld applicants. There was Consensus in the group that this cost should be reduced. There was also a Consensus view that in light of complexity of the calculation that established the basis for the USD$100,000 base cost, it was too difficult to determine what, if any of the fee should be eliminated for applicants meeting the requirements for support. It was therefore suggested that this should be subject to further investigation before any recommendations were made on this issue. Or be dropped. Note: I have always been personally willing to remove (6), but the issue was so important to some people in the group, I have tried to make it work. ----- 3. Re 2.4 The issue as I understood the consensus: The was a consensus that the period be shortened. Though there were a few people, like me, who are not sure we support this as a special fix for eligible applicants or who are against it in general, so it wasn't full consensus. What I don't see is any clear consensus among those who want to see it lowered on whether it be shortened to a year or to six months. By this lack of consensus, I don't mean we have sharp disagreements. I believe that we have a few people who feel strongly about 6 months, and a few people who feel strongly about 1 year, and a bunch who are fine either way. Of course I may be wrong. Perhaps this can be cleared up if everyone on the list replies to this message saying either: a. i support reducing the period to 6 months b. i support reducing the period to 1 year. c. As long as it is reduced, I am fine with either a or b and am willing to go a long with the prevalent viewpoint order to build consensus. ---- I have enclosed an updated 2.19-1 which accepts all the changes I think you accepted and adds the stuff I mentioned above. Again apologies that I will miss the next meeting as I will be flying from Armenia to Poland. I do recommend discussing as much as possible this week on the email list. But then again, I always recommend that. a. Attachment:
Draft Final Report JAS WG v2 19-1.doc
|