RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the phone call.
I read carefully (well in my plane to Tokyo ;)) the version 2.18 and put my finding, questions, comments in this last version. Thanks All the best Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx +33 6 07 66 89 33 > -----Message d'origine----- > De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac- > newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria > Envoyé : mercredi 20 octobre 2010 03:01 > À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx > Objet : [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. >
Draft Final Report JAS WG v2 19-1_sbt.doc