ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the phone call.

  • To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the phone call.
  • From: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:14:38 +0200

I read carefully (well in my plane to Tokyo ;)) the version 2.18 and put my
finding, questions, comments in this last version.
All the best

Sébastien Bachollet
+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.

Attachment: Draft Final Report JAS WG v2 19-1_sbt.doc
Description: MS-Word document

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy