Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Agenda for Tuesday 16 november

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

My misunderstanding.  I thought you meant to replace.

a.

On 15 Nov 2010, at 17:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Please let me clarify.  My recommended amendment was not intended to replace 
> anything in the existing charter but rather to be an added task.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 11:02 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Agenda for Tuesday 16 november
>  
>  
> 
> On 15 November 2010 08:40, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Most importantly there has been a request for an amendment to change one of 
> the work items
> 
> from:
> 
> > Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its 
> > full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be waived 
> > for applicants meeting the requirements for assistance.”
> 
> 
> to:
> 
> > “Work with the ICANN new gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee 
> > waivers would be funded.”
> 
> I have argued that these motions are not interchangeable,
> 
> 
> I don't see this as a matter of opinion. They clearly are not interchangable 
> and indicate a significant departure. The proposed change asserts that the 
> "waiver" would be an externally funded subsidy rather than fee reduction.
> 
> They're not mutually exclusive and I don't see why not to include both.
> 
> - Evan
> 
>