RE: [council] Draft Agenda for New gTLD meeting 15 Jan

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

Note that Glen's message said, "The call will be open to observers and
alternates if Council members cannot attend."  I would conclude from
that that an alternate could attend if you are unable to do so yourself.
But I think that saying 'open to observers and alternates' could easily
be interpreted more broadly.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:56 PM
> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda for New gTLD meeting 15 Jan
> 
> 
> Based on Glen's announcement that the meeting was open to 
> observers, I have already issues an invitation. I am 
> expecting Cheryl, Sebastian and perhaps Danny.
> 
> I take it that you now want me to withdraw that?
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 13/01/2009 04:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >I was asked whether this meeting was open to observers as 
> the previous 
> >meetings had been.  Since we are focusing mainly on issues 
> related to 
> >possible variance between the GNSO Council recommendations and the 
> >implementation plan and on our recent motions, I thought it 
> better that 
> >it be essentially an extended council meeting - but one without 
> >motions.  In that respect I suggest we follow the practice we have 
> >followed with other such extended council meetings, most 
> recently wih 
> >the  Whois study DT, and allow for substitutions but not observers.
> >The meeting will be recorded and that recording will be available to 
> >all.
> >
> >thanks
> >
> >a.
> >
> >
> >On 12 Jan 2009, at 11:29, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>Based on what I have heard spoken of so far, the following 
> is a draft 
> >>agenda for the New gTLD meeting on 15 January.
> >>
> >>
> >>1 - Discuss areas at variance with GNSO policy principles, 
> >>recommendations and guidelines.  Possible areas include, i.a.:
> >>
> >>    -  Principle G: Do the review criteria infringe on freedom of 
> >>expression
> >>    -  Recommendation 1: Are the price levels discriminatory?
> >>    -  Recommendation 2:  Extent of confusing similarity
> >>     - Recommendation 5: Reserved names issues
> >>        - geographic
> >>         - 2 char IDN
> >>    - Recommendation 17: what is the clear compliance and sanctions 
> >>process?
> >>    - IG B: Recommended cost based fees with different applicants 
> >>paying different fees.  Are these fees really cost based? Are some 
> >>applicants subsidizing other applicants?
> >>    - IG F:  Board resolution process was recommended instead of 
> >>Auction
> >>    - IG O: Are there any plans for a fee reduction 
> schedule for gTLS 
> >>applicants from economies classified as least developed?
> >>    - Others?
> >>
> >>2 - Discuss the motions we passed vis a vis new gTLDs
> >>   - introducion of idn tlds
> >>   - Implementation guideline (IG) E
> >>
> >>3 - Discuss the comments received
> >>
> >>4 - Discuss follow-up process to this meeting
> >
> 
> 
>