<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Draft Agenda for New gTLD meeting 15 Jan
Since alternates are not observer, but active members, I did
interpret it more broadly. It didn't make much sense if observers
would be allowed only if the alternate was replacing the council
member (to check up on them???).
But I will un-invite if so instructed.
At 13/01/2009 05:45 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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
> >
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|