Draft charter Financial contributions wg
Dear all, As discussed on the previous council call please find included the draft charter for the financial contributions wg for comment. To be most helpful, please send your comments to the list by Friday 3 September 2010. Kind regards, Bart
Thank you Bart for this excellent draft. On the third paragraph there is a list of criterias and other requirements for the working group members. Set limitations are good but in case there are more willing participants to the WG than is reasonable, should we have some recommendations here how to choose the members? I'm raising up this question because the ccTLD field is quite heterogeneous what comes to geographic location, size, type of the organization, etc. When working with financial contributions this diversity plays an important role. For example, financial realities are quite different for profit making ccTLDs and for ccTLDs in developing countries. Or even the ability to contibute at all (state owned ccTLDs vs. private ccTLDs). Taking this and existing criterias in Paragraph #3 in to account, in my opinion, WG members should represent this diversity as well as possible. Therefore I suggest we modify the first sentence something like "Members of the working group will be appointed by the ccNSO Council paying attention to diverse background of the applicants" Juhani
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 26. elokuuta 2010 11:40 To: ccNSO Council Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft charter Financial contributions wg
Dear all, As discussed on the previous council call please find included the draft charter for the financial contributions wg for comment. To be most helpful, please send your comments to the list by Friday 3 September 2010. Kind regards, Bart
Juhani, Thank you. What do others think? Kind regards, Bart On 8/26/10 11:48 AM, "Juselius Juhani" <juhani.juselius@ficora.fi> wrote: Thank you Bart for this excellent draft. On the third paragraph there is a list of criterias and other requirements for the working group members. Set limitations are good but in case there are more willing participants to the WG than is reasonable, should we have some recommendations here how to choose the members? I'm raising up this question because the ccTLD field is quite heterogeneous what comes to geographic location, size, type of the organization, etc. When working with financial contributions this diversity plays an important role. For example, financial realities are quite different for profit making ccTLDs and for ccTLDs in developing countries. Or even the ability to contibute at all (state owned ccTLDs vs. private ccTLDs). Taking this and existing criterias in Paragraph #3 in to account, in my opinion, WG members should represent this diversity as well as possible. Therefore I suggest we modify the first sentence something like "Members of the working group will be appointed by the ccNSO Council paying attention to diverse background of the applicants" Juhani
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: 26. elokuuta 2010 11:40 To: ccNSO Council Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft charter Financial contributions wg
Dear all, As discussed on the previous council call please find included the draft charter for the financial contributions wg for comment. To be most helpful, please send your comments to the list by Friday 3 September 2010. Kind regards, Bart
Thank you for your elaboration, Bart. Below is my comment. b) of "2. Objective" says : to discuss with ICANN a methodology for individual ccTLDs to use to calculate [...] contribution ..., and to propose such a methodology to the ccTLD community I, for some reason, feel a bit uncomfortable with this expression. The reason may be that I feel : calculation formula of contribution from each ccTLD should come from the discussion among ccTLDs, not from the discussion with ICANN, but only discussion with ICANN is stated here. Though I know occasional consultation with ccTLD community is employed as in "6. Reporting", I prefer seeing explicit words such as "with consultation among ccTLDs" in "2. Objective" session. Regards, Hiro On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:39:43 -0700 Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all, As discussed on the previous council call please find included the draft charter for the financial contributions wg for comment. To be most helpful, please send your comments to the list by Friday 3 September 2010. Kind regards, Bart
I agree with Hiro. Instead of "b ) to discuss with ICANN a methodology", we could say "b) to propose a methodology". Patricio On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM, HiroHOTTA <hotta@jprs.co.jp> wrote:
Thank you for your elaboration, Bart.
Below is my comment.
b) of "2. Objective" says :
to discuss with ICANN a methodology for individual ccTLDs to use to calculate [...] contribution ..., and to propose such a methodology to the ccTLD community
I, for some reason, feel a bit uncomfortable with this expression. The reason may be that I feel : calculation formula of contribution from each ccTLD should come from the discussion among ccTLDs, not from the discussion with ICANN, but only discussion with ICANN is stated here.
Though I know occasional consultation with ccTLD community is employed as in "6. Reporting", I prefer seeing explicit words such as "with consultation among ccTLDs" in "2. Objective" session.
Regards, Hiro
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:39:43 -0700 Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all, As discussed on the previous council call please find included the draft charter for the financial contributions wg for comment. To be most helpful, please send your comments to the list by Friday 3 September 2010. Kind regards, Bart
participants (4)
-
Bart Boswinkel -
HiroHOTTA -
Juselius Juhani -
Patricio Poblete