Page History
...
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Action Item 1: In recommendation 1.5, change “user” to “registrant” and add bracketed text [consistent] [predictable] as possible alternatives to [positive]. Action Item 2: For recommendation 2.2 - GDS team to come back to the group with clarification about its recommendation regarding “critical functions” in this text. Action Item 3: In recommendation 2.2, clarify language to state that whichever service provider provides for a function, that same provider should be used for both existing TLD and newly delegated variants. Action Item 4: Leadership team to refine Implementation Guidance 2.xx to make it consistent with Recommendation 2.6, clarifying that this question is not scored. Action Item 5: Replace “sanctity of the set” with “integrity of the set” in Rationale for Recommendations 2.16-2.18 and throughout the document. Action Item 6: Consolidate text of 2.16-2.18 to focus on the fact that any breach of the contract in any label removes the whole set. Action Item 7: Leadership team to draft new recommendations on base application fee based on today’s discussion (23 March 2023) and refine draft recommendation 2.24, 2.25, 2.26, and 2.27. Action Item 8: Leadership Team to revise draft recommendation 2.25 to reference a reduced fee based on a cost recovery basis for variants applied for beyond the set number that are included without additional costs with the primary. Welcome and Chair Updates
Second Reading of Draft Text Charter Question A5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2LG44/edit
Discussion points:
Action Item 1: In recommendation 1.5, change “user” to “registrant” and add bracketed text [consistent] [predictable] as possible alternatives to [positive].
Discussion points:
Charter Question B2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3wgZw/edit
Discussion Points:
Action Item 2: For recommendation 2.2 - GDS team to come back to the group with clarification about its recommendation regarding “critical functions” in this text.
Action Item 3: In recommendation 2.2, clarify language to state that whichever service provider provides for a function, that same provider should be used for both existing TLD and newly delegated variants. Charter Question B5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3wgZw/edit
Charter Question D1b: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH5Sw/edit
Discussion points:
Action Item 4: Leadership team to refine Implementation Guidance 2.xx to make it consistent with Recommendation 2.6, clarifying that this question is not scored. Charter Question D8: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvUH5Sw/edit
Action Item 5: Replace “sanctity of the set” with “integrity of the set” in Rationale for Recommendations 2.16-2.18 and throughout the document.
Discussion points:
Action Item 6: Consolidate text of 2.16-2.18 to focus on the fact that any breach of the contract in any label removes the whole set. Charter Question E5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RLvsyQvliafNEA9Ja1RCObywpAWfp1kTmte0WZlyqqs/edit
Discussion points:
Discussion of variant label application fees applied to existing gTLD registry operators
Discussion points:
Proposal Let N be the number of variants included for free in an application. New Applications:
Existing TLD with any number of variants. Apply for 5N+1 - 8 2N additional
Action Item 7: Leadership team to draft new recommendations on base application fee based on today’s discussion (23 March 2023) and refine draft recommendation 2.24, 2.25, 2.26, and 2.27.
Action Item 8: Leadership Team to revise draft recommendation 2.25 to reference a reduced fee based on a cost recovery basis for variants applied for beyond the set number that are included without additional costs with the primary.
Review of recommendations in place, look at sequence and order
AOB
|
...