[NCSG-PC] Fw: [Gnso-sc-budget] [new draft] Comment on Reserve Fund Replenishment

[Ayden Férdeline]

Yes, this is a part of the compromise, we are the only Stakeholder Group that is not advocating such a position, so have asked the SCBO to remain silent here. Similarly, in the SCBO comment we are not expressing a position on whether any application fees from the expansion of new gTLDs should be returned.

Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 10 April 2018 2:25 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Ayden for the explanation, happy to see that we are not supporting touching the auctions funds at least.
> as the comment is quite simple, I don't see any reason to not support it.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-04-10 21:23 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>> That is correct; we are remaining silent on alternatives, as it is unlikely that there is a common GNSO position on them. However we do think there is a common GNSO view that raising fees on the contracted parties would be the wrong approach. We all have different rationales as to why that would be so.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On 10 April 2018 1:17 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>
>>> thanks for the work done on SCBO comment.
>>> I reviewed the previous version and fine with the latest one. so we are not exploring other options but only objecting to increasing fees? sorry I didn't join the SCBO confcall and didn't check yet the proceedings.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2018-04-10 2:35 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Happy to get comments here from the PC re: the SCBO comment on reserve fund replenishment. If you have any concerns, please raise them on our list or with me directly. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>> On 9 April 2018 5:14 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for joining our call today. Please find attached a revised statement encompassing the requested edits. We are using the [same Google Doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UU-rQfCLjJ_mTNRN0EdA2b5zivJGUfbaHa6imRuKZIo/edit?usp=sharing) as before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please review this statement as a matter of priority, and indicate if you have any concerns regarding the contents? The hope is to submit this to the Council mailing list by Wednesday 11 April in order to ascertain Councillor's comfort level with the text. The final date for comment submissions on this issue is [25 April](https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-replenishment-2018-03-06-en).
>>>>>
>>>>> Also - there is one unresolved edit, whether we would like the Reserve Fund replenishment period to be "five or less years" (ICANN org proposal) or "three to five years" (BC proposal). Can you please indicate if you have a preference either way? Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180410/82733461/attachment.htm>