Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Action points - JAS WG call 8 June

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that the document is concise and well presented.

My comments:

Under "Process" there is the statement:
"The first two suggestions..."
Since we later use the title "Proposals",
perhaps we should replace the word
"suggestions" with "proposals",
for the sake of clarity.

Proposals 1, 2 and 3 are impeccable.

Proposal 4 - Noting Richard's correct
comment, I would support the text as is.

Proposal 5 - I go along with Tijani's
oft voiced opinion that we ask for this,
even if the response is in line with
Richard's prediction. It is a part of
the application fee that presents
the best potential for reconsideration,
IMHO. Let's leave it in as Elaine has
drafted it.

Proposal 6 - This point is well made.
There is a minor typo in the text to be
corrected - "which is remains unresolved".
I would also add at the end of this proposal
the following: "cost fee could be reduced...
for the applicants that meet the criteria
established by the WG.

Great work Elaine! See you all on the call.

Tony Harris


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Tindal 
  To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 10:58 AM
  Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Action points - JAS WG call 8 June


  Thanks Elaine.


  I think it's a very good document.   Look forward to feedback from the Group.


  Some comments from me:


  Proposal 2. (Graduated Fees).     Seems very reasonable to me that this 
should be adopted for the relatively small subset of applicants who will meet 
our criteria


  Proposal 3. (Auction Proceeds).   The explanatory memoranda to the DAG 
already indicate that Auction Proceeds are a potential source of funding for 
our applicants -- so I expect a positive response on this proposal.


  Proposal 4.  (Annual Fees).   The $25K per year (more if the registry has 
>50K names) is to cover the cost of ICANN operationally managing the TLD,  as 
well as administratively managing the relationship with the registry operator.  
 The fee was $75K per year (minimum) in earlier versions of the DAG - but was 
subsequently reduced to $25K minimum.   To put the number in perspective it 
probably represents about 1/7th of the annual cost of a fully loaded (with 
overheads) registry manager at ICANN.


  Proposals 5 (Risk/ Contingency) & 6 (Fixed/ Variable).    I expect a response 
to this that any surplus funds might (or even will) be refundable,  but only 
after the TLD process is complete and all costs have been tallied.  That said,  
I have no problem with us making these recommendations.


  Richard








  On Jun 11, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Elaine Pruis wrote:


    Thank you Olof.


    Attached is a document with the first version of the WT1 snapshot.  Working 
Group, please submit any edits/additions/suggestions so we have a mostly 
complete document in time for our call Tuesday, and posting on Wednesday. 


    Olof, would you please upload this to the WIKI?
    <WT1 Snapshot v1.docx>


    Thanks


    Elaine


    On Jun 8, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Olof Nordling wrote:


      Dear all,
      Action points from today’s call:

      1. Charter – we continue working according to the text agreed within the 
WG. Due to “packet loss” of unclear nature, the reference to objective 5 seems 
to have been lost in the links for the GNSO Council and ALAC approval motions, 
calling for non-urgent corrective motions in both bodies.

      2. Preparation of “snapshot” for posting – target date for posting 
remains 15 June 2010, with a public comment period open until 15 July 2010. 
Structure would be a)introduction, b) WT1 paper/one-pager c) WT2 
paper/one-pager.
      - Drafting to proceed on list and on Wiki
      - Elaine volunteered to take the lead on drafting the WT1 paper
      - Andrew volunteered to take the lead on drafting the WT2 paper, based on 
his previous draft
      - Olof to draft introduction and assist with Wiki posting as needed
      - Final version of document for posting to be agreed at next call

      3. Preparation of panel session at Brussels meeting, scheduled in the 
“Silver” room from 16.00 to 17.30  on Wednesday 23 June. Moderated by the 
co-chairs and with at least two members from each WT as panelist as well as, 
hopefully, available/interested Board members.
      - Volunteer/available panelists from WT1  sought (Elaine?, Tony?, 
Tijani?, others?...)
      - Volunteer/available panelists from WT1  sought (Andrew?, Carlos?, 
Rafik?, others?...)
      - Staff to approach Katim Touray (and possibly other Board members) on 
availability as panelist
      - Discussion of panel and session structure to be pursued on the list and 
agreed on next call

      4. Next call will take place on 15 June at 13.00 UTC

      All the best
      Olof

      PS. If you found the layout of my previous action points mail as ugly as 
it actually was – oh well, I learned one thing: don’t ever try to copy-paste 
when using Outlook Web Access…




    Elaine Pruis
    VP Client Services
    elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    +1 509 899 3161