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

[Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Tony,  I've changed the wiki text to reflect your suggestions.

Elaine

On Jun 14, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Anthony Harris wrote:

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