[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Agenda : was documentation for JAS WG call on Sept 21

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks Karla for sending these out.

I would like to recommend that we give people a chance to read through these 
docs and start on them Thursday.

For today, and I apologize for the lateness of the suggestion, I propose our 
discussions cover:

- A discussion of where we are at and what our approach should be to finishing 
up our work as soon as possible

a. We talk through any of the remaining open issues.  Karla has listed them 
below.  during the meeting we should make sure the list is correct.

b. My recommendation is that we go back to comment response document, confirm 
that the answers are as they should be and that there is a correspondence 
between the comments and where we are landing.  We should finish this doc.

c. Go back to the recommendations document and finish it.

d. Create a proposal for charter extension (should we believe that is the 
correct solution) to present to the the chartering orgs.

- Start in on open issues with bundling as I believe that is the biggest open 
issue.


On 20 Sep 2010, at 16:26, Karla Valente wrote:

> Dear Avri, Evan:
> 
> Please see the following attached (also posted on Wiki):
> 
> 1.       ADDENDA (public comments summary analysis) with updates based on 
> Sept 7 and 10 discussions
> 2.       Draft Final Report, version 2.10 Sept 17
> 3.       Excerpt that was sent to the Board by Avri on 9/18/2010 (see also 
> e-mail attached with cover letter)
> 
> Per my notes, these are the points of discussions or to be confirmed.
> 
> 1.       Discussion regarding prioritization of the standards (from Sept 7 
> meeting)
> 
> 2.       General discussion about assumptions on limitations of subsidy (from 
> Sept 7 meeting)
> 
> 
> 3.       Issue of bundling and the scope of our work. There is no unanimity. 
> Should keep bundling in the final report – even if we note that there’s some 
> disagreement over the details or utility –let the Board determine if it was 
> or wasn’t in scope.  Should we consider Richard’s proposal: ”the bundling 
> discount should not apply to corporate applicants who clearly have sufficient 
> funds to pay the regular application fee” - Alan with help from Andrew
> 
> 4.       Work on 3.3.10  underserved scripts – Andrew with help from Rafik, 
> Richard
> 
> 5.       Work on 3.3.11 - indentified as needing rewording, but last e-mail 
> exchanges agree no further language will be proposed?   Alan with help from 
> Richard, Andrew
> 
> 6.       Work on 3.3.9 – add wording regarding policy and impact on current 
> TLDs not aligned with self-funding policy goal.
> 
> 7.       Regarding Alan’s comments/question to me on the issue of delegation 
> versus actual TLD use by the Registry.
> This is what we have on the base agreement regarding this issue:  ICANN may 
> terminate the registry agreement: "if Registry Operator fails to complete all 
> testing and procedures (identified by ICANN in writing to Registry Operator 
> prior to the date hereof) for delegation of the TLD into the root zone within 
> 12 months of the Effective Date. Registry Operator may request an extension 
> for up to additional 12 months for delegation if it can demonstrate, to 
> ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction, that Registry Operator is working diligently 
> and in good faith toward successfully completing the steps necessary for 
> delegation of the TLD." 4.3 (b) 
> <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-clean-28may10-en.pdf>
> 
> Although it is the intention of the program to have working TLDs to foster 
> competition and innovation, there are no objective measures outlined of what 
> it would mean to "be operational and actually use a TLD", and there are no 
> other requirements in the agreement.
> 
> Talk to you tomorrow.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Karla
> <ADDENDA- JAS WG SEP17.docx><ADDENDA- JAS WG SEP17.pdf><Draft Final Report 
> JAS WG v2.10.Sept 17 - Clean.docx><Draft Final Report JAS WG v2.10.Sept 17 - 
> Clean.pdf><Excerpt Draft Final Report New gTLD Applicant Support.pdf>
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: 18 September 2010 03:47:37 EDT
> To: Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chuck Gomes 
> <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> Secretary <secretary@xxxxxxxxx>, Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx>, "Katim S. 
> Touray" <kstouray@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Secretariat 
> <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ICANN At-Large Staff 
> <staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Update from the Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD 
> Applicant Support.
> 
> 
> To:      The ICANN Board and the Chartering Organizations: ALAC and the GNSO 
> Council
> From: Co-chairs of the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support
> 
> 
> The Working Group has made a great deal of progress since the Brussels 
> meeting and is well along in the process of finding the consensus point on 
> the recommendations.  The group has put a great deal of time into analyzing 
> the community comments and into reviewing the initial recommendations as 
> defined in the first snapshot in the light of those comments.  While we near 
> the end of this process, we have not yet completed the work.
> 
> The enclosed document is an excerpt from the final output document of the WG 
> covering the WG recommendations.  For the most part, the items in this 
> document have consensus.  In the few cases where there is still an ongoing 
> debate, the options are listed either in [bracketed text1, bracketed text2], 
> or in one case in an expanded section listing 2 options.
> 
> We hope that this second snapshot will be useful to the ICANN Board in their 
> discussions on the New gTLD Program.  We would appreciate any feedback either 
> the ICANN Board or the chartering organizations might have on our 
> discussions.  It has been a goal of this group to make sure we were able to 
> present recommendations in time for the upcoming round of new gTLD 
> applications.  The participants in this group believe that being able to 
> provide assistance now and not at some possible future round is critical for 
> various reasons.  These reasons include:
> 
> - Board resolution 2010.03.12.46-47 was quite clear on the need to ensure 
> that the current New gTLD Program should be inclusive.  Much of the ICANN 
> community took hope from this decision and not to deliver on this first round 
> would disappoint the global community greatly.
> 
> - With every round, the competitive disadvantage for the new gTLDs increases. 
>  For ICANN to cause further disadvantage to those who already are at a 
> disadvantage due to its pricing considerations could be seen as an abrogation 
> of its responsibly to serve the global public interest and foster competition 
> for all.
> 
> - The pent up demand for new gTLDs, especially IDN gTLD, is so great that 
> there is an expectation for many applications.  There is a concern that 
> without some sort of assistance program, all of the most obvious names, 
> including IDNs, will be grabbed by wealthy investors, leaving little 
> opportunity, especially in developing regions, for local community 
> institutions and developing country entrepreneurs.
> 
> - While there is every plan for a second round, and most of us believe that 
> such a round will occur, its timetable is at best uncertain.  The round of 
> 2001 was supposed to be followed by new rounds, and though it now appears 
> that it will be, it took a decade for that to happen.  Since it is impossible 
> to give guarantees of when there might be a future round, making those who 
> cannot afford the current elevated ICANN prices wait for an uncertain future 
> is not seen as equitable treatment.
> 
> 
> In the final document, we will not only present the recommendations of the 
> WG, but will explain those recommendations and will list the activities that 
> we are recommending as follow on work.  
> 
> Finally, we apologize for the delay in delivering this by the document 
> deadline and hope that you will receive and consider this brief document 
> nonetheless.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Avri Doria and Evan Leibovitch
> Co-chairs, Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support 
> 
> ---
> 
> To the ICANN Secretary, please pass this cover letter along with the enclosed 
> document to the entire ICANN Board.  
> To the GNSO Secretary, please pass this cover letter along with the enclosed 
> document to the entire GNSO Council.
> To the ALAC Secretariat, please pass this cover letter, along with the 
> enclosed document to the entire ALAC.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> <Excerpt Draft Final Report New gTLD Applicant Support.pdf>
> 
> 
> 
>