[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] chat room Sept 14 JAS WG

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

Karla Valente: Dear all, welcome to the September 14 JAS WG Meeting
Alan: Is there actually a call today?  DOn't think I saw it scheduled after the 
last doodle?
Eric Brunner-Williams: hi karla, i hope your holiday went well
Karla Valente: I had a great vacation at Los Cabos, Mexico. Unfortunately the 
cost of Internet connection was absurd.
Eric Brunner-Williams: what about the cost of sand and sunshine?
Karla Valente: ;-)
Karla Valente: Eric, were your suggestions incorporated to the version that is 
on the screen ( JAS WG V2.10 - Sept 13)?
Eric Brunner-Williams: yes
Karla Valente: thank you
Eric Brunner-Williams: my pleasure
Eric Brunner-Williams: who just spoke from vilnius via skype?
Karla Valente: i think it was andrew on skype...but not sure
Evan Leibovitch: avri: we are  on 3.1 -- line 28-47. Alan has a question that 
he's typing into Connect
Alan: Question (for Avri) was regarding bullet starting at line 36. It is a 
very vague statement and I think it lowers the impact of the other bullet 
points.
avri: the buller eliminat $60. - do you mean it needs more words?
Eric Brunner-Williams: @avri, the verb is ''decrement'', but there is no 
amount, percentage, suggestion of size, ...
Eric Brunner-Williams: @36
avri: true.  i thought that until we got some real facts about what went into 
we could not really make a substantive recommendation'
avri: ut it could be a stronger stmt.
Karla Valente: Alan: I will verify with legal the enforcement of a requirement 
to ahve a registry operational within a certain period of time. This was 
discussed internally.
Karla Valente: registry operational + use of a TLD
Elaine Pruis: this point did not have full support of the WG- it should not be 
listed as having consensus imo
avri: Investigate lowering the $100K fee based on a factual analysis of the 
expenses that went into the calculation of that figure.
Evan Leibovitch: alan is suggesting either the removal pf 36-40, or at least 
the addition of a phrase that states that the amount to be decremented will be 
determined later. Avri, what's your preference?
avri: in which case put there was some support for .... in frint
avri: i think that for some of the particpants, e.g. tony and tijani this was a 
big deal.
avri: some particpants suggested that the $100 K fee (does it have a proper 
ame) be subjected to further investigation to see if it could be lwoer for 
applicants wo have a finaicial need?  or something?
Evan Leibovitch: avri: we'll put ina comment that it did not have complete 
consensus
avri: ok.
Evan Leibovitch: discussion on line 59-61
avri: I recommended there was some support but not consensus on ...
avri: i tried to couch it in terms of scarcity of funds.  if there is no 
scarcity, then no limitation.  seemed to be a middle postion
Elaine Pruis: exceptfor the priority language.
Evan Leibovitch: there seems to be consent on the call for removing the 
sentence on line 58-61
avri: ok, but what do you recommend if there isn't enough funding to distribute.
avri: i am sure the Board will ask as well.
avri: note that i did not put that on the outside funding - wither they can 
find or not.  but if some program out of ICANN has to distribute, how will they 
discriinate - by the greatest need is one possiblily.  if that is the WG 
intention, then we should say so.
avri: ie. if there are limited funds then the committe repsonsible for 
allocating funds will distribute based on the beais of greatest need.
Elaine Pruis: i like primary
Elaine Pruis: I mean just the bracketed
avri: i.e. repalce [main, sole]  with primay.  seems good to me.
Eric Brunner-Williams: if elain and i and one other person are opposed, is 
there ''significant opposition''?
avri: yes
avri: not even sure what you are toaling about but 3 srong voice n a group this 
size, especailly voice who don't alwasy agree of everything else would 
constitute significant oppostion by me.
Elaine Pruis: i really have a problem with the detail provided in this 
controversial section as opposed to the complete lack of detail in 3.1
avri: hat s a reasonable complaint.
avri: that is ...
avri: one could aadd instead:  there have been several recomendation made on 
bundling that have not yet matured.
Carlos Aguirre: sorry but I have to leave now. congratulations for the great 
job made
avri: or  there have been several recomendation made on bundling that have not 
reach a level of agreement that permits documentation at this time.
Elaine Pruis: i like avri's wording
Alan: Evan is suggesting that we replace t he detailed percentages with a 
statement that we have a sliding dicscount scale based on the number of native 
users of the script.
avri: well there is alo EBW's suggestion that is not a sliding scale but a 
sinnlge price for muitple scripts (if i understand correctly)
Alan: I need to leave soon.
Alan: Avri, yes, but the ''sliding scale'' is option a and the sinble fee is 
option b
Alan: single
Eric Brunner-Williams: i think sinble fee sounds more interesting
avri: pick on my typing will you????  a sentece crafted to include both and 
indicating that they are still early in discusson seems good.
Eric Brunner-Williams: alan's typo
avri: oh, sorry.
avri: it was aweak humor anyway
Evan Leibovitch: just ended
avri: thanks for doing this
Evan Leibovitch: Karla will send out a latest draft based on today's work
Eric Brunner-Williams: thanks everyone
avri: ok,  what do you think of the cover letter?.
Evan Leibovitch: gruelling but worth it
Eric Brunner-Williams: agree, gruel, but necessary
Eric Brunner-Williams: somehow the word ''punishment'' seems wanting ...
avri: can't wait to read it.  well i can wait.  still taking notes on the 
opening session of IGF.