Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Board resolution during retreat regarding Applicant Support

[Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

My comment was intended to bring the consideration back to our working  
group rather than go on attack against staff. I see those three items  
as a group responsibility.  We chose to mire in some topics rather  
than hit consensus or deadlines.
I'm sure there are elements of truth to all the hypothesis; but I  
think we need to search within before casting blame outside.
Elaine

On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not sure the short report had anything to do with it, as I was  
> specifically asked to keep it short.  I am not so sure that being  
> late had anything to do with it either.  There had it in time.
> There were some very strong opinions expressed by various Board  
> members (quoted from private conversations at the IGF) against any  
> price breaks for anyone.
> There were some strong statements by various board members (quoted  
> from private conversations at the IGF) saying that we needed a  
> really good explanation on why those needing aid should not wait for  
> future rounds.
> The phrase on the "uncertainty associated with the launch of new  
> gTLD" strikes me as the same staffism that brought us a 100,000 ISD  
> base fee based on hand waving about the difficulty of predicting  
> risk.  I am not sure that is due to any of the reasons you listed.
> But as a co-chair responsible for:
>
> a. not making sure we were done in August
> b. the report being late
> c. the report being incomplete
>
> I am willing to take responsibility for the Board's lack of  
> understanding and inability to see beyond western economic realities  
> to the need for a level playing field for global applicants.
> a.
>
>
>
> On 27 Sep 2010, at 14:28, Elaine Pruis wrote:
>
> > The disappointing resolution probably had more to do with: first,  
> > missing our deadline in August, second, a late report, third, the  
> > lack of a complete report; than anything the staff may or may not  
> > have done.
> > Elaine
> > On Sep 27, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> >
> > > Karla, thanks for the update.
> > >
> > > As co-chair of this group, I am formally requesting a full and  
> > > accurate transcript of the staff report to the Board retreat on  
> > > this issue, as well as any related presentations and background  
> > > materials.
> > > - Evan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 27 September 2010 13:02, Karla Valente  
> > > <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 2.2 New gTLD Applicant Support
> > >
> > > ==============================
> > >
> > >
> > > Support to applicants will generally include outreach and  
> > > education to encourage participation across all regions, but any  
> > > direct financial support for applicant fees must come from sources  
> > > outside of ICANN.
> > >
> > > Staff will publish a list of organizations that request assistance  
> > > and organizations that state an interest in assisting with  
> > > additional program development, for example pro-bono consulting  
> > > advice, pro-bono in-kind support, or financial assistance so that  
> > > those needing assistance and those willing to provide assistance  
> > > can identify each other and work together.
> > >
> > > Owing to the level of uncertainty associated with the launch of  
> > > new gTLDs, the fee levels currently in the Applicant Guidebook  
> > > will be maintained for all applicants.
> > Elaine Pruis
> > VP Client Services
> > elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > +1 509 899 3161
Elaine Pruis
VP Client Services
elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+1 509 899 3161