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

[Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also endorse the request from Evan, specifically for this group but also
as a general behavior for all the documents send to the Board by staff or
anybody else.

Sébastien Bachollet
sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
+33 6 07 66 89 33


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-
> newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria
> Envoyé : lundi 27 septembre 2010 21:29
> À : SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Board resolution during retreat
> regarding Applicant Support
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> While I consider it my right to cast blame on the staff whenever I
> consider it appropriate and I abhor the policy of attacking anyone who
> has a cross word to say about the staff, I do not think anyone actually
> did cast blame on the staff.   Though I freely admit that my comment
> about the staffism inherent in the explanation of uncertainty may be
> seen as attributing some of the reasoning behind the Board's position
> to staff.
> 
> The request from Evan, which I completely endorse, for a full un-
> redacted view of the report that staff submitted on our work and their
> views on our work, is the only properly transparent way to behave.  One
> does not need to cast blame on staff to demand they make public any and
> all reports dealing with this group.
> 
> We do not know what they said and the members of this group, in my
> estimation, have every right to know given the response we received
> from the ICANN Board.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 Sep 2010, at 15:04, Elaine Pruis wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >