Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Friday 15 October JAS meeting.

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Karla:

Thanks for sending that out.  Unfortunately I feel it might still be too late 
to include it in tomorrow's meeting.

On 15 Oct 2010, at 01:04, Karla Valente wrote:

> Dear Avri and all:
> 
> Please see attached the Addenda that has the draft of the public comments for 
> your discussion and review. In my opinion, the Final report addresses most of 
> the concerns/suggestions raised during the public comment period and we 
> should keep the Summary Analysis simple and refer to the Final Report as much 
> as possible. It is your call and I am happy to adjust.
> There are few responses I still need to work on based on the recent FAQ and 
> revisions made to the Final report.

While the text of the final report answers the question in a manner of 
speaking, I believe each of the questions also needs an answer and that answer 
needs to point to where in the final report the change was made - if a change 
was made.  I don't think it is not enough to say, go read the final report.  
The text you just sent seems to have some f the explanation, but it has a lot 
further to go.  The essence of the discussions we already had over the last few 
weeks needs to be captured in these reposnes.  I guess it is work we still have 
to do.  Is this something you will be able to do?

> 
> Regarding the Final Report:
> 
> On FAQ 4.1.1, we might consider referencing the New gTLD Policy 
> Implementation Guideline N which states: 
> "ICANN may put in place a fee reduction scheme for gTLD applicants from 
> economies classified by the UN as least developed."
> I personally believe this gives more strength to this work.

Good Idea.  I have added it into the next version

> 
> I see the note we have that these recommendations would not impact the 
> Applicant Guidebook.... In my personal opinion and looking from an applicant 
> perspective, the Applicant Guidebook should, at a minimum, have some 
> reference that a support program exists or is under development and where to 
> find current information about this.

I did not realize that was open to us.  And how can we say this until there is 
such a program. I am concerned that if we put any dependency on this in the AG, 
that will be used as a reason to say it can't happen.

We can discuss this issue tomorrow when get to the part of the report and you 
can explain what sort of statement belongs in our report.

> 
> I was reminded that the board expects us to directly answer to the recent 
> resolution. Do you believe we have done this?

I am not sure what question they have asked us.

Except for defining the meaning of financial need, we have defined both the 
kinds of aid and the characteristics of the qualified applicant.

In terms of defining financial need, we define that as a next step that needs 
to be done with appropriate experts.  I suggest we ca start woking on this as 
soon as we get this report out.  We should review the wording in the report to 
make sure it says all of this.  I thought it did, but if you don't think we 
have responded to the Board's question, then perhaps the text is failing.  Or 
perhaps I do not know what question they are asking.


> 
> The reviewed budget for the New gTLD Program has not yet been posted, but I 
> expect it any time... I know, it has been a  week :-(. It looks like there 
> has been an overall increase in the budget to address deployment costs, but, 
> most importantly, we are looking at creating funds for non-financial support 
> of applicants as recommended by this WG. I will keep you posted.

thanks

a.