[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Tijani's updated draft 2.19-4

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

I have not rejected any of Tijani's or Sébastien's edits n this latest pass.

And while I added a comment in toDave's comment mentioned by EBW, I left the 
comments in so that other people could comment.  I was certainly not going to 
remove an entire proposal because one person questioned it.  Now that the have 
questioned it, perhaps we will find we not longer have consensus on that point 
and will need to change it.  I am still not sure that will amount to consensus 
to remove it.

As for what is added or removed from the doc.  This is a doc we have been 
working on for a while.  Any text the groups wants removed can be removed.

In fact just to make thing easier, I am now turning the pen on the doc over to 
Karla.  Permanently.


a.



On 25 Oct 2010, at 16:45, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Tijani, Sebastian, Dave,
> 
> At lines 271-273 you've added comments (in green), suggesting the word change 
> from "Program Development" to "Program Support".
> 
> In the American English usage, organizations that ask for contributions call 
> that "Development".
> 
> At line 393 you identify a duplication at line 391. I agree with the deletion 
> at 391.
> 
> At lines 397-406 you propose an exception for brands meeting some condition.
> 
> There is no ".brand" type of application in the DAG.
> 
> The issue of local entrepreneurs and market constraints is addressed in 
> 2.8(e), so the only content in lines 397-407 is .brands, which don't exist, 
> and local entrepreneurs and market constraints, duplicating lines 389-391.
> 
> My preference is to cut lines 397-407.
> 
> At lines 456 and 457 you propose something the meaning of which I don't 
> grasp. What is the difference between a program described in the DAG, here 
> proposed as an appendix, and a program having the same weight as the DAG?
> 
> See also lines 479-482, where the program definition is discussed.
> 
> At line 468 you observe that you don't understand the text at line 466. 
> Neither do I.
> 
> 
> Sebastian Bachollet observed at 173 that the amount is small, and I _think_ 
> the net profit reference is to a budget prior to the October 22nd budget, but 
> what stands out is the opinion of the editor that "every thousands of dollars 
> would be significant to some applicants"
> 
> Sebastian's point is that some amount is small, and presumably does not meet 
> a significant effect test to be included in this document. Whether as a 
> personal opinion, or as a change rejection by the editor, the counter point 
> is a thousand dollars is sufficient to meet the significant effect test to be 
> included in this document.
> 
> I prefer a document that makes a couple of points, not one that makes 184 
> points.
> 
> I agree with Sebastian.
> 
> Dave Kissoondoyal observed at 206 that the contingency fee should have a 
> number if the number isn't zero. Looking at the October 22nd budget, page 6, 
> I see that Staff currently estimates that "A small percentage of applications 
> will be considered “highly complex” and will require at least one additional 
> procedure after Initial Evaluation (i.e. Extended Evaluation, String 
> Contention, Objection/Dispute Resolution)."
> 
> If applicants meeting the qualification standard have lower per applicant 
> risk / contingency cost, then under cost recovery principle, the associated 
> contingency fee should reflect that lower per applicant risk.
> 
> As Staff estimates 15% of the applications will be withdrawn or fail 
> evaluation (page 7, paras 1, 2 & 3), I suggest we use 15% as the best 
> estimate of the true per applicant risk and therefore contingency cost, 
> giving $9,000 as the best estimate of the contingency fee for qualified 
> applicants which are not "highly complex", for a per-application fee 
> reduction of $51,000.
> 
> I agree with Dave and offer the Staff risk estimate times the proposed fee 
> for qualified applicants.
> 
> Random typos and text errors:
> line 408 delete "the"
> 
> Eric
>