Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] In lieu of a call today ...

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/4/11 11:58 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2011, at 11:30, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
> > Colleagues,
> >
> >  From my perspective, the ad hoc group suggested by the Names Council on the 
> > 8th, the call for volunteers for which Glen announced to the 
> > soac-newgtldapsup-wg on the 22nd, has one day to decide if it is going to 
> > decide anything on the JAS WG re-charter issue in time for the Names Council to 
> > consider a motion on January 15th.
> >
> > There are now three draft motions, the second I personally find the least 
> > conductive to what I think the JAS WG should or can attempt now that the 
> > Milestone Report is out for comment.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Eric
>
> By three, do you mean:
>
> 1 - the original that was approved by ALAC
> 2 - the version proposed by Jeff
> 3 - the compromise wording i proposed that tried to include some of your 
> rewording.

Yes. The Original (JAS WG proposed and ALAC approved), the Redline 
(Jeff Neuman's version) and the Blueline (msword smithing apparently 
done by Wulf-Ulrich Knoben.

> btw the compromise i offered looks like this now (in discussion with Rafik I 
> have suggested a clarification to 'd' that is along the same lines as the 
> compromise statements I proposed for the other statements - which were 
> essentially to replace the notion of 'Establish ...' with the notion of 
> 'Propose ...'
These were fairly harmless changes of language.

> the other part of the offered compromise was to use wording you suggested (I 
> took it as a suggestion in any case) for 'c' that left out explicit mention of 
> auctions and foundations.
I noticed that.

> 1b. Motion for JAS WG charter extension in response to ICANN Board resolution 
> about supporting applicants and for completing a list of further work items.

In my mind the big items are those I mentioned in part II of my note 
to the ad hoc group of the 30th. I'd like to see my concern over the 
over the relationship of the parties, assisting and assisted, squashed.
Eric

> Made by: Rafik Dammak
> Seconded by: Bill Drake
>
> Whereas:
>
> The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working group on support 
> for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010;  and
>
> The Working Group has completed the work as defined in its initial charter and 
> published a Milestone report on 10 November 2010 covering those chartered items 
> and including a list of further work items that it recommended further work on; 
>  and
>
> In recognition of the ICANN Board's resolution 2010.10.28.21 in response to an 
> Interim report from the JAS WG, which states:
> the Board encourages the JAS WG and other stakeholders to continue their work 
> on the matter, and in particular, provide specific guidelines on the 
> implementation of their recommendations such as determining the criteria for 
> eligibility for support.
>
> Resolved:
>
> 1. The charter of the Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is 
> extended to include the following objectives:
>
> a) Propose the criteria for financial need and a method of demonstrating that 
> need. Financial need has been established as the primary criterion for support. 
> The group should be augmented to have the necessary expertise to make a 
> specific recommendation in this area, especially given the comparative economic 
> conditions and the cross-cultural aspects of this requirement.
>
> b) Propose mechanisms, e.g. a review committee that would need to be 
> established operating under the set of guidelines established in the Milestone 
> Report and those defined in objective (a) above, for determining whether an 
> application for special consideration is to be granted and what sort of help 
> should be offered;
>
> c) Propose mechanism(s) for revenue income and other asset management to 
> support new gTLD applicants who meet the criteria as established in objective 
> (a) of this charter amendment.
>
> d) Discuss with Backend Registry Service Providers the extent of of 
> coordination, to be given by Backend Registry Service Providers (e.g. brokering 
> the relationships, reviewing the operational quality of the relationship) and 
> propose methods for coordinating that assistance.
>
> e) Discuss and propose methods for coordinating any assistance volunteered by 
> providers (consultants, translators, technicians, etc.); match services to 
> qualified applicants; broker these relationships and review the operational 
> quality of the relationship.
>
> f) Propose methods for coordinating cooperation among qualified applicants, and 
> assistance volunteered by third parties.
>
> g) In cooperation with ICANN Staff and donor experts propose policies and 
> practices for fundraising and for establishing links to possible donor 
> agencies. This activity may include assisting in the establishment of initial 
> relationships with any donor(s) who may be able to help in first round with 
> funding
>
> h) Review the basis of the US$100,000 application base fee to determine its 
> full origin and to propose a percentage of that fee that could be waived for 
> applicants meeting the requirements for assistance. Work with the ICANN new 
> gTLD implementation staff to determine how the fee waivers would be 
> accommodated.
>
> i) Design mechanisms to encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain 
> Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages.
>
> 2. The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows 
> for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently 
> scheduled for Q2 2011, in any event no delays for the new gTLD program should 
> result from the working group’s work.