Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/14/11 9:04 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
> Thank you Alan, Avri, Alex and Eric,
>
> Indeed, it’s disappointing.
>
> But it was expected, and since Cartagena, we were convinced that it
> will happen.
I didn't think it was a foregone conclusion, so I put time and past 
relationships into the effort.
However, what I consider an adverse outcome has transpired.

The Registry SG is hardly monolithic, and Caroline, Jordi, Ray, Cary 
and perhaps one or two others (a) know and care what it is like to be 
low-cap applicants, and (b) have no expectations of gaining some 
marketing collateral benefit from providing assistance.
Will they be able to change the position of the RySG? Probably not, 
but there's more to this than just the momentary majority of the RySG.
Similarly, there are registrars who plan to submit applications to 
operate registries, and registrars who plan operate the back ends of 
third-party contracted registries, who have a kind of interest in the 
outcome of assistance to needs qualified applicants, and registrars 
that intend to remain registrars, who lack that specific interest in 
the outcome of assistance, and may have a greater interest in the 
existence of new inventories than in their control, and the ease of 
their being able to integrate those inventories in their existing 
product offering than in any other interest.
To repeat, neither of the contracted parties are monolithic.

> We decided to try to find other constituencies to join the JAS WG, and
> we were thinking especially to the GAC. We really need to get closer
> to them. Who is taking the lead for such thing? I understood that Evan
> and Olivier were trying. Is there any chance to have the GAC as a
> chartered organisation for this WG?
I think the ccNSO is a candidate. Several ccNSO operators have an 
interest in either adding generic registries to their existing 
capabilities, for economic reasons, or in being regional guarantors of 
continuity operations, for non-economic reasons.
The GAC is another. Various governments have "digital divide" 
programs, and as .cat showed, minorities with nationalistic 
aspirations can be accommodated by other means than repression or iso 
3166 status.
The ASO is another. Through the RIRs to the LIRs to the transit and IX 
operators. They have bandwidth and facilities and they can be asked 
for "credits" against their network charges and "footprint" in their 
data centers, which is a heck of a lot more attractive than "hosting 
courtesy of {NeuStar, etc.} in Northern Virginia.
> In any case, I do stick to the version adopted by ALAC, and don’t see
> any reason that ALAC changes and joins the GNSO version.
Agree.

> Yes Alan, it’s a pity that we lost the 2 or 3 last weeks. We were
> supposed to rush and try to be on time for a proposal to the board
> before the launch of the final DAG edition.
Agree. Lets continue.

Eric