[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Notes JAS call = February 15 2011

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear JAS WG,

Rafik asked me for some notes. I tried my best below, but multitasking does not 
work well with note taking ;-)
I strongly suggest that you use the transcripts and recording as an official 
record of the meeting.

Following Rafik's request during the meeting, please start adding information 
to the Wiki so we all can follow up on activities, issues, discussions.

Thanks,

Karla

Sub-WG A (criteria) - Tijani
Lots of discussions. Researched criteria, but already I milestone report.
It is not easy to have precise metrics.
Important to get proof from applicant, for example bank statements. Challenge 
arise, for example, if applicant has many bank accounts.
Rafik asks to make info available at wiki
Has "financial need" been defined? Do we need to go further from 
self-declaration? Searching all banks might be too much, but maybe a 
professional can check instead of this group or ICANN. The verification body 
might need to be an intermediate.
main issue is how to verify the income, not necessarily the amount. The 
difficulty is how to proof the need. Experts welcomed to help.
you are going wrong way due to gaming. Accept there will be misrepresentation; 
costs of fraud  can be high. Establish threshold and consequences for 
misrepresentation.
we need to go beyond self-statement. There are bodies that do 
verification/investigation. When matchmaking, we need to have some evidence the 
representation from applicant is truthful.
Applicant needs to have sustainable plan.
Vetting process can be expensive. Find an easier process to identify people; 
try not to do an evaluation.
Consider accounting moments after launch
Need more specifics; go beyond the basics conversation going on.

Sub-WG B (funding) - Avri
Not much on wiki yet.
Some might have a mindset that if applicant does not have money, it does not 
belong.
Misconception that 500K is at minimum needed, assuming applicants do not go to 
auction, specific evaluation, objections. How will we change this mind set, 
address that, since donors are likely to hear that?
There are existing TLD examples that the 500K is not the case, for example, 
.cat.
Try to get a little money as indicator; who is familiar with the process that 
could be a donor now?

Sub-WG C (technical) - Elaine
Leader not at the call. Not much to report at this call

Sub-WG D - Tony
Leader not at the call. Not much to report at this call

Su- WG E (IDN) - Andrew
Reached out to different people on IDN space. Confirmation from user 
perspective - more demand than initially assumed.
Perception that we are supporting more ASCII than IDNs.
Funding can and will be targeted for specific purposes but it is not this 
groups to necessarily decide who gets more support.
Pitching IDNs is an opportunity for growth.
Some groups identified usually have multiple scripts.