[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Chat Transcript from Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support - May 6

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Karla.Valente@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:Karla.Valente@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 8:00 AM
To: Karla Valente
Subject: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD 
Applicant Support

  Gisella Gruber-White:Welcome to the JAS call on Friday 06 May 2011
  Cintra 
Sooknanan:https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations
  Cintra Sooknanan:Evan is dialiing in now
  Gisella Gruber-White:Sebastien Bachollet has joined the call
  Evan Leibovitch:there has been extensive change to part 3 and part 4 of the 
document since last call.
  Evan Leibovitch:PLEASE review
  Cintra Sooknanan:Thanks Evan
  Elaine Pruis:please read aloud the part you are asking about?
  Evan Leibovitch:It's the third sentence of the document. No time to read 
al;oud
  Dev Anand Teelucksingh:"The Working Group has determined, at this time, that 
best possible process to provide support for such applications is to be done 
through a confidential process that is parallel to, and not a replacement of, 
the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. Thus, even after the Guidebook is formally 
approved, this WG can continue its work to refine those components of its 
mandate which remain unresolved."
  Sébastien:At its Brussels meeting with the GAC in late 2010 held to discuss 
the Scorecard
  Sébastien:it was end of February 2011
  Sébastien:comment on part 1
  Elaine Pruis:there has been support for adding social benefit language on the 
mailing list
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:will there be a points scoring system for 3.1.1 to 
3.1.5 ?
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:section 3.0
  Sébastien:What about a new setup organization?
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:3.0.3 then
  Dev Anand Teelucksingh:agree with 3.0.3 
  Dev Anand Teelucksingh:being used as notation
  Eric Brunner-Williams:for improved discussion of the specific phrases of 
text, it would help if line numbers were present. then we could say "at line 
NN, change 'fish' to 'fowl'"
  Dev Anand Teelucksingh:3.0.1 , 3.0.2, 3.0.3
  Cintra Sooknanan:The WG achieved a consensus that as long as the Applicant is 
providing build-out of a language whose web-presence is limited and they meet 
the other criteria, price support should be recommended.The WG did achieve 
consensus that as long as the Applicant is providing build-out of a language 
whose web-presence is limited and they meet the other criteria we should give 
support. 
  Cintra Sooknanan:these are the two sentences
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Evan - can you save & we can re-load the page, please?
  Evan Leibovitch:done
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:thx
  Eric Brunner-Williams:3.1.2, editorial nit: the "script" and "idn" language 
can be changed to "language", and i'll provide suggested language
  Eric Brunner-Williams:3.1.2, substantive issue: "bundling" did not achieve 
consensus, and removal of the reference could help this section for meaning and 
consensus
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Re: "non-profit" vs. "for profit", if we wish only non 
profit, then this might be incompatible with the use of the term "entrepreneur" 
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entrepreneur
  Elaine Pruis:hesitant to remove bundling but not confidentiality? why?
  Alan Greenberg:Please note, we are NOT submitting this to the Board. We are 
submitting it to the ALAC and GNSO.
  Eric Brunner-Williams:3.1.3, sub item 4: suggested language:  "Applications 
by Indigenous Peoples, as described in Article 1 of Convention No. 169 of the 
International Labor Organization."
  Cintra Sooknanan:what about the evaluation on Governments 
  Eric Brunner-Williams:3.1.3, sub item 5: i will supply language that will 
cover the rom (gypsies) and other stateless peoples with some citation that 
will meet the "objective definitinal" requirement
  Cintra Sooknanan:Applications by governments or government-owned 
entities(NOTE: By consensus of the WG, purely Governmental or para-statal 
applicants have been listed as not entitled to receive support. However, at the 
ICANN San Francisco meeting the WG received a request from the GAC to consider 
including Government applications from Developing Countries for support.  The 
WG will work to obtain a mutually acceptable definition and criteria to fit 
Government applications with the GAC WG, but recognizes the difficulty in 
measuring a government’s “need” and concern of the appropriateness of offering 
support for one government over another if resources are limited. The GAC WG 
has offered to review the JAS criteria and provide its recommendations on a 
formulation of a solution for possible support to Developing Country Government 
applications.)
  Eric Brunner-Williams:@elain: possibly because "confidentiality" is a recent 
add by one or few, and "bundling" has been argued by andrew for ever.
  Carlton Samuels:+1 Alain
  Eric Brunner-Williams:my skype id: abenaki.wabanaki.net
  Alain Berranger:Eric - Skype id for Alain: alain.berranger
  Carlton Samuels:..or the line that goes forward will be " There is no 
consensus.  But we are sure that for the applicant support purposes, income may 
not be a good indicator of financial need"
  Carlton Samuels:@Alan:  I support
  Tijani:sorry Eric, 
  Elaine Pruis:sorry, i'm running out the door for a meeting. cheers
  Cintra Sooknanan:bye Elaine, thanks for your comments
  Cintra Sooknanan:we didn't know the criteria
  Cintra Sooknanan:yes
  Dev Anand Teelucksingh:indeed
  Cintra Sooknanan:yes 
  Cintra Sooknanan:links were on the list
  Cintra Sooknanan:but they have to be updated given the new process
  Cintra Sooknanan:and criteria
  Cintra Sooknanan:A. Yes once approved for Support-B. the Applicant enters the 
DAG process (is registered in the TAS and pays the $5,000 deposit; the 
Application is checked for completeness; IF the above is ok and there is no 
anticipated contention the Application then progresses to being posted, 
Objection period, Background Screening, IE results posted)C. An Audit is done 
on the Application, Applicant and its partners to ensure it is still  
eligible/needy. During the Needy application process and at certain points of 
the DAG we perform this Audit (Part 3) to ensure the Applicant is still  
eligible or needy. Suggest that this occurs upon initial evaluation of the 
Applicant, and if the Applicant is approved Needy in the DAG process just after 
the IE results are posted, and repeated just after there is no string 
contention.D. If so, then the Application progresses in the DAG through 
Objections phase... String ContentionE. IF the above is ok and there is no 
string contention then an Audit is done on the Applicant and its partners
  Dev Anand Teelucksingh:JAS 
Overview:https://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1J0IpviG_n2vqKHIPSqKkaPPx7P1TeWHyXz4pOIfx_vQ&hl=en_GB&authkey=CKmw7-0BStep
 1 of simplified JAS 
overview:https://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1WSVCv-euLCWG3v0Gif8oNUg91UULgaCqnjDWxJL-5hY&hl=en_GB&authkey=CIahq94HAttempt
 to create detailed Step 
1:https://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1UuK_BtBc1bhnlJXMEMTJhYTozyThl-Lo8fdpxdq18xU&hl=en_GB&authkey=CLaMyrYB
  Dev Anand Teelucksingh:JAS Overview: 
https://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1J0IpviG_n2vqKHIPSqKkaPPx7P1TeWHyXz4pOIfx_vQ&hl=en_GB&authkey=CKmw7-0B
  Carlton Samuels 2:yes
  Dev Anand Teelucksingh:Step 1 of simplified JAS overview: 
https://docs.google.com/drawings/edit?id=1WSVCv-euLCWG3v0Gif8oNUg91UULgaCqnjDWxJL-5hY&hl=en_GB&authkey=CIahq94H
  Dev Anand Teelucksingh:posted April 5
  Carlton Samuels 2:Say one line - ICANN must appoint an external evaluator 
  Eric Brunner-Williams:@dev, on what call(s) were the slides walked through by 
you, and sugstantively discussed by the call participants?
  Dev Anand Teelucksingh:April 5 call and the April 8 call
  Dev Anand Teelucksingh:but not many comments were received
  Carlton Samuels 2:I dont't think we need to be so paternalistic as to advise 
the Board to reference Applicant Support in the DAG!
  Evan Leibovitch:just a mention to alert potential applicants that a support 
program exists
  Carlton Samuels 2:Outline is good!
  Carlton Samuels 2:External evaluator especially due to the politics of this!!
  Carlton Samuels 2:I have to go.....
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:So Alan - you are ok with the ALAC not having a say on 
any panel, then?
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I just want to make sure
  Cintra Sooknanan: Support may stop in two ways1. Discharged- Aid stops upon 
notification to the Applicant and the Applicant and/or its partners may have to 
repay some or all of the funds already spent on the application. The Applicant 
may proceed with the Application at this point at its own cost.2. Revoked or 
cancelled- used in cases where the Applicant was wrongly granted support (for 
example granted support as a result of giving false information about 
finances), the Applicant and/or its partners will have to pay all the funds 
already spent on the application and the application will be revoked/discarded 
at that point     
  Cintra Sooknanan:do we want to include this?
  Gisella Gruber-White:Carlton has left the call
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:how much time do you still need, Evan?
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Can we extend?
  Evan Leibovitch:that depends on the people charged with adding wording: Alan, 
Alain and Eric
  Cintra Sooknanan: Support may stop in two ways1. Discharged- Aid stops upon 
notification to the Applicant and the Applicant and/or its partners may have to 
repay some or all of the funds already spent on the application. The Applicant 
may proceed with the Application at this point at its own cost.2. Revoked or 
cancelled- used in cases where the Applicant was wrongly granted support (for 
example granted support as a result of giving false information about 
finances), the Applicant and/or its partners will have to pay all the funds 
already spent on the application and the application will be revoked/discarded 
at that point     
  Cintra Sooknanan:the Applicant does not give information of the Application, 
itself and/or its partners when requested;the Application's, Applicant’s and/or 
its partners’ financial and other circumstances change so that they are no 
longer eligible/needy;the Applicant withholds information about the Applicant, 
itself and/or its partners regarding its financial and other circumstances; 
orit is discovered that the Application, Applicant and/or its partners are no 
longer eligible/needy
  Tijani:Sorry, I have to leave
  Eric Brunner-Williams:bye all
  Cintra Sooknanan:bye