[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS second milestone report responses to queries, minor typos and comments

[Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,


Please see my responses in purple below to the queries, I have also copied
my previous email to the list (with Eric's follow up discussion responses)
below as it seems these were not incorporated.


Unfortunately I will not be able to attend tomorrow's call and this month
(up to 10 June) will be particularly difficult for me due to some work
changes, but I will continue to support the group and its work in whatever
way I can.


Regards

Cintra




*Comments on the Report*



*3.2 Notes on Financial Need*

The overriding consensus of the WG is that *financial need and capability is
the primary criteria for determining eligible applications.* Such need and
capability is to be demonstrated through the following criteria:

   1. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards ICANN's
   application fee, unless ICANN waives, or lowers application fees.
   2. Where applicants anticipate scheduled fees, such as for extended
   evaluation, the applicant must be capable of contributing a quarter of the
   scheduled fees.

*[RYSG] * How was this determined? Is it sufficient to demonstrate
viability? Some explanation of the WG thinking on this would be helpful.



   1. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards registry
   operational costs, if the applicant proposes to operate its own registry
   platform. If the applicant proposes to share registry operational costs with
   other qualified applicants, the applicant must be capable of contributing
   the pro rated proportional share of this cost.

 *[RYSG] *Is the $45,000 amount an annual figure?  It might make up a very
small percentage of operational costs.



   1. Applicants must be capable of of contributing $45,000 towards registry
   continuity operational costs, if the applicant proposes to fund its own
   continuity operation. If the applicant proposes to share registry continuity
   operational costs with other qualified applicants, the applicant must be
   capable of contributing the pro rated proportional share of this cost.

* *

*[RYSG] It would be helpful to explain the basis for the $45,000 amount.*

*
*

***Not sure as this figure came about from a redraft from the final call*

*But the First MR states that the applicant must be able to cover half the
costs of the AG process.*

*
*

*
*

*Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?*

The WG recommends a number of different kinds of support to be made
available for eligible applicants, which fall into the following categories:

*4.1 Financial support/relief from ICANN*

4.1.1 - Cost Reductions

The WG recommends the following fee reductions to be made available to all
applicants who are determined as meeting the criteria established for
support:

   - Waive (consensus for this in the Milestone report) the Program
   Development Costs (US$26,000)
   - Lower risk/contingency cost (US$60,000)



[RYSG] If these contingency funds are actually needed at the amount
estimated, where would the deficit come from?

*
*

*A deficit can be catered for in several ways not yet explored by the WG. *

*Though I did send an email on 21 March to the list wrt insurance being one
of these possible mechanisms. *

*There seems to be confusion as to what this $60K figure is meant to
represent and we will require clarification from staff on this. *



   - Review Base cost (US$100,000) to see if reduction can be made
   - Cost reductions to encourage the build out of IDNs in small or
   underserved languages.



*[RYSG] *Does the WG believe that costs will be less for ‘IDNs in small or
underserved languages’?  If not, what is being suggested here?


*My understanding of what is being suggested is that ICANN support buildout
of IDN language applications and *

*There be cost reductions for an additional IDN language application when
the Applicant is already applying for a latin script application*



   - Lower registry Fixed Fees



*[RYSG] * Assuming the fees are reasonable with regard to services provided
to registries, would other registries be expected to make up the deficit?
Or does the WG believe the fees are too high?  If the latter, was any
analysis done to support that position?



*From my recollection it was felt that these fees were too high*

*
*

   - Exemption or deferment of IPv6 implementation requirements as possible



*[RYSG] * Could this put the registry at a competitive disadvantage compared
to registries that support IPv6?

*
*

*IPv6 implementation is likely to come with a host of problems and it is
unconscionable to expect the developing world applicants to tackle these
problems on their own, therefore it should be deferred or some form of
special support be given. *

*
*

*IPv4 numbers are starting to be treated as an asset with financial value,
Microsoft recently paid $11 per IPv4 address. These companies just wait, or
even find it in their interest to obstruct, while the underprivileged battle
against the bugs in IPv6. **It makes no sense for anyone to be a pioneer in
transitioning to IPv6;** it only makes sense to go there as and when others
go there as well*

*
*

Further reductions recommended

   - Reduction of the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation to
   6-12 months



*[RYSG] * What if the registry fails?  Does the WG suggest a higher
tolerance for failure in exchange

*
*

*Not a higher tolerance, but a lower cost for the financial continued
operation instrument obligation can be catered for in several ways not yet
explored by the WG e.g. insurance? *

*
*

4.1.2 - Staggered Fees

Instead of paying the entire fee upon acceptance of the applications,
applicants meeting the criteria established for support could pay the fees
incrementally. Staggered fees payment enables an applicant to compete for
strings that might otherwise have gone to the first and/or only group with
enough money to apply.



*[RYSG] * Staggered over what period of time?  What happens if progress
payments are not made on time?


*Period of time and points of payment depend on the unbundling of the AG
which we must request from staff.*

*If payment is not made we have to discuss the options for the applicant but
my thinking is the application is put on hold ...*

*subject to the sunset period defined *
*
*


*Part 5 - Evaluation process and relationship to the new gTLD Applicant
Guidebook (AG)*

The WG has determined, at this time, that best possible process to provide
support for such applications is to be done through a 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. It is
important that the AG make mention of this program and refer interested
potential applicants to it, however it is not the WG's intention to
otherwise affect the existing application process. To qualify for support
applicants may be required to demonstrate that they meet this program's
criteria on financial need and public interest; however such activity is
intended to supplement, not replace, existing mechanisms in the AG.

The WG had full consensus that Applicants that receive support under this
program should repay that support as possible, and that such repayments go
into a sustainable revolving fund used to support the future
applications. Repayment is dependent on the gTLD Operator's financial
success and will take the form of either

   - a capital contribution or lump sum; or
   - an income contribution or annual instalment of until a lump sum is
   repaid; or
   - repayment of the full or a percentage of the reduced base cost fee
   expended by the Support Development Program.

The following broad steps *did not obtain thorough evaluation or full
consensus* by the WG, but have been suggested as a starting point to this
process and will be further refined by the WG based on the Parts 1 to 4
above. Note the process is meant to be to be in parallel with the AG-

*1.     *the Application is assessed using the criteria described in Part 3
and this Step takes place before the Application enters the AG process**

*[RYSG] * Is there enough time for this?

 *Need to know when the AG will commence to answer this *
*
*



*Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy*
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
*Office:** *+1.571.434.5772  *Mobile: *+1.202.549.5079  *Fax: *
+1.703.738.7965 */* jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  */* www.neustar.biz

Please note new address:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166
------------------------------

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
delete the original message.


From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 2011/5/11
Subject: AW: [council] Re: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG
To: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx, rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx,
carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


All,

I'd like to add some more to Stéphane´s questions (according to the report
structure):

3. Qualification of applicants: I've some doubt's an applicant's self
declaration might be sufficient. At least appropriate references should be
provided.

*Defer to Tijani's response on this, but note in Part 5 there is an audit
process to check credentials *
*
*

3.1.2 under-served language: similar to Stéphane, what are the criteria to
define these communities (number of members...)

*Defer to Eric and group determination on this *
*
*

3.1.3 emerging markets - poor regions: in the note to 3.1.5 reference should
be made to the existing (and to the potential lack of) technical
infrastructure
*Agree, though 'potential lack of' may be too wide, will defer to group
determination on this *
*
*
*
*
3.2 Financial need: How is the contribution of 45,000 $ calculated? Is this
just 25% of the regular application fee?
 *See my response above *
*
*
4.1 Financial support/relief: shpuld this be on top of 3.2?

4.1.3 Refund from auction proceeds: does this mean "auction profit"?

4.4 Development fund: I've concern that this should be under the direction
of applicants meeting the support criteria only. At least representatives of
the "ICANN community" as well from the ICANN executive management should be
part of the directive body.

4.5 The function of an "External funding agency" is not clear to me.


*All points to be discussed and defer to the group determination on these *
*
*
I hope for clarification and fruitful discussion on the topics.


Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: JAS second milestone report minor typos and comments
To: SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx, Eric Brunner-Williams <
brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Olivier MJ
Crepin-Leblond <ocl@xxxxxxx>, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx>


Hi Everyone,

Eric was able to answer in chat the following, which I will share for the
group's benefit/clarification-

2. Agree remove points 4 and 5, the AG is assumed. It is ICANN's job to keep
the mafia from applying or whatever is the terrorist of the month

3. native peoples in the Americas are covered by the ilo 169 art 1
reference. it is the gold standard for us and also indigenous peoples in
India and Finland and ...

4. Agree add ".corp", since we're not interested in .ovi or .nokia as
assistance recipients

5. the "script" and "idn" language is still there, not replaced (yet) by
"minority language"
[Cintra noted that some of the group stating it should only be for the
minority language that a cost reduction is applied]
-well, that isn't unreasonable. in india hindi and a couple of other
languages have big user bases, but some of the 22 official languages in 11
scripts would meet the "minority" test, in india, and therefore be eligible
as minority languages
- for a community with a conquest language (english or spanish or ...) and a
surviving language (both using the same or different scripts) the conquest
language would be discounted if it is the only string applied for. The issue
is what about the second string, the string that is in the surviving
indigenous language, which is a minority within the minority community.
- i think the cleanest solution is to change the first para to read "there
is full consensus for support for applications for under served languages"
- NO CONSENSUS on the bundling point or how it should be applied (whether to
one string or both)
8. Agree to remove the vertical integration reference.

9. deferring dnssec does not create cost, and early cost is more painful
than later cost anyway. Who ever wrote that article is wrong its not just
signing the zone, which is easy, it is getting the registrars to sign, and
that is hard, and the ab initio argument is really just dnssec evangelicals
attempting to create a rational for something absurd -- the value of signing
an empty zone no one yet cares much about (no registrants, no risk)

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Cintra Sooknanan <
cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear JAS WG,
>
> I know this email is tardy, but better late than never!
>
> The second milestone report was uploaded at
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+comments+on+JAS+WG%27s+Second+Milestone+Report#.
> I have gone through the document and would like the following minor edits to
> be included for clarity and grammatical correctness:
>
> 1. Sebastien had stated in the chat of Friday's call that in Part 1
> Paragraph 4 Line 3 where it says "GAC in late 2010" should be changed to
> " GAC at the end of February 2011"
>
> 2. Part 3.3 points 4 and 5 were part of the MR but should they be included
> even if they are part of the AG?
> Sponsors or partners who are bankrupt or under bankruptcy protection
> Sponsors or partners who are *ubject* of litigation or criminal
> investigation [*please fix as subject*]
>
> 3. Under 3.1.1 would be given more weight if the native indian community
> example in America was stated, not just European [Eric perhaps you may help
> with this]
>
> 4. Part 3.3.2 not .brand [include *or corporation*]?
>
> 5. Should we clarify last paragraph of Part 3.1.2 with the bundling point
> for support of both scripts, should we say that we wish to reduce cost one
> or both strings?
>
> 6. Should the GAC's failure to contribute to our work be stated in stronger
> terms?
>
> 7. Part 4.1.3 should we clarify if the auction process relates to an
> auction for other string or from the application ?
>
> 8. Part 4.2 some cleaning up with caps and typos and currently there are no
> regulations for vertical integration, so should the last bullet be removed?
>
> 9. Is deferred requirement on DNSSEC more costly than initial setup?
>
> SEE IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security,
> VOL.8 No.9, September 2008 Manuscript received September 5, 2008.
> Manuscript revised September 20, 2008. A  Deployment Model of DNSSEC:
> Defining Problems and Solution
> http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/200809/20080939.pdf
>
> Excerpt at pg 277 point 4.:
> Since, if the
> DNSsec is partially deployed, its efficiency will decrease because of non
> secured zones which will be always subjected to the faults of DNS; unless
> finding automatic deployment mechanisms of DNSsec, who would make all the
> zones and the delegations of the tree signed in rapidly.
> However, up to now the solutions are slow and meanwhile our name servers
> are victims of all sort of attacks.
> Therefore groups and companies, which are victims of these attacks continue
> to lose important amount of money for some of them and technological
> innovations for others.
> This deployment should not be progressive, if we want DNSsec to be
> efficient.
>
> 10. Eric stated in his email Part 4.3.3 is duplicated
>
> 11. part 5 bullet one simplify wording of "Capital Contribution" to "Single
> Payment"
>
> 12. Part 5 point 2 and point 3 change "IE" to "Initial Evaluation"
>
> 13. Part 5 point 7 change "we" to "the Evaluator"
>
> 14. Part 5 Note section, change "our" to "the JAS Process Support"
>
> If there is any comment or objection to the above please state at your
> earliest, otherwise I hope the above would be incorporated into the document
> before submission.
>
> Thank you
>
> Cintra
>