[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] jAS Adobe Connect chat - 31 May 2011

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gisella Gruber-White 2: Welcome to the JAS call on Tuesday 31 May 2011

Eric Brunner-Williams: thanks gisella

CLO: hi there I assume I'll get a dial out soon :?

CLO: there we go

Eric Brunner-Williams: dialing in now

CLO: here  I am in the call

Carlton Samuels: Morning All

Eric Brunner-Williams: on the subject of the general public meeting, as the 
means for remote participation will be available, the presentation of sm2 
issues, and response to questions, need not necessarily be the responsibilities 
of those who happen to be present in singapore. 

Carlton Samuels: So noted Eric

Eric Brunner-Williams: as a meeting preparation issue, the remote participation 
allows this working group to plan its presentation beyond the ad hoc, and 
planned, presentation(s) and response(s).

Eric Brunner-Williams: by those physically present at the venue.

Elaine Pruis: guidebook posted 
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rfp-redline-30may11-en.pdf

Eric Brunner-Williams: thanks elaine

Gisella Gruber-White 2: Dave Kissoondoyal has joined the call

Dave Kissoondoyal: Hello everybody..sorry to be late

CLO: I can not attend  the TUE Meeting  next week as it clashes with the ccNSO 
Council call

Elaine Pruis: AGB language applicable to our work: 1.2.10 Resources for 
Applicant Assistance A variety of support resources are available to gTLD 
applicants. For example, ICANN may establish a means for providing financial 
assistance to eligible applicants, as well as providing a webpage as an 
informational resource for applicants seeking assistance, and organizations 
offering support. More information will be available on ICANN's website at 
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld- program.htm.9 

Gisella Gruber-White 2: We are looking into the noisy line

Gisella Gruber-White 2: Cintra Sooknanan has joined the call

CLO: The proposal was for 7th  OR 10th  Carlton  but if you settled for 7th  
fine

CLO: note my apols

Eric Brunner-Williams: where in the mailing list was this call and the 
alternative dates mentioned?

CLO: I will try and at least be in the AC room however

Andrew Mack: so, just to confirm, is the final date next tuesday?

CLO: apparently  @ Andrew

Carlton Samuels: @Andrew:  Yes, we proffered 7th.....it will be sumbitted via 
Katim

rafik: @Eric we were discussing the dates in the call that is why it was 
proposed in the agenda,

Gisella Gruber-White 2: Evan has disconnected

Eric Brunner-Williams: we're now 20 minutes into the call, on a housekeeping 
issue that could have been sent to the list, at least to state the question 
before the call, i think it wasn't until 10 min into the call that i understood 
what you and carlton were actually talking about. i could be dense, reading 
email before the call can save call time.

Gisella Gruber-White 2: Evan is back on the call

Eric Brunner-Williams: as an alternative, the question could have been posted 
in the note area of the adobeconnect in the current session

Elaine Pruis: some fees have been unbundled: extended evaluation, objection

Rafik 2: @Eric can you please focus in the current item please,

Elaine Pruis: so perhaps there is a some logic for not unbundling auction

CLO: The matter of  options  for bundling  and  JAS  applications  being able 
to be staggered  is the essential issue  not (IMO)  the mere "justification of 
any particupar part of the costs  estomate...

Karla Valente: Please see the financial question on the note.

Elaine Pruis: i'm in the que....

Elaine Pruis: please 

Eric Brunner-Williams: assuming "pay as you go" (the alternative to 
all-up-front, the current dag payment model for the base fee), the applicant 
has on the order of two years to complete their trajectory to transition to 
delegation

Alan Greenberg: What it would do is add insult to injury!

CLO: YES I agree with  what @Evan is outlining  now  and I do not see the need 
to link default issues  with our  JAS work mandate

Alan Greenberg: We are dividing applicants into two groups, those who have 
enough money to pay and those who need help. Now we are saying if you are in 
the latter group, and you have additional problems, we will unilaterally take 
your idea and auction it off for our or other applicant's benefit.

Carlton Samuels: @Karla:  Can you please indicate if ou got the questions

Karla Valente: I have placed a summary based on e-mails as we go. Please see 
notes

Eric Brunner-Williams: call failed, see chat

Eric Brunner-Williams: back on call

Carlton Samuels: @Alan: the concept of auctions I hear is just plain contrary

Karla Valente: Do you alla agree on what is on the Notes under FINANCIAL?

Eric Brunner-Williams: what did you want rafik?

Katim S. Touray: I'm just quiet

Rafik 2: @eric as you dropped call, I wanted to ask you if you want to continue 
your questions

Eric Brunner-Williams: nope. it is in the chat. 

Karla Valente: I am waiting for Andrew on the questions to be added under 
Financial. 

Andrew Mack: working on it Karla, just trying to listen to Elaine

Karla Valente: @ Andrew. Thank you

Alan Greenberg: Regarding reduced fees for multipl IDN applications. We are 
clearly split on this and this concept is not likely to receive full consensus. 
Let's just accept that.

Elaine Pruis: i like data-no problem with that

Elaine Pruis: but again, in order to get real data we'll have to wait a round

Carlton Samuels: My line was bumped

Carlton Samuels: Can I be reconnected please

Carlton Samuels: My line was dropped so I'm orphaned!

Carlton Samuels: Can't hear anyone..so

Elaine Pruis: i think alan's point is that we are not going to get ICANN to 
change the basis of their fee structure... so let's spend time on where we do 
have some power---like further defining our MR@

Elaine Pruis: MR2

Andrew Mack: Karla, my questions were two:  1) regarding Cintra's idea of 
insurance to more efficiently address (and lower the cost of) risk 
provisioning, I was asking if ICANN had looked at this and if we had 
information on this as a possibility

Elaine Pruis: has anyone checked the report against the charter? have we 
answered all the questions presented to us?

Carlton Samuels: @Karla:  Can you ask the provider to conference me please?

Alan Greenberg: Carlton, are you coming back?

Carlton Samuels: @Alan: No sir!

Carlton Samuels: I want to but I have to be conferenced by the operator

Eric Brunner-Williams: agree that asking the incremental bundling question is a 
distraction, could live without the 5 minutes on averages, as if that was 
private knowledge.

Alan Greenberg: RAfik is back now.

Carlton Samuels: I'm back

Andrew Mack: 2) harkening back to Eric's point about assuming that each 
application is taken separately, if two applications were packaged together 
(e.g. ASCII + IDN), the question is simple: what would be tjust he incremental 
technical costs of adding the IDN  to support underserved language communities

Evan Leibovitch: I would like to start a brief discussion on what we will need 
from ICANN staff in order to move ahead. Personally, I think that amongst the 
specific details that we need is a detailed breakdown of the $185K. Such a 
detail breakdown must indicate how much of the $185K is allocated to:- cover 
the actual (ie, real time) cost to process the application- apply various tests 
and controls (ie contention) that may not be appropriate to JAS-qualified 
applications- repay costs of historic policy work- replenish the reserve fund 
for costs incurred by previous applications (ie, .XXX)- mitigate risk of 
lawsuits- fund any other relevant cost category (i'm quite sure I don't have 
them all here)I would also like to obtain a fairly comprehensive set of the 
assumptions and formulas that have been made in order to deduce the current 
scheme.

Eric Brunner-Williams: the question is not "simple", because to arrive at any 
answer other than 2 x the base fee, the application evaluation model has to 
allow the relationship between two applications to be discovered by the 
evaluators.

Evan Leibovitch: +1 CLO

Eric Brunner-Williams: worst call ever

CLO: ble  wast of all our time

Evan Leibovitch: (and we've had some pretty bad ones)

Stéphane Van Gelder: An interesting call...

CLO: from it @Stephane

Rafik 2: @stephane thanks for your interest and comment

Stéphane Van Gelder: I was just trying to inject some humor, srry it fell flat 
Rafik.

Elaine Pruis: asking this question is a waste of our time

CLO: Everything  we have said here has aoready been "discussed{ in the list  
has it not

Elaine Pruis: we've asked it, not gotten  an answer that we 'Like"

Andrew Mack: if not simple, Eric, at least would be good to understand the 
assumptions.

CLO: SO  does any one  think that the listed  points above are NOT clear enough 
and concise or detailed enough  to go voa  Kalr  Yes  or NO

Eric Brunner-Williams: we spend a lot of time listening to co-chairs try to say 
something, so cutting off a discussion simply because it is between two working 
participants is not equitable.

Karla Valente: @Rafic, Carlton: What Legal questions do we want. I am not clear 
from the mailing list.

Evan Leibovitch: We can't even know if we like it or not, but cause there's not 
eno9ugh there.

CLO:  that shouod have taken  much less tiome 

Evan Leibovitch: This is a core transparency and accountability issue.

Eric Brunner-Williams: improvements are possible, not impossible.

Evan Leibovitch: There is not sufficient detail to like or not

Elaine Pruis: like a kid that can't take 'no' for an answer--there has to be a 
starting point.  Over the entire AGB development the $185 fee has not moved...  
why would it now

CLO: @ Elaine  as I have said before  other than to see what might be able to 
be  unbundeoled in terms of payment s staggeroing  etc.,  I see no point  in 
herniating  too much over the disection of the costs...  lets assume it is a 
dartboard exercise   and get on woth  JAS  issues...  after all the alternate 
is for the true costs to be definned by experience on the first round  and 
needy applicants  wait for later rounds  NPT our preferred option

Eric Brunner-Williams: do you co-chairs think it would help if you co-chairs 
spoke with whom ever has originated the call's agenda items before the 
con-call, rather than guessing your co-chairs understanding (and possibly 
mis-understanding) during the concall?

Evan Leibovitch: Not taking "no" for an answer is perfectly justified. Maybe 
ICANN needs soma parenting lessons

Elaine Pruis: time for me to get to work. enjoy your day.

Carlton Samuels: Thanks all


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org