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

[Gisella Gruber-White <Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx>]

Today's AC Chat transcript:

>  Gisella Gruber-White:Welcome to the JAS call on Friday 3 June 2011
>  Tijani:Hi
>  Tijani:I will be leaving at 13:30
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Alan Greenberg has joined the call
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:i've not seen any acknowledgement to the note i
>sent on the continuity instrument as a question to steff,
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Andrew Mack has joined the call
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:i'm nore interested in the questions from
>questions from the non-working group members (board and/or gac) than in
>the responses to them, in this limited time period
>  elaine pruis:email to the list the consensus poitions and the "rules"
>(limited time, no grand-standing for personal position ) before the
>call--specify those items that don't have full consensus in the email and
>on the call
>  Evan Leibovitch:I have ZERO intentions of answering questions, so much
>as to collect them
>  Evan Leibovitch:+1 EBW
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Eric has disconnected
>  Gisella Gruber-White:He is back
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:i managed to drop my self off the call rather
>than muting, so i haven't heard anything until now
>  Dave Kissoondoyal:Hello all, sorry i am late in the call
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Dave Kissoondoyal joined the call
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:is this sebastian speaking?
>  rafik:yes
>  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Good point, Eric
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:i think i heard some discussion of a sunday
>meeting (at the public meeting), and of course only some of those with
>icann travel support may be present for any meeting outside of the
>monday-thursday dates, that gathering questions from those who meet, on
>any date, by any means, including using staff as proxy, is important,
>providing responses in real-time is not.
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:so in short, sunday is good, even if we have to
>ask someone in singapore at the venue on sunday to do the working group
>the courtesy of attending and collecting the comments and questions.
>  Andrew Mack:I think this is right Eric, as we're in the listening and
>sharing mode
>  Gisella Gruber-White:All loaded
>  Gisella Gruber-White:in Note section
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:to follow-up on elaine's point of listing
>consensus positions in mr2, informing the special call and face to face
>participants what issues the jas is agreed to work on "next" would be
>useful
>  elaine pruis:good point eric.  seems to me on the mailing list there
>was not much support for pursuing the breakdown in costs
>  elaine pruis:as a lowered fee was the preferred option
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:and in addition to the meetings with board and
>gac on issues in abstract, the access to icann policy staff (new gtld
>program and legal) is an opportunity for clarification of implementation
>issues, some of which rise to the level of issues-in-the-abstract
>  Andrew Mack:welcome back Avri
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:so i suggest that those who are traveling to
>singapore request meeting time with policy staff, for implementation
>questions and answers, in addtion to meeting with the board and gac on
>general policy issues
>  elaine pruis:rafik, would you ask the people on the working group for a
>show of hands on support for further pursing the cost breakdown
>  avri:might be worth acknowledging the previous documentation and
>include an explanation
>  Evan Leibovitch:@ avri... sure
>  elaine pruis:@avri +1
>  Evan Leibovitch:Avri: Couold you and I go offline to work on
>appropriate wording to do this?
>  avri:@evan - go off line now or later?  i should have time later.
>  Evan Leibovitch:@ sebastien: consider also the GAC position on fee
>reductions. If the Board rejects cost reductions it risks a war with the
>GAC, Indeed, the JAS position is a halfway point between the GAC position
>and the status quo
>  Evan Leibovitch:diversion from what?
>  Andrew Mack:+1 Alan
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:i would prefer a significant fee reduction, even
>in the absence of new information on the structure of the fee
>  Evan Leibovitch:@eric... that is what the GAC is asking for as well
>  Evan Leibovitch:The intent is to try to reconcile this from a mandated
>requirement for "cost recovery"
>  Alex Gakuru:+1 Fee Reduction
>  Andrew Mack:agree with Evan's comment
>  Evan Leibovitch:Alan: do you have some specific wording to add/modify
>to the doc to address what you said. That would be helpful
>  Andrew Mack:so we're agreed?
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:a communication to the effect that we've
>discovered a transparency and accountability issue in the opaqueness of
>the cost and the means to address cost-recovery and the elevated level of
>applicant evaluation that qualification for "needs-qualified" support
>entails is appropriate.
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:with follow-up to the possibly dead-letter box
>that all T&A communications are addressed
>  rafik:@ebw you can participate with evna, avr, alan about that
>  avri:can the letter be put in the wiki so we can wordsmith?
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:i don't want to overlook the sense of sebastian's
>comment, while it is disapointing to hear an individual speculate that
>the board will not approve cost reductions, the affirmative sense of his
>comment is that more time can be spent on the alternate of raising money
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:this (the issues that have to be resolved before
>"money" can be collected for applicants) can be on the agenda of a
>subsequent call.
>  Andrew Mack:need to go.  thanks everyone
>  Alex Gakuru:Apologies for next week's calls - I shall be away on
>travel. Thank you.
>  Alex Gakuru:bye all
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:good use of call time. thank you co chair and all!
>  Dave Kissoondoyal:thanks all and bye