[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: key points from JAS WG/Board/GAC Meeting - please review asap

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

that looks for my side, I think that some of our WG members are travelling
but we should also send that asap, as the Board-GAC will have meeting
tomorrow.
can you please format that,

Best,

Rafik

2011/6/17 Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>

> Dear Rafik Carlton:****
>
> ** **
>
> Please see below the key points summary from the JASWG/Board/GAC meeting
> last Tuesday. Please let me know if you are in agreement. Once I have your
> feedback, I can format it in word if you want or you can send it directly to
> the Board and others. ****
>
> ** **
>
> *SO/AC new gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG), Board, GAC
> Meeting*
>
> Tuesday 07 June 2011 at 13:00 UTC.****
>
> For full transcript and recording: 
> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/>
> ****
>
> * *
>
> *Key points *
>
> **·        **Singapore – should have as much interaction as possible****
>
> **·        **When can the Jas WG finalize the work? ****
>
> **·        **What kind of help does the JAS WG need to finalize the work?*
> ***
>
> **·        **JAS WG needs feedback on the report to validate foundation
> and direction before it goes into implementation details. ****
>
> **·        **How will we reconcile the JAS WG proposal, the Board
> discussion about a potential fund and the GAC issues raised?****
>
> **·        **JAS WG proposal is not only about money support, but a more
> comprehensive approach****
>
> **·        **JAS WG does not want needy applicants to be competing one
> against another.****
>
> **·        **Should panel, process, structure be distanced from ICANN?****
>
> **·        **Would the notion of another structure getting seed funding be
> a way to kick start the process, and make sure that the resources are
> ramping up with the actual needs fast enough so that there is no competition
> between the different potential requesters?****
>
> **·        **There will be a need for some sort of evaluation panel. How
> could such an evaluation panel be formed in a way that would be sufficiently
> neutral and trustworthy? ****
>
> **·        **How can we put in place a structure that is efficient and
> timely?****
>
> **·        **Demand for the Applicant Support. It is difficult to predict
> without the details about how this program will work, what it will offer,
> etc. There are too many variables. ICANN itself cannot predict applicants.
> More important than guessing demand, is to focus on “How much of an outreach
> do we as ICANN want to make to make sure that we have treated this issue
> fairly in developing economies?”****
>
> **·        **What are the needs in the developing countries and how does
> having a top-level domain fit into meeting those needs? And that would be
> the basis for trying to organize a broader level of support, whether it’s
> funding or whether it’s expertise or whether it’s assistance in working
> through procedures or whatever.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Karla Valente****
>
> Director, gTLD Registry Programs****
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)  ****
>
> Direct:  + 1 310 301 3878  ****
>
> Mobile:  +1 310 936 4639  ****
>
> *Skype: **kdlvalente*****
>
> ** **
>