[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] The JAS WG Agenda Going Forward

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Colleagues:
I shall be unable to join our scheduled call on Tuesday, 28th on account  I
shall be in the air somewhere between HKG and SFO.  Our co-chair's
availability is still not determined; communications disconnects.  In any
event, I shall frame for the record my own views on the journey for the next
little while.

Having witnessed Singapore, it appears now to me that the principal
objective of this group is to prepare an information docket sufficiently
detailed and readable to guide would-be applicants deemed worthy of support
for applying for a new gTLD. I've seen this termed elsewhere as a
"Needs-Assessed Applicant Guidebook".  The name works for me.  I'm
estimating that this document must be ready for prime time by latest 2nd
week of September.

If we are severally agreed on the objective outlined above, then we
are unanimous that this document must be equal in quality and style, if not
detail, to the 2011-05-30 Applicant Guidebook, as amended.

We are unanimous that we shall need significant additional staff support if
we must make the deadline.  Kurt Pritz has promised as much and so we will
designate the the ALAC Chair to follow-up.

Our starting point is the MR2 document.  The scribes have agreed to review
the redlined text to identify areas where work is needed.  These areas will
then become the focus of our intense analysis, week after week until we are
satisfied that they are the best they can be. Staff support will be critical
here.  Because as the group settle on any given area, the staff will take
the output and place it in our NAG, form ......and format previously
agreed.

Now, we already know some of the areas of need/clarification required;
disqualification from consideration of certain government-type entities, fee
reduction ala the GAC position, the $2M fund announced by ICANN and its role
& use to which this might be applied etc., detail the additional needs for
sustainability - like the registry/registrar services - and how those would
be realized. You may add other 'hot' items as you see fit.  I would
recommend that we seek a discussion leader for each 'hot' item  and use the
list for the initial argy-bargy.   The role of the co-chairs would then be
to call for consensus around the emerging dominant idea from the list.

I would think we have a duty of care to ensure that the new
gTLD Communications Plan - which seems to be already decided - is
sufficiently malleable to accept full responsibility for communicating the
NAG and all that it offers.

I also think that with respect to operational readiness for needs-assessed
applicants, a draft implementation framework must be provided to staff from
this group and that their fully-developed implementation plan be subject to
our review.  With this in mind, I do believe that that flowchart being
developed by Dev is a useful tool.  True, we have had a few comments on it
since it was provided.  I would urge members to spend some time on making it
the best we can make it.

I digest then tend to the intuitive.  So your feedback would be very useful
in helping me refine/frame my head.

Kind regards,
Carlton







==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================