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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

How does this Needs-Assesed Application Guidebook effort affect the drive to 
get a Final Report?  I still think we need to produce one.

a.

On 27 Jun 2011, at 04:32, Carlton Samuels wrote:

> 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
> =============================