[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Meeting Notes JAS WG 2011.07.21
Dear all, Please see below notes from previous meeting. For complete data, please refer to the transcript. Wendy tried to have it as complete as possible, but parts of the call were unintelligible. Thank you, Karla Meeting Notes July 22, 2011 JAS WG Call 13:00 UTC New: The email post to the list from Fabian saying there's another open source registry software package being run by a couple of African countries. Trademark Clearinghouse - no registry operator has implemented. Columbia registry has publicized that they have a TC. Anyone that's going to contract for registry service must pass the technical evaluation. Must continue to develop tools, implement them on their current TLDs. Everyone is in the same boat but the needy applicant is disadvantaged because they may not want to spend the money. Important to ensure in our text that any services matched to our applicants are suitably high quality to meet ICANN's qualifications. Whatever is the benchmark is able to be met by whoever we suggest to be matched. We could say here are all the known registry operators who meet the requirements but we can't say we recommend this one or that one. Agreed. (unintelligible) Vertical Integration...In kind service? Needy applicant. Any RO that wants to take advantage of VI would benefit from having some knowledge of the registrar package and there are registrars that sell their package off the shelf w/ a toolkit and you can have a registrar relatively easy. That would be a good benefit for a needy applicant. Funding Model. Similar to Elaine, having seen much comment, did some work on the wiki in terms of taking the space called final report, ...in kind services, gaming, candidate text...at the moment...did all these as copies w/ the exception of Elaine's stuff. Moved it into a page of its own. For the rest I moved into candidate text. Suggest anyone else that has candidate text, put it there so everyone can find it. Once acceptable we can move it into draft final doc. Haven't seen anything in the last week. Next MR2 plus... Last version of MR2 ...no idea where. Will start working on the draft final report and then at some point we'll turn it over and ask for staff help. There's been no discussion or change in the content. Staff can help by providing adequate guidelines. Key milestones. Workable criteria is important. Time to work with staff and others to make sure what we've got is something they understand. See what it means to be JAS qualified. Are we secure that we have been given sufficient guidelines to understand what it means to be JAS qualified? Our mission given in our charter. Want to work with anyone who wants to find objective elements that the evaluators will use to do the evaluation. The more we can come up with the better, no shame in saying we don't have the breadth of experience and we need help and ICANN has many around the world who can. But that shouldn't stop us from putting in what we can. But we should ask for external help to do it properly. Re: need to have specific criteria. Concerned about too specific, ticking boxes, that it can be gamed, satisfying those applicant will be 100% eligible when really it was just gamed to set themselves up. Unless you put criteria that is so clever it will weed out the gamers, cannot be a mechanical thing. We've put up the basic ideas and we should allow staff to contact the appropriate parties that know how to determine whether or not they meet certain criteria. Example already happening in the guidebook re: evaluation criteria, someone recommended the RO should have the financial wherewithal. The Guidebook has very much detailed what that is, sample spreadsheets. Staff has proven they are good at filling out what the community has given as guidelines. Should we have an event, webinar that would help members of the community understand the final report to help make decisions, get clarity, recommendations of what should be in the final report? If so, when would be appropriate to do this? Issue in GNSO yesterday in relation to timing of when the report will be out and when will GNSO get to look at it and approve it in time for publication deadline which is in Oct. If there are questions that need to be raised, useful to have a meeting with the WG, so the SG can understand and approve. Schedule ASAP, we need to be preparing the content in parallel with the report. Needs to address the report and not a preliminary version. Will result in a go no/go decision. Problem if we finish end of August, next GNSO September not enough time to proof. There is a GNSO call the day before the pub deadline for the October meeting, technically that might be a good place to do the approval. If staff thinks there should be a gap between the two, then GNSO may consider a special one subject meeting perhaps a week prior to that. There was discussion to organize a special meeting in August. The October meeting may be too late, need to hear from staff when's the latest we can get it to the GNSO to approve. Remember we are supposed to have additional staff support. Wendy will be helping by taking notes and issue tracking so we can see open items we need to discuss. Will need your help to validate and we have started. Also getting additional help on drafting the final report, more next Tuesday. Will have staff help designing process flow. Attachment:
Meeting Notes JAS WG 2011.07.21.doc |