[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Meeting Notes Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support

[Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear JAS WG,

Below are some notes I took from today's call.  I hope they are legible and 
helpful.  Any feedback is welcome.

Wendy Profit


Meeting Notes JAS WG 
Tuesday July 26, 2011 13:00 UTC

All active text is in the candidate text section under foundation.

No changes to text, there was one place where Elaine pointed out competitive 
text on gaming, cleaned it up, other than that no change.

Best way to run something that is not game-able.  Way to avoid gaming is the 
point.

This is ICANN, there’s no way to prevent an attempt at gaming. World’s hub of 
professional gamers, attempts will be made. We need a set of criteria, what 
Alan offered was something that motivates the panel.  The panel must take it, 
but someone will get through.  We need a notion of penalty of gaming if you get 
through and get caught.  Panel needs to understands the issues and recognize a 
gamer when they see them.

We can’t come up with concrete hard rules, we need judgment to be involved or 
gaming becomes a recipe.  Do we want the errors to be on the side of generosity 
or anti-gaming?  Do we want to make sure we never miss someone who is needy or 
never miss a gamer?  It’s not a matter of skills, matter of not being in the 
political center where pressures can be applied, both staff and board members.  
Panel makes a decision based on what they see as the facts.

Who makes up the group of volunteers? Different parts of the community are 
represented.  Hear what you’re saying about outside the stream of politics, who 
would do that?  Concerned with volunteers doing it over a long period of time – 
volunteer fatigue.
Prefer panel composition Avri decribed more than out of ICANN that Alan 
proposed, perhaps not political but should be within ICANN with help of experts.

Recommend text or process that already exists.  ICANN has a practice, a way to 
build across community.  Who does final choosing, not necessarily the GAC 
chair, but should be a rep from each community.  Need to be a bunch of outside 
experts too, donor expert, expert on developing economies as well.  In terms of 
overload, most of the work is going to be an intense period of work.  May be 
problematic but I don’t’ see any other way to do it.  Then that committee is 
over until the next set of apps, afterwards they could be oversight perhaps for 
the next set of apps.  If you take a cross of ICANN’s nom com.  There’s an 
intensity.
If you use vested interest and their noses are already under the tent, you 
could have one such panel and a review panel.  Is it enough to address Alan’s 
question?

We try to do the right thing by having all the vested interests in the room 
where our vested interests balance and all are represented and in a transparent 
manner.  As with accountability panel, you bring in outside interests whether 
they are advisors, voters, etc.  I think the group works together and builds a 
chemistry.  In terms of working in a balanced open neutral committee it was 
very successful.
Did not see it as a volunteer process at all.  Whether policy technical…this is 
implementation issue.  We bring experts to do the job, we don’t compose IANA of 
volunteers.

We don’t generally do implementation.  Nomcom is implementation.  We can sum up 
others like RSSAC, are they volunteers or professionals, they are bothish.  
Perhaps an outside panel that is up to speed.

We need people who are used to seeing through the ruses.  You’re not gonna see 
through them all.

Do we want expert outside the ICANN community, is it really possible to 
implement that…program beginning of the application. Still have time to make 
the panel to bring people from ICANN…experts take more time than we need.

This is a question that goes to 2 things.  A need for attacking the terms of 
reference. Something Eric said may be part of that and I hope Eric will say 
something about that.

2 issues on 2nd paragraph.  Applicant presenting necessary documents, who 
defines what those docs are ICANN staff or someone else.  ???
We have given a set of information generally that’s useful and staff in writing 
up implementation would get specific about the documentation.  This group would 
give a general recommendation about what’s necessary and staff would come up 
with this or that document.  I didn’t build in an appeal time.  If we get this 
much going and we’re giving people their 5k back if they don’t succeed.  Not 
sure we have an appeal built in w/regard to time. But there should be an appeal 
mechanism built in.

Joint effort for WG to come up with documents.

I think ICANN needs to go to outside and find people who are used to evaluating 
financial need.  I don’t think we have the skills or experience.  Need to 
involve outside people.

Eric made a notion about economic reference please expound.

If we’re looking from a motivation point of view from the gamer, if the asset 
(?) the cost of detection should address the utility function that motivates 
the gamer.  

Have to find a way to penalize gamers.  Have to make it so it doesn’t frighten 
away people who need real live help.

Wanted to have it as part of the terms and conditions that the gamers would be 
penalized.

Cost for misrepresentation under the Guidebook, penalty is that application is 
blocked and refunds are not made. Cost is no refund, total loss to the 
applicant engaged in constructive or direct fraud.

Next topic, in-kind services, Elaine is lead.

Are all these services pro bono services?

Suggest that we not force it to be pro bono, allow offers of discounted 
services because we’ll have more participants.

No concern just a slightly different take on pro-bono.  Services are costed, 
just not charged, recognized they are costed.  Billable hours are marked up and 
not charged.  Define what’s meant by the JAS word for pro-bono.

Important to have a common understanding of pro bono because there are 
implications down the line.

The other open question is the channel access program has to do with ICANN 
accredited registrars in the region and sustainability.  Do we need to say 
anything more specific in the report to answer that question?

There was a discussion in Singapore, we want to confirm this is a closed issue 
or is this still an open issue?  

I don’t  think we can close it something needs to be said, it’s what needs to 
be said that needs to be discussed.  What ICANN cannot make some sort of 
instruction to industry as to what it will provide applicant.  Strongly 
encourage industry players who offer such services, make it happen other than 
coming from industry players themselves. When the offer happens the JAS report 
there’s a chain of trust and matchmaking service facilitated.  There’s a lot of 
stuff that needs to happen in the industry camp for the magic in that black box 
to actually work.

People in ICANN have a strong role in making sure it happens.  Disappointed 
that a month or so plus after the 2mil that there are no matching funds yet.  
ICANN is going to have to do a lot of consciousness raising, not ICANN requires 
from industry that you have to do this.
Problem with let the buyer beware when we say we will give a certain amount of 
legal advice. We should advise applicants what they should look for from a 
…just a checklist of what to look for so they know what to expect.

CLO agrees and we have to capture specific language to the text.  Also add 
definition for pro-bono would make the document tighter.  

Thanks and I’m sure Elaine appreciates the help.

Multi step process,  guided by overall constraints and perimeters we want to 
put around it. This is where we need feedback from ICANN staff.  Is what’s 
being proposed viable and they can find experts?  International funding 
organizations and bilateral donors. And groups within national governments. Are 
the resources we need to look for.  Go betweens for governments.

Alan put the text there.  The criteria and the constraints are in the report 
but we may need to collate them and he’s volunteered to do that.

Criteria and specific ??? applicant is necessary both.  In this way we can 
avoid gaming and ….for other side.  What are ….avoid gaming or serving 
applicants.  The main objective of this group is for needy applicants.  Is less 
dangerous for me to …  we are not able to define criteria but I agree we’re not 
specialists, if we aren’t then we have to ask for help then it is our duty to 
find who can help us. If it’s outside ICANN we have to try to go outside ICANN 
to find. It’s our duty it’s in our charter. About manageable process and any 
complex process we need to creditable resource.  I will vote for manageable 
process even if it means some people losing or not having support.

Tijani question, two models, prevents gaming has a cost to some applicants… 
other possibility is cost of non applicants receiving benefits and you prefer 
former to latter as risk model to screening applicants…does this division to 
two possible risk model does this survive if we have a post…  to avoid gamers

If we follow your model will you be satisfied if there is some criteria that 
says if we catch you, you have to pay back?
Better to have not served as many people than to allow gaming.  Same with 
complexity.  There will be some where it’s difficult to recognize need.  I 
heard if we go for a model where we have to repay does it lesson our worry 
about gaming.  I haven’t heard that we are definitively going for that.  We 
have to assume that it’s not going to be repaid then the criteria becomes 
flexible, only a finite $$ whether it gets repaid or not.

1st criteria financial need agree but don’t’ want it to be restricted to 
financial need. If they lack technical capacity shouldn’t we be able to keep 
them?