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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks  for this Wendy  I find it most helpful...


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 27 July 2011 00:26, Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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?
>
>
>