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

["Dave Kissoondoyal" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Wendy,

This is very useful and hope to receive after each call

Best regards

 

Dave Kissoondoyal
CE0 - KMPGlobal Ltd 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wendy Profit
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 6:27 PM
To: 'JAS'
Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Meeting Notes Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD
Applicant Support 


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?