[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Meeting Notes JAS WG 2011.07.29

[Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx>]

JAS WG Meeting Notes
July 29, 2011 13:00 UTC

2 issues, 1st question of fee offset and it's relation to the 2million dollar 
fund voted by the board.  Early discussion is clear that most think the fee 
offset and those two are separate items and should not be joined together.  
Another issue a couple of members think fee reduction is one of the main ways 
we could substantively help, and it would be Africa and we should do so in 
light of the GAC resolution as well as the board resolution accepting the GAC 
concerns and it's something that should be looked at.

And then the administrative expenses should not be taken from either the board 
funds or any funds that would be donated to support Africans.

Regarding who pays admin costs, my question, not a statement, asking staff 
where the funds are coming from.  ICANN says it's a cost recovery program.  
Also 50k was allocated a while ago.  We should be getting an answer from ICANN. 
 If they say no it's not coming from the 2 mil then we don't need to go on a 
campaign.

Want it to be inexpensive as possible.  Bulk is personnel costs unless we get 
volunteers to administer. The rest of the costs are a mixed bag to the extent 
that cost can be administered by ICANN staff as part.  Direct costs outside of 
ICANN would have to be absorbed by ICANN.  Should be fairly low, have to look 
at them and decide whether they'll be absorbed or if ICANN can handle them.  So 
ICANN can provide some services.

You're willing to say you can have volunteers looking at applications which I 
thought were going to be confidential.  "Fraught with danger"

It's a balancing act...at the end you have mercenaries...willing to care more 
about following the warrants of the program than who's paid.

Experts not volunteers need to analyze applications for financial need.

Example applying for scholarship to a state school .

Will be subject to criticism based on who the evaluators are.

In terms of success I think you're right.

ICANN is too public and people will be very sensitive.

I don't think it's completely subjective.  We've had several staff meetings all 
with the idea of getting the most money possible in the applicants' hands.

When part of the evaluation that JAS WG want to be done will be done again and 
it's not needed to be done again when the application fails the evaluation, do 
not do it twice and it could be covered in this  advance way done for the needy 
applicant (?)
Conversation is timely but not sure it's timely enough.  These logistics need 
to be sorted out in a fairly short order.  The JAS WG ...regardless of how, the 
pro bono model is one way to get more services and less admin costs, it needs 
to be well established in advance of things. ICANN seeking matching funds. 
Because if that is the model, predominantly volunteers who are knowledgeable, 
we have to be concerned about confidentiality.  Although it is attractive for 
someone to contribute to said funds whether they have the mandate or wish to 
offer pro bono services to such an evaluation group.  Delighted to have the 
conversation wish it was earlier, before Brussels or Nairobi would have been 
nice.

Seems late to introduce the idea, better late than never.

Understand Sebastien's comment that we don't want to do the evaluation twice.

There's some back and forth issues that need to be discussed. Understand 
Cheryl's comment.  Not sure if pro bono or paid for panel would be first.  This 
is the work we have to do.

Tijani was talking about objective criteria, and what we're talking about now 
is going very far from that.
I still think without objective criteria we may have the aim of this program 
out of ...if we use only subjective we may have complaisance.  I read what you 
wrote about it and I think we need to put some elements that we have to use so 
we can filter the applicants and then we use the subjective as you said

And my question is can we come up with criteria?  If you have any less than ?$ 
in revenue it's not enough and any more is too much.  it's a very narrow window 
and they'd be forced to juggle their accounting books.

A lot of us are assuming the applicants are for profit organizations.  It's a 
go no go. Can any of us come up with criteria for the wide range of applicants 
we're going to get.

We have to find out who can give us this objective criteria, it's not up to 
ICANN it's up to this WG to come up with who.  This program was ordered by the 
board to make the program inclusive and include developing countries in the 
program.  We may exclude developing countries if we don't come up with 
objective criteria.

The ones you're talking about cannot be volunteers and will have to be experts 
and will cost money which is what generated the question to begin with.

Assumes there's objective (tax forms) and subjective in the essay. Real danger 
Alan is pointing out to the detriment of every applicant you come up with some 
that are not fundable.

Tijani's view that objective and subjective are required especially if 
volunteers are evaluating.  Imagine if there are 2 thousand applications, you 
need a filter, first filter out those that don't meet the goal.  There needs to 
be a filter.
Use of volunteers cannot be done to include the objective criteria and we can 
develop those and some subjective criteria will be used.  Consider applicant to 
applicant and you want to be able to consider.  I don't think using volunteers 
precludes using objective criteria.

Important lessons to have been learned about both benefits and limitation of 
all volunteer army. For a host of reasons the ideal group is a combination of 
professional entity, staff and volunteers,  question of time.  Whether or not 
we can create objective criteria, we struggle with that.  Need a combination of 
subjective and objective.  Need to be more hands on with choosing experts.  
Middle ground with a combination of volunteers, experts and staff makes sense.

Kurt I'd like to request formal or informal feedback to the JAS WG,  great deal 
of support for a mix.  If we make statements like upper and lower threshold 
financial statements, will it be punted back over the fence with we didn't have 
enough details.  Not just playing devil's advocate, seen this before.  First 
milestone report, came back with needs to be more fleshed out with more 
criteria.  Before we go down that path, can we have feedback on the path 
whether we should...take it as a question on notice.

Board wanted something for this round, but low likelihood it will be punted 
back in a way that is unlikely.  Looking for criteria that would be applied to 
applicant. Additional work or discussion would be most appreciated.  Material 
most likely to be amended is logistical of how the process is run, certain 
constraints, legal or how funds are earmarked or how it affects the whole 
budget, I think that's the roadmap.

How is ICANN or what steps is ICANN planning to make to look into the 
applications and financial solutions.  Financial wherewithal to operate a 
registry.

Each applicant must show source of revenue and how they're going to... may come 
from a parent org or income of domain name sales or side business that's been 
profitable over the years. Important to demonstrate revenue available in a form 
that will support the business model.  Requires a confident showing of how.

Don't object but not sure it meets the criteria of objective that we've been 
using.  Youre talking about a business plan and we believe that revenue is 
believable.  Is ICANN willing to accept a statement from the JAS WG saying 
there are criteria but we would need experts to define it.  Can you function if 
we don't come up with the criteria?

It's very difficult to fashion objective criteria.  For the Guidebook we 
outsourced experts to do it and at the end of the day in the guidebook we have 
less than objective criteria.  We have 'what's your business model, how are you 
going to cover your costs.' They should have sufficient revenue or funds at 
their disposal.  It's meant to accommodate small community or large dotcom like 
registry.

ICANN can help develop criteria in the WG, end of day it's not going to be 100% 
objective.

Not looking for 100% criteria, we are just looking for criteria.  This group 
needs help for example World Bank or potential donors.  I am sure they have 
criteria or any agency that has experience in this matter.  We need to do 
something.  If we find a private agency we can ask ICANN to pay for it?

If you think that you want to start iterating a model with some staff members 
as a group or subgroup we can start that now in advance of we can start that 
now and if you think that group needs to reach outside we can look at that.

2 separate things we need to distinguish 1 political, if we are moving forward 
with criteria we want to make sure our efforts aren't; wasted... and not just 
pat on the head and use them in a different way.  No malice just concerned we 
will work really hard and our recommendation will not be useful.   2 
expertise...anything relate to objective criteria, wg has some, staff have 
some, depends on expertise, we have it in other places, not sure if it's enough 
related to this world.  Way forward on political side and how we interact with 
ICANN and which expertise we get is a separate issue.

We need a middle ground so we can move fwd.  Refuse outright those that don't 
meet the objective criteria.  Propose we marry the two.

Several aspects of application are easier to accomplish within the dollar 
Delaware budget.  Applicants in developing economies have less access to the 
conveniences of N American conveniences.  Consider relaxing conditions which 
are N.A. centric to reduce demand on applicants in developing economies.

In the Guidebook we use the phrase "or equivalent' so that in different parts 
of the world we can respond so that different regions where questions are 
onerous allow for multiple types of answers so it doesn't cost more to one 
applicant than another in a different region.

What happens in the real world of donors, should we fund or not fund this.  To 
the extent I participated, it's subjective.  You can certainly use objective 
criteria but in the end it's very much subjective.  I'm not convinced we're 
going to have any real objective criteria that can be used in a go no go 
situation. Should we use it as a filter.

Capabilities to show they are needy, then enter the evaluation the others go 
through

Don't want to mix what happens after the applicant...  finding mechanisms and 
modalities....to help those who could not otherwise afford to become applicants 
do so.

Who has expertise, perhaps we can find other foundations...have staff do 
research on what they use as criteria or who we have on staff that might be 
knowledgeable about what other foundations use.

Round of applause from me to you Kurt by the way.

Objective criteria...go no go...so you are using it as a go no go as a filter.  
Either we are using it as a filter to reject people  or we're not.  If we are 
filtering that implies we reject those who don't meet it.

Mentioning filter because I am putting myself in every applicant who needs 
financial support, you are going to need some filter otherwise anyone can apply 
and the whole system will break down.

Willing to 3 mil as more than this you're rejected.

Doesn't have to be so tight, wide enough to allow some applicants but take out 
the obvious players that don't' need assistance.

If that's what Tijani means we're in agreement but it's not clear.

We have to find applicants that are needy applicants.  Someone for this purpose 
we're not sure any figures and if we're asking for figures we...you write one 
ICANN writes one and it's not at all the same and the people who evaluate will 
have trouble with that.
Even in developing countries you set up you can't apply for a gTLD.  Even more 
for a developing country we have to find a way to help this project be set up.  
If the criteria come from a developing country and you have a long list of 
criteria I am sure you can use both objective and subjective criteria...  feel 
the board is willing to have a report  ...we really want to be sure you have 
the help you need.  Rod and Kurt are committed to that and hope you will be 
able to finish the report in time and it will be implementable by ICANN.

You said you don't want objective ...go not go.    What is better to reject 
people on objective or subjective criteria. I'm an engineer perhaps that's why 
I don't understand.

It's not that simple, if you think about concrete examples on how it can 
happen, best structure is likely to be a new entity like an LLC , set up for 
this purpose, that entity would have no track record.  It may be unpractical to 
have one financial number because not clear and/or could be manipulated by an 
applicant.  I would apply as a new entity rather than an NGO or a Shell Co.

Support what Andrew said.  Afraid if we use objective criteria it will ...or 
have no teeth whatsoever and only serve to reject ...any sane evaluator ...you 
have oodles of money and don't need our help.  Unless we can come up with 
objective criteria we're going to have a problem.

I do think this discussion will continue.

Draft for the registry service and registrar support proposal to the mailing 
list. Think I'll get it done today. Will proofread, so hopefully Saturday.