[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG Meeting Notes 8 August 2011

[Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx>]

JAS WG Meeting Notes
2 August, 2011

First we are going to come to agreement on terms, posted in the adobe connect.

The schedule for preparing the report on the wiki, the proposal we want to 
keep, start looking at the final candidate draft for agreement. Important to 
make any comments on the wiki if you have any input or comments.

Discontinuity between talking about funds and foundations that collect funds 
and several different proposals.  Not sure if this has general agreement.  
First there's a wall between funds and foundation and fee reduction, fee 
reduction not be funded by funds and foundation.  Chair and everyone else need 
to determine that one.  There's a need to raise funds, set up foundation, 
collecting and processing.  Then there's the proposal Eric has laid out on the 
establishment of a routing service provider platform.  Established in regions 
that currently do not have them, more than a software package, substantiated 
and proven to work.  Has an element that would require funding.  RSP is not in 
kind service.

The COI continuation instrument and had recommended various insurance 
mechanisms.   One thing that could come out of that fund is providing and 
subsidizing the insurance mechanism .  Not sure if it's for us to recommend.  
Continuity between us having concrete things against money we are not sure is 
there.  Proper usage of the money and giving a go ahead of the plan.  Still 
need closure.  We have some.  How to raise more, how to structure the 
organization, how money is distributed.  Like the RSP, like the COI, these are 
items that need to be considered for funding and specific work needs to be 
scoped out. That continuity isn't decided yet and that's what we need to decide 
on.

Try to address Avri's items here on the call. Alan.

Summary is good and challenge is to address all of them.  The 2m allocation 
should be separate than the price reduction.  My understanding of what the 
board said is that that is not the case. Need clarification from staff. If it 
is, then it's settled.

I'll ask staff, Kurt to make this request for us.

Let's take the ambiguity and run away with it, don't think we should push on is 
it or isn't it, let's make the argument for why it shouldn't be.  Why the price 
reduction issue can be met without resorting to this fund.  It was essentially 
political that they left if ambiguous and I think we should run with it.

Can't read the mind of the board, but we need to make very strong 
recommendations about this issue. The price reduction is   The proposal of the 
GAC of 76% reduction of the fees.  We have to make a very clear and very strong 
recommendation about it.

On Avri's rationale on how we can use fee reduction without using those funds.  
It has been agreed to that we don't need to waste time making an argument of it.

 Journalist asked what does it mean the GAC recommendation 76% reduction of the 
fee, 2m used for...all I heard was we're going to see what the community and 
the JAS report says.

Avri's approach is useful that we say clearly what it should be used for.   On 
the wiki does not achieve the 76% reduction.
Kurt on the call - how did the board say the 2m should be targeted?  I think 
the board intended that the 2m and matching funds to be targeted for the 
distribution to the needy applicants as defined by the criteria as defined by 
the group.

What exactly would it be for.

Is that the same for the GAC's request for 76% discount.

I think it's different, the board clearly put it out to solicit for matching 
funds and that would be determined by whatever committee, to applicants that 
are requesting financial aid.  I don't know if that's the same as a price 
reduction or not.

Any fee reduction is a separate pot from these funds.

The funds essentially offset the fees.  Up to 76% can be accommodated.

Kurt please ask the board for clarification. From a needy applicant point of 
view, if there is going to be matching funds attracted.  Hat, tossing money in, 
what is the money I'm throwing in paying for.  If it's paying for itself, 
applicability of a needy applicant being successful in the review process, 
regardless of the outcome we need someone to give a clear intention of what the 
board.

I don't understand the distinction you're making, reducing the fee or give to 
the applicant for infrastructure.

Matching funds come from a different ...than cost recovery model.

The donor has a very different view.

Without prejudice, how donor responds will depend on the definition.

The donor can give funds directly to the applicant.

The resolution talks about matching funds.

I have no doubt, isn't it cool about that 2m. One of the things I was thinking 
using it for is establishing registry service providers. I'm sure the board was 
not saying this fund was meant as an offset for fees.
I agree wording of the text may be interpreted any other way.  Also I add text 
in the candidate section under funds, I point to Eric's text.

What is the interest in learning what the board is meaning?  We have to express 
what we perceive very strongly because it's our mission, our duty.

It's much more difficult, these are separate issues, we are asking this 2m and 
if the board really wanted it to go into...we won't reach too many people.

We should take a position on how the funds are used and put it in the final 
report regardless if we get clarity on what the board wants.

Move now to the second topic, what we are still calling in kind services for 
lack of consensus on what we're calling it.  Is Elaine on? No.

When I read Eric's statement, he has a proposal and I hope you've all read it.  
I thought it was actually part of what we term in kind, maybe Eric can disabuse 
me of my understanding. Avri thought part of it was related to in kind and part 
was related to funding.

It would not be in kind if it originated from another source, contracted party, 
consultant or some other representing the community, ISP, registry .  It would 
be in kind if it arose by some grant or gift by some contracted party giving 
their particular expertise.  As a consequence of the boards' decision to use 
the 2m, it is funded by the 2m.   If from a source specific to a recipient, 
it's a transferable resource.  Here it is not specific to a recipient and could 
be available to all applicants.

Question of one to one or one to many.

If we're building these RSP platforms unless it's someone....there would be 
some sort of non-profit that would be establishing it. Because it was that 
entity that would be obligated to provide...and it could receive in kind 
donations of equipment, software, expertise.  I saw it as a hybrid thing 
perhaps too semantics.  In one hand an application to set up these entities, in 
another maybe that there are various donations equipment that would go into 
creating these entities.  That's the point I was trying to make.

Wondering if it possible in so short time to look at it just really not about 
the whole if it's really physical maybe can clarify that and explain how that's 
possible.

Hybrid organization, I think I understand what the goals are in terms of the 
pilot project, did I understand correctly that we're thinking of a sub 
organization that would receive the services, could someone help me understand 
that better?

What I had understood talking to Bruce, in each of the regions that doesn't 
currently have a RSP, that an RSP would be created to provide back end RSP 
services to JAS qualified applicants in that region.  How it's organized is all 
hand wavy and would need a deeper proposal.  When I asked Eric if this was 
included, I think it was in part 3, that made me think his proposal and what I 
was thinking sort of end up in the same place.  We've got a year and a half 
for.  There is some pre-work and some showing in Dakar that this is a 
possibility.   That this would be a vaild answer.

2 things give me a little bit of pause though I accept the end destination. One 
is that the final form of  this the non-profit should be dictated by the needs 
on the ground. Not sure we're well placed to make that call at this time.  
Aware of the passive voice and who's going to be the driver on this.  Great 
destination but who's going to take the lead on this.

The non-profit versus for profit is the essential difference between Andrew and 
I. The driver is one of the things that needs to be filled in. the actual funds 
organization that needs to be established.  Self selected groups of competent 
people.  Similar sort of selection of knowledgeable people from the region. 
Here's our proof that we can take the money and establish something.  Yes they 
can do it, we will fund, no they are a bunch of idiots who can't tie their 
shoelaces, we won't fund.

Krista will ask Kurt.

Tijani is very passionate about the objective criteria and we need to bridge 
the gap.  Want to tie down the applicant eligibility requirements.  Hope we 
could make this flow smoothly, we only have a couple more calls to get this 
done.  I implore you if you have anything to add in this area please 
communicate it to the list so we can get closure on this argument.

Thanks for participating, see you on Friday.




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:11 AM
To: SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS Chat transcript 2 August 2011


Karla Valente: Welcome to the August 2 2011 JAS WG Meeting.

CLO: Hi all

Karla Valente: hello

Eric Brunner-Williams: howdy clo, karla

CLO: waiting for dial out

Tijani: hi everybody

Alan Greenberg: Hi all

Krista Papac: Hello everyone

Carlton Samuels: Hello Everyone, welcome

CLO: Hi

Eric Brunner-Williams: @staff, wendy was kind enough to relocate the registry 
service platform proposal, but i managed to delete her email. could one of you 
mail it to me and/or put it in the chat? tia!

Wendy Profit: Hi Eric, i will forward the email to you

Alan Greenberg: I may need to leave somewhat early today.

Eric Brunner-Williams: thanks. is there an agenda for this call?

Eric Brunner-Williams: oh, i see it. 25m for topic 1, 25m for topic 2, 5m for 
terms

Eric Brunner-Williams: @wendy thatnks!

Andrew Mack: Avri, that's the way I understood it

Andrew Mack: discounts and price breaks would be separate

Eric Brunner-Williams: i utterly disagree that the rsp is "in kind"

Eric Brunner-Williams: agree that clarification is needed, i "heard" at 
singapore that the fund and fee reduction were separate

CLO: designation of a budget of up to $2 million USD for seed funding, and 
creating opportunities for other parties to provide matching funds, and (d) the 
review of additional community feedback, advice from ALAC, and recommendations 
from the GNSO following their receipt of a Final Report from the JAS Working 
Group (requested in time to allow staff to develop an implementation plan for 
the Board's consideration at its October 2011 meeting in Da\\\\\ Senegal), with 
the goal of having a sustainable applicant support system in place before the 
opening of the application window"   YES   imo  this IS ambiguois

CLO: a sustainalble  Applicant  support system  if  not  *JUST*  a reduction in 
 fee for entry

avri: my writing explains how to achieveup to a 75% reduction.  but perhaps i 
was not clear.

avri: i.e require only 45K from each JAS qualified applicant.

Alex Gakuru: If 2m were used up to just offset 185,000 fee waiver then only 
10.8 applicants would exhaust all of it, without them getting any other 
support...

Carlton Samuels: @Alex: That's the floor

Carlton Samuels: For we cannot assume other funds in this calculation!!

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre: @Carlton What kind of funds ?

Karla Valente: from board resolution: (c) designation of a budget of up to $2 
million USD for seed funding, and creating opportunities for other parties to 
provide matching funds,

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre: yes but I cant see nobody offering funds yet ? Im 
wrong?

Eric Brunner-Williams: bruce and i had the same conversation.

Eric Brunner-Williams: same as avri is reciting now

Carlton Samuels: @Carlos: This is the $2m funds from the Board.  Kurt said he 
believe the Board fund was intended as offset for fees.

Alan Greenberg: In  that case, a clarifying statement should be easy and 
definitive and will take that piece of work off our table.

CLO: I'd like to beleive  that  Bruce's comments  are indicaative of a whole of 
Boaed  set of intentions...

Eric Brunner-Williams: @clo, me too

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: call dropped out - please call me again

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre: @carlton thanks for the clarification

Alex Gakuru: @Olivier , you are on Adobe on the road?

Sebastien: I try Skype but it is not working can I be call on my mobile?

Sebastien: thanks

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I reached a house now

Alex Gakuru: ok

Eric Brunner-Williams: my preference is to assume the fund is not intended to 
offset unreduced fees.

Glen de Saint Gery: sebastien give me your telephone number please to call you

Alex Gakuru: @eric +1

Sebastien: it is in your private exchange ;)

Sebastien:

Eric Brunner-Williams: i muted earlier, i can't unmute

CLO: I see the distinction  eric  is making  and therefore IMO  links  to our 
need to have the earlier question answered as well source  to recipeint  = 
inkind  sourde to all qualified apps   a "benefit' available  for qualified 
applocants

Eric Brunner-Williams: thanks clo

CLO: sorry about all the typos ;=(

Eric Brunner-Williams: this was one of the differences between the alac and 
gnso chaters -- the gnso charter limited support to those that required no 
intermediary entity, no "bag holder", the alac charter allowed an institution 
so that resouces could be held and allocated independently of the donor's 
marketing or social benefit preferences

Alex Gakuru: Kurt has posted a message to the list on our earlier question

CLO: correctt Eric

Eric Brunner-Williams: @clo: typos are good.

Eric Brunner-Williams: and correct always takes two teas

Alex Gakuru: Do we have a model operator willing to offer us their full 
operational costs structure four our study?

avri: Anfrew: the non profit versus for profit establishement is one of ourr 
normal disagreements.

Alex Gakuru: "for" - -

Eric Brunner-Williams: @alex: in the proposal i listed four candidate sources 
for the infrastructure, there are others, i stopped at four, and did not 
request any existing opertors respond to an expression of interest.

Alex Gakuru: yes, i remember...thanks

Eric Brunner-Williams: @alex: simply to ensure that i understood the licensing 
i did contact garth miller of cocca, however i did not ask if cocca was willing 
to make such an offer.

Krista Papac: how do i unmute?

Krista Papac: they have me on a quiet line?

Krista Papac: i was volunteering to communicate to kurt what our question was

Alan Greenberg: I could phrase the question I was asking, but I heard a number 
of comments saying that it was clear enough and we did not wwant any further 
answer.

Alex Gakuru: Carlton, the Chair should communicate with Kurt

Krista Papac: i tried *6 and it said it wasnt available to me

Krista Papac: no problem

Alex Gakuru: ok

Alex Gakuru: bye

Sebastien: Thanks

CLO: bye


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org