[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG Meeting Notes for 5 August

[Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx>]

JAS WG Meeting Notes
5 August 2011
Question for Kurt.  Will brands be allowed in round one?  IP constituency 
assumes yes.  Can you clarify?  He and I spoke in Brussels.
Agenda item: Terminology.
Agenda - was the agenda sent to the mailing list?  Yes 3 days ago and more than 
a week ago.
[Proposed agenda items for the next 7 meetings are on the landing page of the 
wiki.] 
https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+Working+Group+%28JAS-WG%29
Terminology?  Anything material that would change in our final report?          
 Well that's good to know.  Encourage members to have a look at the summary of 
the final report. Other issue is Joint ALAC GAC Commentary, not in the summary 
posted.  If you've not seen it I encourage you to have a look and make the same 
judgment if there's anything you'd have changed in the final report.
Decided to lock the terms so we all have a common understanding.  Avri, not 
that I disagree with choices of terms for the fund ICANN Fund, just that you 
could have multiple funds and I thought generic ICANN Fund would be common so I 
thought if we had a name to explicitly describe.  ICANN gTLD Fund.
I think there's a possible problem, just raising a warning flag.  As an ALAC 
and also as a GNSO, one of the issues they had was that we as a small group 
would be making recommendations on all money.  Recommended that the board get 
on the stick and put together a cross community working group to figure out how 
to deal with the whole notion with the first specific application be this one.  
If you call it something else, we are recommending the piece we care about, but 
that the board do it the way that the community has buy in, don't want to 
exclude the use of auction funds.  If we exclude auction funds and say it is 
only for gTLD qualified applicants.  It could be one of those waste of time 
nasty loops that you guys are presuming too much, etc.   If we are putting the 
word gTLD qualified applicants then it's up to the board to do the right thing 
that there are others in the community.
This is just the recommendation for this report.  Good to make a statement to 
take a stab, lift the content from the email and get it done.
Re: .BRAND IPC comment on it has merit.  Applicant shouldn't be excluded 
because the TLD they are looking at is a trademark.  The words in our report 
imply that being a brand is enough to exclude it.  Just because it's a 
trademark should not exclude it. Furthering their commercial purposes...could 
be a non-profit trademark.
I do see there's a difference between something that could be a trademark and 
would not be in anyone's definition a big brand.  We need to tease that out.  
May be a 'be careful what you wish for'.
Maybe we need some legal advice on that.
Someone applying for .HOBE (?) but they are not the trademark holder, there may 
be trademarks that are not held by those communities.  The suggestion that all 
applications that are associated with a brand.  IP holders that are not 
planning to serve anyone but the entities themselves.  Brand promotion isn't 
necessarily a...cultural definition, social definition, if a third party holds 
the trademark doesn't necessarily hold those qualities.  If the only claim is 
that their string is the same as if their string met the criteria, then it 
should not meet the criteria.
Extremely strongly against making any special statement that advantage 
trademark holders in any way.  Australia...none of them. Should not be allowing 
anything for trademark holders.
I think Eric's construct is too generous.
Agree with Eric and Avri...applicant should not be disadvantaged because it 
happens to be a trademark. All other conditions still apply, reject a .BRAND 
being supported.
Supporting Eric.  You find they are not owned by...you find they are owned by 
___America.
The problem of hijacking by trademark holders is a real problem and should not 
be encouraged.
That's about the response of summary of the comments on the report.  Very 
useful. Can we move to the next item on the agenda.  Text for the final report. 
 Need to pay attention to Applicant Eligibility Requirements.  You'll see we've 
changed terminology.  Comments on this content?
Substantive comments made in Singapore.
[Adobe problems]
Since the text is not on Adobe, please reference where it is in the document.  
Page 12.
Maybe read the piece and then ask the people if they agree.
I don't want to read through it like a preacher in a church.
It's as if we never had the discussion in the past.  Singapore is on the 
developing countries list, these are not lists we should be citing as if they 
are completely useful without nuance.
Are you saying if you use the UN list you might do so with risk of 
disadvantaging certain countries.
It's as if our process didn't incorporate some of the material that took place 
in the working group.
It's not that it doesn't matter, that's why we have this process, thank you, 
please make note that we need to clarify the use of the UN qualifications list 
in the report.
I read the Milestone report differently than Eric has interpreted them, so it 
should be clarified in the final report. I doubt Singapore would be suggesting 
they are an emerging market or nation, or a country to be categorized as one of 
the world's poorer.  There is an overriding suggestion that it's first and most 
importantly that you're making a claim in financial hardship and difficulty in 
making the payments and that your country is on one of those lists.  It may not 
be clear cut.
Every one of these places has rich spots.  Outside of the few and the 
foreigners it was not a developed place (Singapore).  Reasonable to add a note 
covering the stuff Eric said and perhaps adding in what I'm saying.
Can we now move to financial need?  Asking for consensus.
Wonder if it might be worthwhile if we have a separate call as we have benefit 
of call for public comment.  Landmark Joint Advisory Committee advisory to the 
board, dare suggest vested interest in community advisory committee.  In 
keeping if not identical to issues being raised independently of our group by 
the GAC and the ALAC.
Did mention that advice at the top of the hour.
Agree with it, first four bullets are financial capability.  Recommend first 
thing you say is need, but understanding you have financial need you have to 
have capability.  Perhaps something in the phrasing that says you must be 
capable of contributing at least something to show etc.
Last sentence 2nd paragraph "As well applicants will..."  I would rewrite so 
applicant is not requesting help in those areas rather than pointing out their 
constraints...it has to fall on personnel resources. If you're pointing out all 
your problems and constraints here you're going to have a problem later, that 
sentence needs to be reworked.
Please make that comment on the wiki, and suggest the exact wording . Thank you.
We phrased all our qualifications as must be capable of, anyone who's capable 
of.  You can put that much amount in but you can't put much more, not sure how 
to phrase that.  Don't want to say 45k is too little, 46k is too much and 
...need to get the tone there.
Hope we can do something with that.  Please take note of that.
Applies to the prior two sentences as well.  None deal with financial need.  
Sentence that follows after the 4 bullets.  Demonstrate need.  That shouldn't 
be under financial need.
Agree.
Top of the hour, started early, 6 minutes or so.
I ask that the member who noted this please put the comments on the wiki in in 
the comments.
Ineligibilty Criteria.  It's in the notes section under financial need if you 
scroll down in the notes section of the adobe room and on the PDF as well under 
financial need.
Should we refer to the GAC ALAC language?
If someone says I'm capable of paying 90k but not more, are we going to reject 
them?  They will get 3 quarters whether they like it or not.  We've been saying 
we shouldn't be doling out the money in bits and pieces but we shouldn't be 
turning them away.
If applicant has more than the stated ability to pay, that doesn't ...the total 
cost isn't merely the fee. If they have more than 45k that can be spent on 
other necessary costs.
Only to exclude national governments, not sure we had that discussion not sure 
we can make a decision on this now knowing some people would be against 
application by a government.
Eric's point is that we should make reference to it.  If there's a way we can 
at least recognize it.  Good that you point out there's no consensus on this.
Suggested a type of language.  All things considered budget. Maybe they can 
budget up to 75.  Maybe the people who are doing the editing can put that in 
there. Tend to agree with Rafik. I was pushing very hard for nothing that has a 
government involved should say.  Seriously consider that and do another 
consensus call and reconsider our position.  Joint statement was trying to be 
careful. Constructive ambiguity. Something that meets that need.
To make clear that we take the joint statement as clarification from the GAC 
because if we remember that we asked them for more details long ago.  We can 
consider this and that it's a joint statement from the GAC.
Maybe we need one more to get consensus from the team.
Implore you if you have comments, put it on the wiki it makes it available for 
the drafters to see.
If you have specific language , make it clear it is suggested language.