[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG Meeting Notes 2011.08.12

[Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx>]

Meeting Notes JAS WG
12 August 2011

Elaine was the lead on this part of the report. Not on the call.  This part of 
the report we want to identify and enumerate the kinds of non-financial support 
that qualified support applicants could look for. There is a list of them there.

Discounts not shown here. It will it be showing up under financial support.

Discounts will be under financial support.

If we could in the glossary or somewhere link back to what is used in many 
places the fact that in kind and non-financial support are what we're talking 
about. Particularly grand scheme and govt. support situations where one has to 
provide audit and feedback.  In kind is commonly used could be of use to have 
documentation showing the same thing.  In kind support has a financial burden 
to someone somehow.

Useful to make that clarification.  Non-financial could involve money changing 
hands somewhere.  I can remember Elaine acknowledging that this possibility 
existed.

Matter of money not so much as a matter of cost, in time, staff, 
administration, utilities to provide service, traditionally shown somewhere in 
the books.  Somewhere what kind you're talking about.

I remember we talked about pro bono

The scope of "non-financial support" is not identical to the scope of resources 
provided by contracted parties and "gtld consultants". i don't think it is 
helpful to change the name of the work area and repurpose in-kind to areas 
outside of the working scope of the in-kind subgroup.

Cranberries to the xmas, cost me, but I'm giving in kind.

Who proposed this change, where is the rational for the change of purpose, and 
when was it tested for consensus, as it is a substantive change in the 
conceptualization of support, and as a matter of internal housekeeping, if the 
elaine-lead group only (and reasonably) focused on "in-kind" forms, then things 
elaine's group (or elaine individually) considered out of scope -- not "in 
kind", are ignored.

Things which do not arise from a vendor or party have not been investigated in 
the assumption that this was not in kind. Concerned about the process, and to 
what looks like a housekeeping problem.

Made the proposal for the wording we used for certain things on numerous 
occasions.  

Tying down language..

As chair you're saying there was a consensus decision.

Question was asked.

Consensus call, I don't agreed with changing.

Silence in our context means consensus.

Carlton you are mistaken and you are not the WG.

We are going back to issues that were put in for quite some time.

Opportunities for many weeks to make this available.

There was vehement opposition to using the term in kind support, suggestion was 
made to use what we're using now. No vehement opposition. Whether that's formal 
consensus.

Definition of lack of objection.  That may have been when we had a list of 
terms here, bandwidth issue or general agreement.  

Terminology has changed, can we make sure that everyone who reads the 
documentation understands the difference. 

Suggesting to the writers that we put the meaning and context by offering some 
illumination of the terms.

In kind support to anything else, suggests to consumer of our work product that 
anything else ...occurred this must be noted.

Non-financial types of support proposed to ICANN.

Assuming that I'm not just looking at in the notes section (inaudible) 
"including but not limited to"

Non-financial types of support all of these are embraced.

The list is not necessarily exhaustive, (inaudible)

And also FOR the record MY preference  is or would  be for the use of In-Kind 
Support IF  I had responded to any form of "consensus call on just that term 
alone  but  YES agree with @Alan

A note that says this is non exhaustive should be added.

On to 3rd parties facilitated by ICANN

For the record I recognized in the note text the following text, "While the 
GAC..." should be 

All new registries  need to rely on incumbent registries...access on their 
own...and it goes on. I think a number of us would have very particular views 
in ALAC with these comments that will be linked to organizations that we're 
involved with outside of ICANN some may be commercial or open source provisions 
motivated, internet society motivated.  Think the statement stands on its own 
but probably need some footnoting.  Some provisioning not financial...one of 
those topics need to be footnoted not the WG problem to solve, but should be 
recognized in the report.  Would want the IPv6 addressed, not an insurmountable 
task.  Could simply send a cd I have hundreds.  

There are tunneling services available, ways to get around it, look at cost of 
that complexity.  IPv6 everyone is going to have to move to it.  Would be doing 
a disservice to those countries to not pressure them to move to it.  I sell to 
various countries and there is opportunity to learn about it.. Footnote that 
ICANN could possibly help out, gateway, tunneling is the most we need to add to 
it.

Do believe it's a reasonable thing to concentrate, deadest against it as a 
requirement.  ICANN has deemed it so, it will remain so. I think I take very 
well the suggestion there's providers a plenty so therefore it should be on the 
list of things we're looking for these providers to help with this service.  If 
they don't, I don't know what to do.  If indeed 20 will give for free very 
adequate ipv6 tunneling to any support qualified applicant I think it should be 
a key part.  Footnote because ist' a requirement of the process, if there are 
no offerers of the services.  Need to be sure ICANN and the evaluators accept 
the existence of willing providers of tunnels as an answer. 

So when an SQA puts it in their application, I will get my ipv6 through one of 
the non-financial contributors of the support program, that is a good enough 
answer.

This is under things facilitated by ICANN, if they are acting as facilitator 
they won't reject it.  Don't need that level of approval, ICANN needs to find 
people to volunteer it or make the price not an issue.  Agree GAC request won't 
be honored, that's a reality.  ICANN has a responsibility that those who don't 
have access can still apply.
Suggestion that in the note that we would expect ICANN would facilitate.

Objective of this portion of the text is to indicate a kind of pseudo process 
and by the way I 'm saying this bcs we're going to discuss the process itself.  
Circulated the final process.

Who wrote the text ....GAC (inaudible).  The text we've been discussing.  

Was placed in the candidate text area. Seth cut and pasted it into the draft.