[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS Adobe Chat room transcript 19 August 2011

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Karla Valente: Welcome to the JAS WG August 19 Meeting. Please see text to be 
discussed today on the notes above. The process flows are on the wiki and were 
sent via e-mail. 

CLO: Hi All Welcome  to the JAS-WG  world  Rob :-)

Carlton Samuels: Hi everyone

Carlton Samuels: 
https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+Working+Group+%28JAS-WG%29

Rafik: hello there

Carlton Samuels: welcome

Carlton Samuels: Rafik you're  now in control

Rafik: yes fixed the unmute issue

Robert Hoggarth: @andrew      good comment Andrew.  we will do that. thanks.

avri: isn't that what our penholder's Rob and Seth are doing. Aren't they the 
polishers, with us the reviewers?  are they the final writing team?

Seth Greene: I believe that's correct, Avri.  But, of course, we welcome input 
as to where the reviewers would like language clearer, etc.

Alan Greenberg: True, but it doesn't hurt to have someone else note poblems 
also.

avri: Alan: of course that is what reviewers do, i was just repsonsidng to 
Andrew's issue of whoever is the writing the final version ...

Andrew Mack: please do put it up

Robert Hoggarth: @avri ...we will also have Karen and Kurt's help from a review 
perspective.  final doc subject to some final chair and WG member blessing I 
hope!  :-)  

Seth Greene: Flow chart to which Kurt is referring:  
https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+Working+Group+%28JAS-WG%29.
 

Andrew Mack: the link doesn't come up

CLO: Seth that link  says  page not found

Seth Greene: I'll ask Karla for another link.

Carlton Samuels: 
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/8455565/Applicant+Support+Process+Discussion+Draft+%282%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1313722136000

Carlton Samuels: Try that one

avri: Rob: I just did not want the 'who is reponsible for writing the final 
version" to become an opne issue, again!

Alex Gakuru: ok

avri: just drop the trainlin p[eriod

CLO: Thzt works

Carlton Samuels: I will drop off in 5 mins....unfortunately, have to make a 
living..... :-)

Seth Greene: Yes, as Cheryl says, either above link is now working.

Alex Gakuru: please.. kurt

Carlton Samuels: @CLO: great idea!

Carlton Samuels: Ha ve to go, folks.  Sorry for the early departure

Evan Leibovitch: Pardom, everyone, but so far we have been talking about a fee 
reduction and the fund being used ONLY to pay for non-ICANN expenses. When did 
this change?

Andrew Mack: Q: does this provide for a kind of GAC veto?  not sure I 
understood this

Alex Gakuru: a lot of hands up...

Rafik: @alex did you lower your hand?

Alex Gakuru: sorry, it was never up...

Rafik: @alex pk :)

avri: Kurt: there are other ways to prevent abuse.  theat is the SARP role,

Rafik: @avri yet another acronym, what do u mean by SARP?

avri: Rafik: from above "A.  Support Application Review Panel (SARP)7."

CLO: Yes  Evan  the discretionary aspects  discussed in the flow chart 
discusion also concerns me as  well and the "fund' 2M  or more from other 
sources means  that there is a lack of predictability  / expectations  for 
applicants  for support

avri: The problem is that Kurt is not accepting the JAS assumptions and he 
figures his assumptions will trump the JAS recommendations +GAC/ALAC postion 
with the board.  and history teaches he may be right.

Evan Leibovitch: Kurt... you said "we need to listen to the GAC". Good advice 
indeed. Please re-read the last -- and very explicit -- GAC advice on the JAS 
issue and its PoV on fee reduction and use of the funds.

avri: We, JAS, have a set of recommendation we have an assumption that they 
will be taken seriously and  will prevail.  Staff has a different set of 
assumptions.

Evan Leibovitch: So who is directing who here?

avri: in Rod's ICANN, the staff leads.  You did not know that?

avri: But of course we have to fight to have the JAS recommendation prevail.

Evan Leibovitch: I thought that the role of staff here is to refine and detail 
the community developed priorities and process.... NOT to rewerite and 
re-interpret

Alan Greenberg: I really don't think we should be debating the discount vs 
rebate here. That is the case we need to make in the report, and to make sure 
that the flow-chart can handle what we are recommending.

Alex Gakuru: ... a wild thought,,, what if the US$2M fund was used to set up a 
"JAS Registry"  serving our qualified applicants? just thinking out aloud 
here...

avri: I also think the chances of getting other donors to the fund is NIL if 
peole think it is just a way to funnel money (fungible money) back to ICANN.  
That will be seen as the ultimate in gaming!

Alan Greenberg: Avri, I tend to agree.

Evan Leibovitch: Alex .... check out the GAC/ALAC recommendations. The use of 
the fund for registry services is eplicitly requested.

avri: Evan: that is a good usage.

Andrew Mack: Avri's point about getting co-funders is spot on in my opinion.  I 
can't see a potential donor saying yes to paying a mulit-million dollar 
enterprise like ICANN.  

Alex Gakuru: thanks Evan

Alan Greenberg: Back to the review of the report, the section on the rationale 
for HOW ICANN can reduce the fee (separate from the $2m) is a section that 
everyone needs to review and be comfortable that it is robust and supportable.

avri: but only if it is not a way to funnel money to an incumbent, but is a way 
to build capacity in the developing economies.

Alex Gakuru: yes Avri!

avri: funneling money to an incumbent RSP is almost as bad a bit of gaming as 
funneling it to ICANN,  perhaps one notch less, but not really.

Alan Greenberg: Avri, that is going to be harder, since there will not likely 
be new registry and other service providers around by the time that 
applications are due.

Alex Gakuru: a brand new one in developing regions... 

avri: Yes, but they do not need to be in existence at that time.  Peopl eneed 
to fill out the answers correctly, they do not need a contract with an RSP to 
apply - non matter how hard RSPs are trying to convince people that this is the 
case.

Alex Gakuru: a brand new neutral one.. 

avri: So, part of the SARP's work, to approve the fee reductions, needs to be 
done before the app process ends.  funds to create an RSP can come in over the 
course of the year.

avri: Kurt: you are ingoring the proposal on how this money can be obtained.

Andrew Mack: the fees charged are just estimates and everyone knows it.  its 
not like all of the money for fees will be cash outlays

avri: the cash flow part of the expenses is only 100KUSD and that can be offset 
by borrowing from the money intended for Risk and reserve fund

Alan Greenberg: For the record, announcement did say 90 minutes. In red

CLO: Yes  Avri Community  Group aspect  to the Review Panel is  essential

Alex Gakuru: sent correction ** Call duration 60 minutes and not 90 minutes **

Alan Greenberg: ok, guess I missed that one.

CLO: Q@ Alan  it was  updated  to the correct  60 shorty after  by seperate  
message

Alex Gakuru: no worries...

Andrew Mack: sorry all.  have to go for another meeting.  I will review the doc 
and send comments.

CLO: Thanks  Andrew

avri: Rob: on consensus, you don't hear any of us disagreeing with what is 
being said by JAS members.  the lack of consensus is with Kurt.

Evan Leibovitch: Rob: you wanted a discussion tool.... you got discussion ;-)

avri: Rob: yes but the discussion on the flow chart gives a good indicator of 
what the text should be recommending, i.e. the seperation of funding for 
service not for applications, and SAP review of application for fee reduction 
which is sperate issue.

avri: not SAP but SARP

Wendy Profit: I've tried to copy chat text and insert into my meeting notes 
where applicable to the conversation for the sake of continuity in the notes 
and to not miss important commentary which won't show up in the transcripts.

avri: so SAPR does both, review application for fee reduction, and reviews 
proposasl for fund expendtiture.

avri: SARP not SAPR  (they are the people who defuse bombs in Israel.)

Robert Hoggarth: @avri and evan ...   agreed!

Robert Hoggarth: thanks wendy

Rafik: @avri please no politics here

avri: On the SARP; my notion of community includes including some experts.  I 
suppose the expert panel including community members is simlar.  there are 
foreground and background of each other.

Rafik: @avri experts from inside or outside the communtiy or both?

avri: Seth: probably both

avri: the non finacial report is more a match making issue.  but i figure there 
will be a process, and they may need approval of being a qualified applicant.

Robert Hoggarth: @evan;  didn't mean to sound frustrated.  just trying to 
determine what and how to edit text :-)  we'll use today's discussion and 
helpful chat contributions in this pod to improve on existing text.  tx!

Alex Gakuru: +1 for two , in case of sunstansive paths,, but coul be merged 
later?

Evan Leibovitch: Also consider that if fee reduction is applied, the applicant 
may need no additional funds and makes no requests against the pool

avri: i figure there will be dotted line connections points between the two 
processes.

Alan Greenberg: @Evan - right!

Alex Gakuru: thanks all and bye

Evan Leibovitch: What's a weekend?

Alex Gakuru: ha ha ha

Evan Leibovitch: What's "normal people"?

Evan Leibovitch: I don't know any

Robert Hoggarth: :-)

Alex Gakuru: thank Rafik

avri: we is norml

Rafik: @avri do we have consensus about normailty?

avri: of course we do, everyone thinks they are normal.


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