[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG Meeting Notes 19 August 2011

[Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx>]

JAS WG Meeting Notes
19 August 2011

Small change in development and draft final report.  For members who have not 
seen their email, I have just put the landing page for the draft in the Adobe 
connect chat.  We've made some changes, Seth and Rob have been instrumental, 
ask them to explain what this means.
Current version of draft doesn't reflect all the behind the scenes work, but I 
think we're in good shape after the last call, followed by a smaller drafting 
call.  Moved all the background historical to back of document so it starts 
straight into the recommendation of the WG.  We purged all the formats that 
were embedded and started with a new format that includes paragraph numbers for 
easier referencing during discussion.  Substantive edits are in the capacity 
building section.  What you'll have in front of you is a demonstration of the 
text of the final report with numbered paragraphs.
Be careful of the draft that you're on.  Most current draft will always be on 
the landing page of the wiki.  So the page numbers will change. Today we're 
going over pages 25-30, so when we say page numbers we'll give draft date as 
well.  Carlton you may want to mention going forward are we going to retain the 
comments going into the wiki or are we going to ask for whole reviews such as 
Alan's volunteered to do?
I would still want to give people an opportunity.
Is the intention paragraph numbers stay the same or are they automatic 
numbering?
Automatic numbering, they will change as we go.  We had to pick something that 
works.  Next steps, Seth and I have set up a schedule.  Going back over each 
line of the transcripts to capture those lines of the WG and will be doing that 
over the weekend and hopefully will be ready for the next call.  Right now 
current version is frozen until we get feedback from you Alan and we'll be 
adding.
Like to think I'm not the only one doing this review given we're a week away.
Members Alan has committed to reading the entire report as a whole.  Encourage 
members to look at the entire report that we have at the minute. Alan has 
stepped up to lead the charge and thank you very much for that.  Rafik has 
entered so I'll turn it over to you to discuss process flow.
Seth while Rafik is muted. For anyone doing a document review, we haven't 
wordsmithed from start to finish there will be awkwardness.  Right now most 
importantly interested in the substance, accuracy of content.  We'll clean up 
the flow.
Evaluation process, Kurt sent the document to review.  Going to the report for 
numbered line to make it easy for members to make their comments, so please 
make your comments so we can have substantive feedback. Andrew
If you see awkward wording it may be helpful to make a note to reword it for 
the drafters. As little as we can go back and write the history. Someone is 
going to have to pull the final document together so it has a coherent voice 
throughout.  You don't need to come up with new language but if you find 
something that's really unclear just mark it as such so they know to clean it 
up.
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?
Yes we are and I think that's what Rob and Seth are doing but we still 
encourage everyone to do it. Let's talk about the evaluation process, important 
that we have process flow.  The link is in the adobe chat Seth just posted it.
So maybe Kurt can answer questions.
I can take 5 minutes to go through it.
Yes that would be great.
So on the left hand gutter of the flowchart are listed the characters: 
Applicant for support, Review Panel (generic) independent of ICANN, ICANN, and 
TBD are an entity that would hold escrow that could be dispersed.  Starting at 
upper left 1st activity is that the applicant would apply for support (this 
chart is only for applicants applying for financial support). Review based on 
selection criteria, decision, inform the applicant & ICANN of amount which is 
discretionary but there will be a limit.  JAS is going to make recommendations 
on this based on how the fund is limited or not limited.  If it was limited to 
2mil and JAS saw x amount of applications it could make awards up to 100,000 
and anything less than that could be allowed.  Amount of grant is limited to 
the amount of the fund, a lot or a little.  ICANN would then receive info 
decision of panel, inform applicant who would then apply for a TLD knowing it 
has funding.  So applicant doesn't have to apply for a TLD until it knows it 
has funding.   ....evaluators for early evaluation, decision to apply has to 
come from knowing if they have funding.  ICANN releases funds based on panel 
decision.  Interesting aspect of this flowchart is that whoever is holding the 
funds ...should the funds go to the applicant or to offset the application fee. 
 2 reason to offset fee 1) think these dollars are precious and this is one way 
to prevent gaming or abuse of the money, send it right in and have it apply to 
the application fee 2) money is the ultimate fungible..all the other things 
cost money if you're doing those things to ask where the money applies, it's 
one step to take to prevent abuses.  If the application is successful then you 
go on and get delegated. If not if there's an objection, there will be a 
refund.  It will be the amount that's called out in the Guidebook and the funds 
would go back in the fund and the applicant would be refunded. This chart was 
created by about 6 people in a meeting over about an hour and ½ and is based on 
I think it was Evan's flowchart.  Questions from anyone?

Evan Leibovitch: Pardon, 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
Shows gaps in the assumptions seems problematic, financial support reflects fee 
reduction and not that it's coming out of the 2mil fund.  Other thing is end to 
begin dependency, first getting approval and then applying.  Having time to 
finish as opposed to getting started.  One would assume they would be almost 
coincidental to show how timeline figures in. Most important, yes the  is 
reviewing...board initiated the 2mil, different than fee reduction rec made by 
JAS WG and GAC and ALAC.
We thought applicant wouldn't want to go ahead with an application without 
financial aid, that's why the flowchart has that dependency, we all know that 
time is very short. If we can get to a place that board gets to a place to 
approve financial aid, icann could make that money available almost right away.
JAS proposes that money would be refunded if they didn't get the aid, have at 
least 45k to start would be a requirement so as to not take the risk. I don't 
think anyone could wait for a decision, would ask that that go into the 
consideration.
Yes, that's a good point. About board resolution, loathe to interpret them at 
the end they're going to say one thing or the other. Couple the fee reduction 
with the 2mil fund use that. Second part of resolution listened to the GAC and 
JAS picked up on it. Developing countries, JAS came up with developing 
economies. Fund created by ICANN used to reduce the fee, it works even in the 
event there are fee reductions.  Still need to identify the funds, need an 
escrow agent to identify how and when.  We should all be ready to listen to 
their interpretation of that.
Will all due respect Kurt I'm going to ask you to go back to the drawing board. 
It almost totally repudiates mr2 and go against GAC and ALAC recommendation.  
Fee reductions independent of fund and fund is used to fund non icann costs.  
Funding something where the money goes right back to itself.  It seemed that 
none of that has happened. Try and have this document reflect what the WG 
discussed  fee reduction and use fund to fund non icann expenses.
Developing methods to avoid gaming and abuses. With knowledge that money is 
fungible, applicant needs x amount to go...one way to apply the money to the 
application fee.  Having said that, again, I don't think board said it would 
make a 2mil fund it was intended for that and could have other uses, open for 
recommendation. One way to avoid those abuses though. It's just an attempt.  
Really precious dollars.
Why is current proposal going back on almost everything this group asked for? 
Fee reduction and have fund go back to non icann expenses.
I answered that, because it avoids abuses. Also if you want to change that 
aspect of the flowchart that can be done and then there's nothing in this flow 
chart availability of financial aid to applicant. It puts those funds in a 
private escrow holder and those funds are released on notification of 
independent panel that makes those decision.
Fund money is not to go to ICANN
It's your flowchart you can do whatever you want with it.
[relevant chat]
avri: Kurt: there are other ways to prevent abuse.  that 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
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.
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.
I guess I disagree a little with Evan with how far back we need to go, it will 
work with exception of who the funds are released to. And how the funds are 
handled if the application doesn't go through.  Get relief for whatever it is 
we're relieving. Just the flow of money exchanging hands.  Where are the 
demarcations between the blue green pink.  Got to give them time to review 
application.
avri: The problem is that Kurt is not accepting the JAS assumptions and he 
figures his assumptions will trump the JAS recommendations +GAC/ALAC position 
with the board.  and history teaches he may be right.
We can go back and put additional thought into it.
Other question relates to your comment that is will be done before the 
application is submitted, there will have to be a process that funds aren't 
released until ...is really critical.
That seems like an expensive step and I understand the spirit behind it and 
it's good but application is really a bunch of promises the applicant is making 
and they are free to change their business model according to opportunities 
that come up.
We are not allowing community  apple orchards to start making computers. 
Details may change but it's crucial that we applicant money to do what they 
said they are going to do otherwise the mind boggles at how one could game it.
[relevant chat]
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.
What we are trying to do is give our feedback as WG and the chart will be 
updated, no assumption that staff is changing it.  We are going to update it 
with what we think is right.
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.
I think this is really something the board will have to make a decision on. 
it's been ambiguous up to now.  Whatever it wants to do with, no need to argue 
with Kurt.

Evan Leibovitch: Alex .... check out the GAC/ALAC recommendations. The use of 
the fund for registry services is eplicitly requested.
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.
Want to make it clear, on the comment that ICANN is paying itself.  The funds 
are gone, not with ICANN anymore. If you make an existing arrow that goes up to 
the applicant.  In either case the money goes somewhere else and taken out of 
the reserve and put in escrow not available to ICANN.  The process can be 
changed, certainly not the intent that ICANN is using it to pay itself.


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.
IF the money goes into subsidizing fees and it goes back to ICANN, it is the 
escrow and then goes back to ICANN to pay the fees.  If you don't have fee 
reduction decoupled from the funds.  It will keep others away.  The money is 
intended to go back to ICANN to subsidize the fees.  Very strong in a fee 
reduction process that decouples it from the funds.  Can we make that clear in 
the process and make it clear in the flow chart.
In the case of a fee reduction that money comes form and the money to which 
that goes has to be spent.. it would come from somewhere in icann. Registrant 
fees paid to the evaluator and such.  It would not be put in a separate fund it 
can't touch. I agree there's optics in soliciting others to give funds and 
might want funds to go to applicants directly and not to subsidize, and keep it 
in their country or their economy.  Path to where applicant gets paid 
determined by independent panel.
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 ignoring 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

Assuming our recommendation is going to be used by the board ...like to talk 
about the evaluation process which is far more difficult.
I do think it has to be a community group. Kurt ignores what we're saying and 
says the money has to come from somewhere,  Don keep saying that's where the 
money comes from, there are other proposals.
Tremendously valuable to go back through the draft and make sure it appears, 
still trying to discern whether there's full consensus.  Seemingly clear the 
group agrees about decoupling the funds, that will inform Seth and I. Recommend 
going back through the text of this section that it reflects what alan avri 
even have been saying.  Not sure where the flowchart fits in, does it go in the 
document itself.   Next steps for Seth and I to go back .

avri: so SAPR does both, review application for fee reduction, and reviews 
proposals for fund expenditure.
avri: SARP not SAPR  (they are the people who defuse bombs in Israel.)
In terms of whether flowchart should be in the report, I say it should as a 
suggestion.  In terms of constitution of review panel, everyone agrees 
community input, but I'm not convinced it should be wholly community based in 
terms of reviewing financial documents, really problematic.
Remember that from staff final report, an AG like support for those trying to 
apply for aid.  Provides direction on how to apply for aid, would be a good 
home for that flowchart, to inform the applicant on the process.
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.
When we find ourselves unresolved on big picture, it makes details difficult.  
We may have to do that off the call. I share your frustration, close to the 
deadline still arguing the principals.
Rafik: @avri experts from inside or outside the community or both?
Going back - I see it as a community group that goes out and finds experts, 
community form the nucleus of the group.
If it wants the chart in the guidebook or in the report itself, should there be 
another one for non financial support?  Or is that sufficient.
avri: Seth: probably both
Eligible not eligible is the same, so I don't think we need both. Not sure how 
non financial is going to be allocated. 3rd parties, need even more time. I 
don't think it's a completely separate process but does need to be tied into 
how that outside support is given.
avri: the non financial 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 substantive paths,, but could 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!
In terms of next steps, going to give the good citizen review the opportunity 
to happen over the next 24 hours and will have a new draft prior to next call 
on Tuesday.



Wendy Profit
Executive Assistant to Kurt Pritz
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way | Ste 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA
tel +1 310 578 8695 | http://icann.org<http://icann.org/>
One World. One Internet.