Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Review of draft report

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks  for this Alan and Avri :-)  Further to  Avri's  follow up note...
Perhaps the Final Report  could offer up text for the Board to have
recommended to it from our work these two "variations on a theme" then  so
THEY have the opportunity / option  to clearly decide on the Risk choices =>
  SO recognizing  the Board can (and indeed will do as it pleases of course)
 If the WG agrees on this approach to fee schema then  option 1  would be
'use of Reserve Funds'  and option 2  would be 'use of Reserve + Risk
Funds'...    How  do we feel about that approach ???  So JAS  does not need
to choose *between* the variations  that choice (or not)  would belong to
others based ON JAS recommendations in the report (I hope ;-)


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 22 August 2011 07:08, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> hi,
>
> I am not sure that our schemes are all that different - at least not in any
> substantive manner.
>
> i think i was saying that in the first place, it is the portion of
> application fee intended for the reserve and risk fund (86 KUSD) that used
> to cover the actual cost of processing the JQA* , but that this is paid back
> through auctions.
>
> So aren't we making the same point - the difference being you take it all
> from the reserve fund, while i take it from the reserve+risk funds.  My only
> additional point is that being risk adverse, the Board might want to know
> how the risk and reserve fund are to be repaid, that is from auctions.
>
> Or maybe I am not understanding your proposal.
>
> the real hope is that Seth+Rob understand us both and can put it all in
> simplified and clear language - something I obviously failed to do.
>
> a.
>
> * (99KUSD per applications - ignoring any impressions/analysis about how
> exaggerated such a projected cost really is)
>
> On 21 Aug 2011, at 14:21, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> >
> > Due to the complexity of commenting, I will use e-mail for this one issue
> where there is very substantive disagreement with what Avri and I have said,
> specifically how to fund the fee reduction.
> >
> > The main point I was making is that the fee reduction be funded from
> auction proceeds, but that failing the materialization of that, the
> reduction can still be funded without impacting the operational
> cost-recovery of the new gTLD program by deferring the return to reserve of
> the pre-program development costs. I feel that this last part is important,
> because the Board is likely to be risk-adverse and may not want to spend
> money on the assumption (but not guarantee) that there would be auction
> proceeds.
> >
> > I believe that my presentation is a bit simpler, and is likely to result
> in less confusion over exactly what is being proposed.
> >
> > All of that being said, I can live with Avri's proposal, but think that
> it is likely to be rejected due to confusion, which is not a good thing.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > Regarding Avri's definition of short-term, I don't really think short
> term cash flow is a problem, since ICANN will be receiving the full fee in
> advance for all non-supported application. They will be very cash-rich.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 21/08/2011 01:41 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> That is weird.  I see the same thing you do on reopening it.
> >> Now sure how or why this happened.  I just added words inside your
> comments.  though i did add highlight to my comments to make sure they stood
> out from yours (since they were under your comment heading)
> >>
> >> in any case i brought it into OpenOffice Used Word for MAC to comment)
> and could read them fine.  But it dropped the highlight - that is why I
> think it may be the culprit that tickled the word bug)
> >>
> >> Here is an odt and pdf version.
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21 Aug 2011, at 12:54, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Avri, for some reason, in the Word document, the comments have all
> been reduced to some infinitesimal font that I cannot read - it still says
> they are 10 pt, but are not. If you don't know what did this, perhaps you
> can convert to a PDF so I can read it?
> >> >
> >> > Alan
> >> >
> >> > At 21/08/2011 11:26 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I have added comments to all of your comments.  I have attached a
> version with my comments added to yours.
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, I had done my own review - although I did it by adding sticky
> notes on the PDF version of the file. I did not move those comments over to
> your review.  I have attached that as well.
> >> >>
> >> >> a.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 20 Aug 2011, at 20:11, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I have reviewed the most recent copy of the report prepared by Rob
> and Seth, and a copy with my comments are attached.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There are a number of comments which are substantive and it would
> be very useful to know to what extent others agree or disagree with them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Regards, Alan<Draft_Final_Report_JASWG_20110818_Reordered,
> clean-ag.doc>
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>
>
>