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

[Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent suggestion IMHO; we don't have to restrict ourselves to a single
solution and present related arguments and we let the Board make a decision
- that's what Boards are for anyway!... Alain

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 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>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
http://www.jumo.com/ict4dk
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Vice-Chair, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas - www.focal.ca
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger