Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Review of draft report
Sounds good to me. I always like the idea of giving the decision makers a few decisions to make... At 21/08/2011 05:28 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr 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 <<mailto:avri@xxxxxxx>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>>> > >> > > >
|