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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

+1


On 21 Aug 2011, at 17:45, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 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 <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>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

------
Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock!