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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Forgot to copy this to the WG.

> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:44:19 -0400
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Review of draft report
>
> When I made the alternative proposal, I was not trying to re-invent 
> the entire concept, just trying to put a spin on it that I thought 
> might be more readily understood and accepted.
> The substantive difference is that (presuming we do not have more 
> than 18% supported applicants which I think is a reasonable 
> constraint), my wording yields no risk to the operational 
> cost-recovery in the (unlikely in my mind) situation that there is 
> no auction revenue.
> And yes, I will presume Rob and Seth have the required skill to 
> render one or more of our proposals in an understandable fashion.
> Alan
>
> At 21/08/2011 05:08 PM, you 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>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >
> > >