Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Review of draft report
Hi Alan. You're welcomed to the PDF -- as attached below -- but the PDF conversion destroys the comments. I'll try to add there here, with the intent that Robert and others who are having a hard time with the comments can match these segments with the appropriate places on the Report. RH: Robert AG - Alan AD - Avri EL - me Hope this helps. *A.4.a* AG: The expression “…to support this call” is curious. However, my main comment is that the first substantive line in the report should NOT be that the WG has changed its mind. How about just saying “In line with the recommendation of the GAC and the ALAC, the WG recommends that the application fee for Support-Approved Candidates be reduced to $47,000.” AD: indeed it is a refinement, not a change of mind. EL: I am suggesting wording that indicates that the fee-reduction recommendation follows through on what the MR2 said, bolstered and made specific by the GAC/ALAC statement (which will need a shorthand and citation since it may be referred to multiple times) *A.4.b * AG: I am not sure what we are saying here. Are we suggesting even more discounts if the proposed gTLD is in a small or underserved language? Or is this a veiled suggestion that bundling multiple languages should be further discounted? Regardless, are we saying that whatever the benefit, it should go to “small languages” and “underserved languages”? I don’t really know what a “small language” is. EL: I share Alan's confusion. I have suggested wording which may be more in line with discussions which have taken place over the multiple-IDN-application issue. *A.4.c* AG: Are we making a specific request, or just less? EL: This line confused me too. ICANN does not have any say over fees charged by registry providers. For this to have meaning it would be to recommend ICANN requiremenrts of service providers (for SACs) which can be then translated into reduced costs to applicants. *A.4.d* AG: I think it is foolish for us to ask for a deferment if tunnelling will indeed satisfy the need (I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to know if tunnelling will suffice, but others seem to think so). Even if it is ugly, we should simply make a strong statement that well-priced (or free) services must be available. AD: I agree with you but I expect there are still good reasons for supporting the removal of the requirement. This may go down as mixed support. IT is one where we probably will not prevail, but it is worth saying it so that the middle position, pre-announced statement that tunnels are ok ..., does not become one of the negotiating positions. EL: I think that there is full support for some kind of help related to iPV6. Whether that means deferment or other means is the source of disagreement. I don't think we want to advocate against the common ICANN religion that IPV6 must be enabled in some way by all new applicants. We can suggests charges to the pace of rollout or ways to reduce the cost. I think talking about a different pace of rollout looks better than asking for “deferment” *A.5* AG: I thought that our prime focus was to get the requirement lowered to the cost of a really basic continuance service (ie, keep the TLG running). If we support that strongly, is the duration that important so as to warrant this position in the list? AD: I think this was one means of achieving that goal. *A.7 (staggered fees)* RH: WG members have discussed keeping this paragraph. Keeping it for now [ed] AG My persona feeling is that it should be coached with language saying that if the advice of the AGAC, ALAN and this WG is not followed and the fees are not reduced, then staggered fees are mandatory. I understand that some people do not want to show weakness by allowing for this option, but I feel we are not doing our job if we do not accept that the Board may choose not to follow the advice. AD: Agree. ps. i like AGAC, ALAN) EL: I disagree with offering recommendations as a menu (well, this is what we want, but but you want to choose to ignore our advice we'll give you any out). I disagree with having this being there... but if it is I suggest wording that makes it clear that staggered fees are not our primary recommendation. Indeed, I will suggest a "plan B" for the report even though I am against a Plan B in the report. *A.12 (2nd para in "framework")* AG: Hasn’t the program already been approved? If so, this clause should simply read “immediately” AD: agree EL: agree. (a) and (b) are redundant if worded properly *A.12.a* AG: No closing bracket. AD: I think we still have a decision to make here or retaining the language here, moving it to a note or removing it. I suggest leaving it here and removing the brackets. Yes, the task of doing this remains with the staff, but the oversight of making sure it is done and done properly should belong to the TBD Board established Fund committee EL: Agree with AD. *A.12.f* AG: Not sure if we should use the term seed here. The tone of the preceding discussion is that the main sources would be auctions and such, with perhaps donations from others. AD: and we already have the seed, the Board's contribution! EL [ make change to the text to reflect ] *A.14* AG: I would weaken this one. Perhaps something like: In support of 11f, consideration should be given to contract with a professional … EL: The Bylaws allow the Board to acquire any expertise they need to perform their duties. So we're stating the obvious. *A.17 (seconnd para under "donors")* EL: I really dislike the wording of this paragraph - “A lot money” - “There is a lot of funding available” - worst of all, passive verbs. This particular paragraph seems to lack the polish of the rest of the document, and hints at envy. We should simply note that ICANN has created wealth and that meeting sponsorship at least indicates that some are willing to give back. *A.23 (under self-funding requirements)* AG: We varyingly use $47k and $45k. We need to pick one and go with it. I suggest $47 as that was the number in the GAC/ALAC recommendation. AD: agree. EL: Me too. Don't know where $45K came from... *----- (2nd comments)* AG: The references to short term usage are confusing and if used, needs to be better defined. AD: short term usage can be replaced by 'to meet cash flow requirements for the actual administration of the application process. EL: Since this is an explanation behind the recommendation and not part of the recommendation itself, I suggest that sections 21-27 be moved to an appendix * ---- (3rd comments, inserted after A.27)* AG: I find the entire discussion of how to fund the fee reduction confusing. I can propose a simpler way of presenting it which I think will amount to about the same thing. 1. Presume that no more than 18% of the applications will be eligible for support. 2. For every 100 applications, those paying the full fee (82) will contribute $2.050m towards sunk cost repayment. 3. The maximum fee reduction is 18 x $138. = $2.484m of which only 2.034m will go to offset actual costs (18 x (138-25)). 4. Since ICANN is receiving all of the fees at the start, there is no cash flow issue until the very end of the process. 5. Assuming there are auction proceeds as expected, they will be used to repay the (up to) $2.034m. 6. If there are insufficient auction proceeds, ICANN will defer the repayment of sunk costs. The only challenge is to limit the funded applicants to 18%. But if this is really a problem, then ICANN has more problems with the new gTLD program than this one. AD: I disagree, because this makes it sound like the other applicants are supporting the JQA. The point is that what is supporting this is future auction funds etc, with the cash flow dealt with by using the Risk and reserve allocations . This is a fundamental difference. EL: Agree with Avri. But I still think the whole discussion / justification of the recommendation should like outside the recommendation document itself, in an appendix. *B.30 (under non-financial support)* AG: Given the timing that we are discussing (with support being granted probably shortly before applications are due, is this reall practical in the first round? AD: I think so. there are several months until Jan 12, and there is the time before the end of the application period in which to help people. EL: Agree with Avri. Also consider that, if the fee reduction is implemented, it is these kinds of costs that will be the main uses of the foundation / funds. *B.30.h (translation)* AG: This is incorrect. The current draft is published in Chinese, French, Spanish and Russian as well as English. I don’t know if there are plans for additional languages. I do believe that the application will need to be in English though. AD: I.e we already achieved this. We should indicate that this requirement from our MR! is being met, we appreciate it, and commend that it remain the practice. EL: I think my suggested wording helps bridge the gap. The appliocation may be need to be in English but the AG itself may need to be translated into any script(s) in which the applicant wants to operate. *B32.f (relaxed VI)* AG: The current requirements are pretty relaxed as it is .What addditonal relaxations are being suggested here? AD:(-: I.e another already achieved goal. EL: [ Deleted point from redline doc ] *[ THE DETAILED NUMBERING APPEARS TO STOP WITHIN A VERY LONG SECTION 32, PLEASE FIX]* *Page 15, under "Directory and referral services only for Support-Approved Candidates, point B*" AG: Needs to be either stated clearly or omitted. EL: [suggested modified text] *B.34* AG: I thought that we received a comment from the AOS or at least one RIR that this was simply not going to happen. AD: I believe we should still approach the ASO. There is bully pulpit they can provide to encourage LIR and ISP to provide this help. Also when I brought this issue up at the ASO report at the Singapore meeting, i was told the the JAS WG and ASO should talk. Or at least that is what I remember, would need to go back and read the transcript again to be sure. We should reword, but not eliminate. and we should talk to them. *B.42* AG: Although I support the intent of this section, the timeing is problematic. The new gTLD application as filed must give sufficient indication of the RSP to allow ICANN to evaluate their credentials. How can this be done in a scenario where there is just an intent to create the RSP? AD: I suggest it is important that it remain in, but it should be something we encourage proposal to the SARP on. So rewording and perhaps moving. EL: Agree. I'll think of ways to rework this. *B.45* AG: Entire section needs wordsmithing. "Candidate" is defined as the applicant but criteria varyingly refers to the applicant or the TLD character string or the proposed registry (the last two implying the contents of the application). Perhaps can be fixed by replacing “candidate” by “candidate, or as applicable, the proposed registry or character string”. AD: we need to get the JAS approved terms into a glossary and use them. *B.47.d* AG: Id “sponsorship” the proper word here? I thought we were not using the concept for the new gTLD process (as opposed to the previous rounds). AD: good point about t word sponsored's baggage but i can't think of a better word at this moment. We do whant them to have this kind of sponsorship even if it does not mean the same thing as sTLD,. *B.48* AG: Missing intro sentence “The candidate must NOT be:” *B.49* AG: This line (gov’t or para-statal) is not a heading but one of the items. a) to f) *B.49.f* This is not one of the items under para49 but is a proviso for the entire eligibility section. Probably needs to go at the top instead of the bottom. *B.54* AG: Need clarity here whether “conventional application” is referring to one that is asking for and receiving support under this present report, or an application that is paying the full fee. *B.55* AG:Since we are saying a “preference” should be given, perhaps add a note saying that originating from one of these developing areas is neither sufficient nor mandatory to qualify. That should add some flexibility and remove the worry that a unreasonable applicant from Singapore will not qualify. AD: should we be saying that this, and the Diaspora requirement arte necessary but not sufficient? *B.56* AG: Unimaginable is too strong. They clearly are being imagined. Impractical?? AD: agree EL: agree *B.57* AG: This cannot be the “PRIMARY” criteria, since we have already given two required criteria and financial was 2nd.I would suggest word “a crucial” to replace “the primary”. AD: it is a necessary condition *B.57.d* AG: $45k per what? Startup cost, annual? *B.58* AG: Is this the final WG position? I am actually happy with it, but since no specific criteria are listed, it will be a purely subjective evaluation. An alternative is to say we wpuld prefer some level of specificity, but baed on the skills and knowledge available on the WG, have been unable to provide such details. AD: I think the guide for applicants need to say what these will be. And I think the the WG along with Staff should negotiate this. But after the Final report is submitted as part of the WG participation in the implementation phase of the program. *B.59* AG: This is now out of date. The joint GAC/ALAC statement made it clear that they were advocating support of any level of government other than national government. AD; agree *B.63* AG: We need clarity here whether the support that is to be repaid includes the fee discount or just the financial support provided over and above the fee reduction. Also, if this applies only to “financial” support, it should be explicit. AD: Agree. I think that the fee reduction is NOT in the category of need to be repaid as that will be 'repaid' by auction and other funds. *A.67 (section lettering reverts to "A" in my doc)* AG: I think that we typically use recommendation instead of suggestion. AD: agree *A.69* AG: This is quite different from what was discussed at the last meeting, and I don’t recall anyone putting this time-line process instead of the one where the review preceeds application. AD: actually i recommended it and continue to do so. It is a timing issue. People will not be ready with application for funding any sooner that Jan 12,. *A.70* AG: The AoC review teams have had markedly different mixes of people from the various ACs and SOs. At the least we should recommend a suggested mix. The process will also be hard-put to ensure that we have the right mix of talents. Personally, I am not at all sure that this process is optimal. As stated on calls, I am quite concerned about meeting commitments. Just look at the difficulty we have had in getting work out of this WG. Lastly, we need to decide what the basis will be for making decisions in the case of lack of unanimity. AD: I think a hybrid of professional and ICANN experienced is the right mix. I do not want the ICANN staff to be the ones chosing the professional members fo the group. That has to be done by volunteers+staff. *A.72* AG: Paid or unpaid? *GENERAL COMMENT BEFORE THE FAQ:* AG: Having completed the review of the core report, I see there is no mention of changing the continuity requirements to be far more modest. Eric had reported that there was ongoing discussion in some other group, but do we really want to leave it solely up to them? AD: well there was the one mention earlier. but this is a good point. I guess there was not contributed text on it for Seth + Rob to cut into the report. On 22 August 2011 11:27, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The miniaturized comments seems to be an OpenOffice "feature". Comments > can be read by copying them and pasting in a non-formatted text file (in > Windows, notepad works). But this is an exceedingly time-consuming task and > I, for one, do not have the time to do that today. If OpenOffice can > display them (although Avri found it did not when she re-opened I think), > can someone please make a PDF so that the comments can be read by all. > > Evan, if you could read all of our comments and presumably your owm, can > you make a PDF from that document? > > Alan > > > At 22/08/2011 09:57 AM, Robert Hoggarth wrote: > > Thank you Evan. I had completed a new version of the draft encompassing > and attempting to address Alan and Avri's comments. I will review your > input and make additional changes so that we can have a new master document > starting with tomorrow's WG call. > > I am still experiencing difficulty reading comments in the document. > Although instances where you have added text is clear, I connect read any > comments in the right margin - even Alan's original ones. I am hopeful that > I am the only one experiencing this format difficulty, but I am doubtful. > Perhaps a format guru on the WG has discovered a format work–around. > > Perhaps you should stop at page 22 and then contribute additional comments > and suggested edits after tomorrow's call. > > Best, > > RobH > > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 01:46:58 -0700 > To: " soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" < SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Review of draft report > > Here's my two cents so far. > > Added comments to Avri's and Alan's, and where appropriate have put in > redlined changes that IMO address the concerns. > > I only got to page 22 so far. But here's what I have. > > Attachment:
Draft_Final_Report_JASWG_20110818+ag+ad+el_redline.pdf
|