[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG Meeting Notes 23 August 2011

[Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx>]

JAS WG Meeting Notes
23 August 2011
Today we are going to look at the Support Application Review Panel. New acronym 
SARP, beginning on page 29 of the most recent draft and also in the adobe 
connect room.  SOIs should be into the staff and the chairs. One small note 
before I go to Alan we neglected to give some recognition to Dev and Maxine(?) 
Who originally looked at the workflow last week.  Dev looked at it and made 
changes for us from the start and thank him for his support. Alan has his hand 
up.
Like to review the timetable, I know discussion on GNSO council list, this is 
our second to last meeting if schedule has changed I'd like to know.
We can telescope the funds and foundation FAQ into the meeting and we go for 
Friday and we go to next Tuesday to do the final review and approval.  We will 
look at the GNSO processes.
If we can have extra dates and to delay the deadline. There is no option in 
Wednesday it means we have a few days in September so we can work on the report 
but I can't guarantee that now so tomorrow if ...discussion on the GNSO council 
I can update that matter.  If there's a change I will update the wg asap.
Focus on the text where the beginning paragraph 74 of the current draft report 
on page 29, on the land ing page of the wiki.  If you can't find it you will 
see the information that we're going to talk about in the notes window of the 
adobe connect. Any comment on 74 here?  Happy with the use of terminology or do 
we need to be more specific?
My comments didn't make it, seemed a bit to vague, we need to maintain the same 
tone and level of precision.  In terms of the right source.
We do need the right mix 75 starts talking about what the right mix is.  
Discussion between alan and I  about volunteers and staff after listening to 
alan's issue propose a middle ground don't know what that is. Needs to have a 
fair degree of experts.  Normal external evaluation panel set up completely by 
the staff with no say from the community.  Between staff and dispute resolution 
model.  We don't want that model, the AOC may not be appropriate. Something 
hybrid, volunteers of community wide distribution and right skill set.  ICANN 
gaming experts have to come from the community.  Funding models such as that 
need to be done externally under supervision of this panel by staff.  Right 
sort of people, right sort of panel.
To clarify what avri said, should it be volunteer or staff, no one said it 
should be staff
Staff created the resolution panel
Don't want staff on this panel.  Relying primarily on community is fraught with 
problems because of time commitment issues.  People have jobs, get sick, have 
personal lives, may we be large we don't know how many applications this will 
be. Avery time consuming job, worry about the AOC model equal representation 
form the community, not sure one from each constituency is the right way. Look 
at something from the community. Far from optimal in my mind.
The subject of these non volunteer non community being paid has not been 
addressed yet.
We'd have to expand the paragraph with some of the things, but the issue of the 
balancing of the panel and its required expertise, who pays for that.
While I fully support Avri, I understand alan's issue, we don't have any other 
choice, staff or community. Experts must be paid. The idea is to have a panel 
composed of volunteers from the community. If they don't have the willing they 
don't work, second the competence, can't put people who don't understand the 
question on the panel and third the ability.  The panel will be assisted by 
experts, can be engaged by ICANN staff but the panel is the decision.  Second 
point paragraph 75, panel will decide on the fee reduction, should decide on 
the eligibility of any kind of support all should pass through this panel.
---
Agree that staff is there to help them and there was a paragraph there that 
said where the funds would come to and obviously we'd have to pay non 
volunteers.
Agree we want this to be as much as possible community driven.  Concerned that 
we'll be able to maintain the level of volunteer activity. Don't want it to be 
dominated by ... volunteers suffer from burn out, if we pay them something for 
their time so they could devote more and have constant focus. And continuity. 
Not fair to ask a volunteer to serve for a year on this, I think it's a lot to 
do.  Take into account people have real lives.
Useful to compensate some volunteers and that you should include directly in 
the panel some outside experts as opposed to Tijani's that experts are advisors 
to the panel and not in the panel itself.
Whether we compensate volunteers I don't know. It's difficult to get people to 
participate if no one is compensated. Take this group.  We'll get a narrow 
group and people may not be able to stay with it. As far as including experts 
as part of the vote, depends on the composition.  If we have enough volunteers 
with diversity.  We do want experts at the table, the mechanism I'm open to.
We're at the point where we're suggesting the test be augmented.
[chat]

avri: you have to pay non volunteers otherwise they are volunteers.  in one of 
my original proposal, i recommended that the funding tfor the SARP be another 
expense against the projected reserve + risk revenues to be pulled in by the 
applications.
avri: actually how it is paid in in 76.  forgot what was written
avri: Andrew: I am not arguing for pure volunteer, but has accepted the hybrid 
model and am arguing for  it.  And asking a tremendous amount from volunteers 
is what ICANN is all about.
avri: I am TOTALLY against paying volunteers.
avri: I consider service in ICANN similar to service in volunteer fire 
departments,  it is a second job you dedicate yourself to.
Robert Hoggarth: this is very helpful discussion -- do you also need to discuss 
timelines in which work is to be done (i.e., how long an evaluation is expected 
to take; accountability of "volunteers" (i.e., minimal time commitments) and 
how potential conflicts of interest may be handled (i.e., potential conflicts 
for competitors and supporters).
Evan Leibovitch: My preference: one-third ALAC appointed, one-third GNSO 
appointed, one third staff-contracted experts.
Alan Greenberg: I also have some concern regarding volunteers having a 
difficult time potentially saying no to their peers....
Evan Leibovitch: And giving volunteers an honorarium and covering expenses does 
not compromise volunteer status
Alan Greenberg: @Evan, no GAC??
Evan Leibovitch: Over allocation of the fund --  not sure the GAC needs a role
avri: how about .25 atlarge, .25 gnso, .25 other AC/SO, .25 experts members + 
specialized advisers.
Evan Leibovitch: @ avri: that works too
avri: sp i am differentiating between experts who are full voting members, and 
the ad hoc experts who only adviuse.
avri: ... between outside experts ....  -> must not assume that many volunteers 
are indeed not also experts
If we could think about the exact text we need to change the statement it would 
be helpful to Rob and people who have the pen.
Kurt: I agree it should be independent of staff.  I would urge that we use 
volunteers as much as possible as a possible solution look at the RSEP model 
where there's 25-30 panel members on standby in groups of 5 where the work is 
spread out, in this case it could be spread out by region because you want 
people from the regions to be involved.  If we have a short term window and we 
could spread the work around.
Kurt is suggesting a pool of panelists that you may rotate where they come from 
based on what has been decided that may be a good way to look at it well it 
makes sense to me.
avri: using the RSEP model of a pool is a good idea.
I stick with the proposal of volunteers they did a wonderful job in a timely 
manner I don't know why we are so afraid of this point
avri: all members of the panel need to be engaged on judging every application.

Evan Leibovitch: Having a large pool makes sense, but (based on my experience 
within ICANN) may not be practical without paying panel members

avri: avri correction ... need not be engaged ...
the panel is going to be influenced by virtue of what is around them.  
Compensation I was ....this panel would need to meet face to face and expenses 
would be incurred from serving on the panel, not compensating for time but 
meeting expenses covered in set 6 that avri raised. It's always about how much 
time is available, just compensating them for time is not going to make them 
available.
I'm ok with a large panel, good idea, but each member must commit to be 
available at any time.
We have a sense of what is griping this group we need a better definition of 
the panelist text augmented with guidance as to how this panel would operate. 
And some text to recommend a set of criteria for the panel.
Clearly the make up is not staff not primarily volunteers but some sort of 
combination of staff volunteers and experts, Evan's 3rd 3rd 3rd,some percentage 
25%.
Evan said 1/3 GNSO 1/3 staff contracted experts included in panel.  Avri said ¼ 
alac ¼ gnso ¼ other rssac for example would be key I think that's where AND 
experts from outside but not part of the panel.
Correction differentiating 2 kinds of experts ¼ could be staff contracted 
outside experts members of the panel voting members in evan's and andrew's, 
also otherwise special experts who would not be part of the panel, if the panel 
says oops we need an expert on economics in Botswana, that is the kind of 
flexibility I was thinking . where you'd have an expert on economics in the 
panel you may need occasional outside experts with a specialty.
So what we have to do is look at your proposal.
Agreed re: staff management + admin,  second group more ad hoc consultants, I 
think we're all on the same page now.
avri: using the RSEP model of a pool is a good idea.

avri: all members of the panel need to be engaged on judging every application.

Evan Leibovitch: Having a large pool makes sense, but (based on my experience 
within ICANN) may not be practical without paying panel members
avri: avri correction ... need not be engaged ...
Evan Leibovitch: +1 what avri is saying about "ad hoc" experts in addition to 
the standing experts in the panel
Andrew Mack: two kinds of experts -- panelists plus specialized consultants 
based on very specific needs.  right?  if so, I agree 100%

In the current draft paragraph 79-80, this is the sense of that if somebody 
gets granted some support then depending on how successful they are the 
expectation is that they would pay it back into the fund.
We discussed at length people paying back to the fund, if you've gotten a grant 
to get equipment then you're able to pay that back into the fund, or pay it 
forward you have an obligation.  Don't know about those that got fee 
reductions, part of me says yes that should be included in the payback model 
but I don't know if we've ever discussed it.
Concerned about this in terms of our position on fee reduction, does it 
undermine our argument on fee reduction, we are arguing that some of these fees 
should apply to these people/regions, we objectify our broader argument. It may 
be read that way.
Disagree I don't think it undermines, if you become a financial success and 
whatever our reasons why these shouldn't apply, but if they get rich and they 
retroactivley put money in the pot for people who can't apply.  Only if they 
become very rich by it.
I would say they have an obligation.
I would not connect one to the other. If anyone becomes successful should have 
a payback but not connected as fee reduction payback.
Evan Leibovitch: If fee reduction is not being paid for by the fund "paying it 
back" into the fund is problematic

Carlton Samuels: @Andrew: rebate on fee reduction might be misconstrued unless 
we make the case it is if they are successful!
avri: Andrew I can accept such a wording
Carlton Samuels: @Andrew:  Make it if you are successful, then give something 
back, this I can agree
Evan Leibovitch: "fee reduction" repayment should go directly to ICANN. Fund 
repayment goes to the fund. IMO
avri: well if the reserve + risk has been paid back from auction does not make 
sense to also have it paid back from the fundee.  i think it should go into the 
fund for the future.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Off to ALAC call.
Carlton Samuels: @Evan: I can support your pay into place!
Reimbursing may be appropriate, not paying back.  Discount becomes an all or 
nothing thing we can't say we're giving you this discount because that's all 
you need.  We can expect where they get no other support other than the 
discount which covers more than their needs therefore, (or more than they need) 
so the concept of putting something back into it is very reasonable, it may not 
be repay, need another word for it, it's problematic if there's no obligation.
Concept is that if you're successful you should put something back in the fund, 
should be clear about success and giving something back to the community into 
the text.



Wendy Profit
Executive Assistant to Kurt Pritz
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way | Ste 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA
tel +1 310 578 8695 | http://icann.org<http://icann.org/>
One World. One Internet.