[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS Drafting Group Call 23 August 2011

[Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx>]

JAS Drafting Group Call
23 August 2011
One recommendation that the fees are reduced, another that they are staggered.  
So we are asking for "and"?
That's one possible outcome.
Evan didn't want to see that.  I want to avoid the staggering as an alternative.
It's asked as a totally separate point.
I could live with it.  The staggering that we're talking about is in line with 
the rebate should the app not go through to completion. How the 47k would be 
staggered is not mapped to that. We can't say in line with the rebate.
As long as we understand with respect to the staggered. As long as we make it 
clear that these aren't linked.  We asked fee reduction and another that 
whatever the decision you stagger the payment.
I'll go with that.
Given the politic of the current situation and based on the staff support this 
is deeply important. This is going to be a fee reduction.
Teeth gritting moment for me as well.
For the record like you I will make an adjustment support it and move it along. 
I take alan's word, while I have a position, we need to make some reference to 
it.
There's always the possibility the board will reject the community 
recommendation.
The fee that is left may be substantial enough that staggering is warranted.
Copied Evan's text that he used last night.
Essentially the same taking out the 'if you're not going to do the other one.'
This is major if we can resolve it, I saw Evan's note and it satisfied, so this 
one is out of the way if I could just get Rafik.
NEXT, it would make sense if you had a candidate that was looking at scripts to 
complement their scripts, that is a script that complements their latin script, 
some special consideration for the bundling. Minority should be at least 
recorded that there's some sense in the group that this would be useful and in 
the public interest even if we don't say how. We should at least note it.
One of the ..if the fees are reduced to 47k then a lot of the bundling issues 
go away because you could have 3 or 4 and not be at the 185. If the board goes 
along with fee reduction then bundling is not an issue.  Would need a number of 
IDN scripts, GAC ALAC statement required policy changes that would n't be 
addressed by a document that we would do, just get in line with their statement.
That would at least show some....to the idea of it.  My sense is that the way 
it is in the text brings insufficient attention to it.  Though there is not 
consensus, it's worth it to show there's some minority consensus. If you go to 
the GAC ALAC statement and reference it in this way, it will be satisfactory.
Do you remember what the substantive issues were to why they objected to 
bundling.
Why would you even need to do an app for multiple strings, there's no need to 
bother and some was personal on Andrew for a while he was coming off as a 
single issue person, when it was decoupled and especially some for the 
applicants are going to be community based, that being the case there might be 
a number wanting multiple iDNs. I don't remember the objections because I 
didn't agree with them, it was going to be a nightmare evaluating multiple 
strings.  Sorry, the big objection required modification to the Guidebook.  
Believe that most of what we could do to bundling would require changing the 
Applicant Guidebook
We are now recommending that the app process be changed that the fee is 
different. If the app had a second app is is different from the character 
string , whatever the number, don't thin k it requires change to the guidebook.
IT might look a little dry but it's rationale.
Paragraph, what you put in the chat, the last sentence in the statement about 
staggering.
Previous sentence that has to be fleshed out a little.  We need to add a little 
bit of what mean if it's not somewhere else.
Agree on the sentiment itself, start with what evan has proposed in principle, 
yes that what I want to emphasize that we agree on that.
Distinction between the other one which alan put out and tijani have a problem, 
start with criteria, I think what alan said was sufficient and that's what I 
would support.
Tijani has been strong, Avri has agreed that content not of the domain but of 
the intent.
Talking about the section where it said about financial criteria that it was 
the primary one but it conflict with the previous one.
I hope Rafik do you have a list or major point, he lost the sound.
Give Seth and I the remainder of today and we'll get out another version dubbed 
8.23.2011 and you can have 48 hours.
Have you fixed the problem with the comments? Yes, even Andrew's comments 
required rigging it and cut/paste. We're going to try to process that today and 
give everyone 36 hours.
Will have the changes and will leave in the comments that are not resolved.

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.