[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS Adobe Connect Chat transcript 26 August 2011

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Karla Valente: Welcome to the JAS WG August 26 Meeting.

Karla Valente: Please see the text for review (funds and foundation) on the pod 
to the right.

Robert Hoggarth: good day all

Seth Greene: Good day.

Carlton Samuels: Hi everybody

Karla Valente: the text starts at the bottom of the Notes 10 pod and then 
continues at the top of the Notes 12 pod

Carlton Samuels: Andrew Mack has joined the call

Alan Greenberg: Whoever is lowering hands while person speaking, please do 
not...

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Perhaps it would be a task for Dan Halloran to check 
what is ICANN allowed & not allowed to do

Alan Greenberg: But that is the first task for the Rec'd group. Why do we need 
to discuss it here????

Daniel Halloran: Olivier: Yes, I was going to note (as Avri did) that Paragraph 
23.A proposes that task as the first order of business for the "Board 
Foundation Recommendation WG"

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: good. thx.

Daniel Halloran: You're welcome.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: The new gTLD process will be ongoing. I cannot see a 
foundation winding down. A one shot foundation would be an absolute waste of 
resources. It costs $$ to set up a foundation etc.

Rafik: @ocl well another wg can work ont eh role of foundation after funding 
support for needy applicants :)  another round

Evan Leibovitch: something along the lines of .... "After the conclusion of the 
gTLD Application Round, once all appropriate appliocations have been processed, 
the Fund may be adapted to offer support to other organizations or projects to 
support the growth and implementation of the gTLD program in developing 
economies"

Daniel Halloran: Just a drafting note for the report: I'd refer to the "May 
2011 New gTLD Applicant Guidebook" (not the "Final" Applicant Guidebook).

Alan Greenberg: Evan, you are presuming that there are no other (non-new gTLD) 
things that might be deemed important to ICANN.

Alan Greenberg: to ICANN and its communitiy that is.

Evan Leibovitch: The money is being put in to support a specific function, and 
donors may not be happy to see their funds diverted to non-TLD program 
activities

Evan Leibovitch: I would prefer explicit mention of AC/SO participation

Robert Hoggarth: thanks avri . in para 24 I will underline the word "all".  

Rafik: @evan we are not going into details how the at board should be 
comnposed?!

Alan Greenberg: I should note that AC and SO are a mixed metaphor. AC's are 
equivalent to a SO COUNCIL. The ALAC equic of the GNSO is not the ALAC but 
At-Large.

Robert Hoggarth: para 26   would government grants be an e.g., in item f?

Rafik: @rob maybe gov, intgov organizations, etc

Evan Leibovitch: @Alan, maybe, but it's well understood. The ACs are each 
constituted differently (ie ALAC/GAC/etc) but referring to them generally 
refers to the bodies. It would be the AC that would actually make the 
appointments.

Alan Greenberg: Evan, true, but my comment was in reference to the "drawn from 
[] ACs"

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: 26 f. "external funding sources" - expand with examples 
because "external" does not strike as being explicit enough (ie. external to 
ICANN? The foundation would be external anyway, wouldn't it?

Robert Hoggarth: para 27 - no change

Robert Hoggarth: ok will add examples as Rafik suggests and others have 
supplemented) to para 27

Evan Leibovitch: methinks we may be over-engineering wording about material 
that in any case is outside the bounds of our mandate (ie, funds use outside 
the TLD program...

avri: i think para 32 is a mess and should be sliced and diced into 3 
components.

avri: 32.1  the recommendation in the first sences almost seems to belong 
before para 19

Andrew Mack: agreed that 32 needs a rework

avri: 32.2 rsp should be listed as an example under  31

avri: 32.3 SARP, should say that whne the applicants in a JAS Qualified 
applicant, they need to have their eligibility deptermined by SARP

Evan Leibovitch: @andrew: this is completely JAS-relevant because .... if the 
fund is NOT being used to reduce fees (because we recommend fee reduction) ... 
the fund is called upon to support novel ideas such as "buying a generator"

Evan Leibovitch: @alan: eh? Of *course* we need somewhere to define how some is 
deemed "JAS-qualified"... but it might not be done right in this section

Evan Leibovitch: something came up. I need to step away from the call for a bit.

Robert Hoggarth: para 32 - re-work based on Avri framework

Rafik: footnote, I do think that few people read appendix

Rafik: :)

Seth Greene: Avri and Alan, there is the wiki page on this, if you'd like to 
actually propose an explicit alternative.  Whatever is convenient.

Robert Hoggarth: i think the "i.e" parenthetical in para 40 can just come out 
and the statement stands on its own

Seth Greene: The info in the parenthetical would be available in the glossay 
(re "support-approved candidate"), if that's adequate.

Robert Hoggarth: will do.  will also augment para 40 per TB, AG and AD comments

avri: AM: I do not see your point.  this is a sperate pot and does not relate 
at all to what comes out of the foundation.

Evan Leibovitch: the issue was more than I thought.. sorry, I need to go.

avri: Good idea to add a sentence for clairifation on it being seperate except 
for info sharing.

Andrew Mack: agreed Avri.  that's all I was shooting for.  it wasn't clear as I 
read it the first few times, but I get your intent -- just want to make sure 
that we unintentionally don't get into grey area

Seth Greene: Recall that the wiki is available for further comments.

Seth Greene: Please, please.

avri: bye.  let me know if you need anything of me.  

Robert Hoggarth: tx.  we will stick with Support Approved Candidate and not 
change anything

Robert Hoggarth: we'll just make sure that is consistently used


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org