[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Chat Transcript from JAS WG Augus 30 Meeting

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Karla.Valente@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:Karla.Valente@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 5:49 AM
To: Karla Valente
Subject: Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD 
Applicant Support

  Gisella Gruber-White:Welcome to the JAS WG call on Tuesday 30 August 2011
  Seth Greene:Wiki page with today's text:  
https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+WG+Final+Report+--+30+Aug+2011+comments
  Seth Greene:Full text of report for review today:  
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/8455565/Draft_Final_Report_JASWG_20110826+%28RHv2SGv2%29%28clean%29.doc
  Alan Greenberg:VERY difficult to hear Rafik
  Seth Greene:Rafik, there is a problem with the AC Room, so the text for 
review should be accessed using the two links above, rather than the Notes pod 
as usual.  Thank you.
  avri:Re GNSO scheduling, have there any motions in the last 2 years that have 
not been defererd?
  Seth Greene:For review:  Introduction (p 4), Support Should Be Offered from 
1st Round Onward (p.5), FAQs (p 41), Appendix 1 (p 47), Appendix 2 (p 48), 
Appendix 3 (p 55).
  Alan Greenberg:Avri, don't have a count, but it has pretty much been almost 
standard and expected for substantive motions. The exception is when there was 
large advance notice and discussion (I think that PEDNR was one of these, but 
could be wrong).
  Alan Greenberg:I vote for Appendix if kept at all.
  Evan Leibovitch:agree with Alan
  Evan Leibovitch:Not in the body, have it in an appendix
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:???
  CLO:Yes  
  Robert Hoggarth:avri - I must confess, I barely know how to take my own hand 
down! 
  avri:did anyone speak in favro of keeping the FAQ?
  Evan Leibovitch:i did
  Evan Leibovitch:well, spoke in the chat
  CLO:yes  Alan  that is  *for me as well* true  they would need review  IF it 
is kept   
  avri:sorru i missed that.
  Alan Greenberg:Rob, just a single click on the hand icon at the very top of 
screen
  Rafik:dropped off from the call
  avri:what preponderance for keeping them?
  avri:i have and even commented since that was the homework for today
  avri:but i did not comment of  the need for each item to still be there.
  Evan Leibovitch:The coming ALAC and GNSO reviews may IMO come up with new 
questions.
  Alan Greenberg:avri, sorry, then I withdraw assuming you found nothing of the 
type I mentioned.
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:My feeling is that they'd feel at home in the 
Appendix. 
  Seth Greene:FAQs -- will be sep. supporting doc, after review.
  Rafik:back to the call
  CLO:Link to a living  document  space  workes  for me  YES  Avri  I agree ++
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:a wiki space makes sense. Thanks for the explanation 
Avri
  CLO:MUST be linked to from the report
  Seth Greene:Yes, we will add link to text within the document -- either in 
Appendix or main text.  Preferences?
  Alan Greenberg:@Seth, NO!! Link must be more prominent and not buried in an 
appendix
  Rafik:I do agree with alan
  Carlton Samuels:@Alan on FAQ link:  +1
  CLO:Yes  Alan  in the body of report
  Seth Greene:Got it.  Will put link prominently in main text.  Thanks.
  CLO:that is  bouler plate  stuff
  CLO:BOILER plate 
  CLO:yes  need to have them 
  Seth Greene:Will do, Avri.
  CLO:and  yes need to ensure consistancy  of terms in use in Doc
  Seth Greene:Will do, Cheryl.
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Cheryl speaks in Binary & we speak in Hex
  CLO:Oh  dear  never mind  I'm muted  but can Not unmute
  CLO:LOL
  CLO:  I'll type 
  CLO:OK  to  just go on  
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:1101 0110 0100 1001 1011
  CLO:note will be here
  CLO:  a staff AI  is to ensure the   links    XXXXX   etc.,  are  replaced 
and that they WORK   that is all
  CLO:much page hanges  etc.,  has happenned  
  CLO:hanges  = Changes
  CLO:agree with Avri and Alan
  CLO:need a walk through  or  Toilet  for these oments  etc.,
  CLO:oments  = Comments   *sigh*
  CLO:when can we start then
  avri:so why don't we start finding the comments and spend the next 30 minutes 
getting started.  my first is at para 19
  CLO:no we can niot just remove them  they lead to substantive  issue  in some 
cases
  Rafik:@clo removing reference to person but not removing the comments per se 
:)
  CLO:comments  shouod  be ratified  if they are to be a WG  supported  view  
not just an Individuals  comment
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:Agree with Evan
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:The JAS WG had a report to write. Its only failure 
would be not to submit a report in time.
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:As long as the report is written and the WG has 
addressed the work it has been mandated to do by the Board resolution, it has 
completed its job successfully
  Robert Hoggarth:we'll look forward to seeing Andrew's suggestions circulated 
to the WG and the subsequent consensus on whether to accept new langauge OR 
excise current para 19 (b)
  Evan Leibovitch:The main point on this had been advanced by Eric, but he's no 
longer here to provide detail
  Andrew Mack:Rob, I can give some background, as I've had numerous discussions 
with Eric on this.
  Robert Hoggarth:thank youvery much Andrew!
  CLO:Yes   I argued  before  for  NOT using  specific   dollar  values  but  
proportions   etc.,   5 of   cost  etc.,
  CLO:shouod  read   %   or as  Avri said  multipliers     etc.,  throughout  
the full  report  text
  CLO:Agree with Avri
  CLO:happy with  that approach  Rob 
  CLO:for  20 /2
  CLO:21 
  CLO:agree with Alans  approach  for c  yes
  Carlton Samuels:@Alan for 19(c): +1
  CLO:I'd  ditch  d
  CLO:19 d
  CLO:yes  must  be viable  text to provide IPv6 requirement  nit reducing the 
requirement
  CLO:nit = Not
  Evan Leibovitch:I agree with clearer wording but still think some kind of 
deferral is not going against the IPV6 intentions
  Carlton Samuels:@Avri on 19 (d) : +1
  Evan Leibovitch:I oppose removing 19d
  Alan Greenberg:Evan - why?  It is already there for non-financial support.
  avri:well then 19d has to be downgraded from consensus to some supporty or 
strong support.
  Alan Greenberg:I would support keeping it purely as SARP granting $ to help 
meet IPv6 operations.
  avri:one reason for including it.  the Board will need some things to say no 
to.
  Evan Leibovitch:19d obligates ICANN to try to soften the blow rather than 
leaving it to discretionary SARP funds
  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:we can keep the same schedule of calls
  Seth Greene:And for the drafting call, please just stay on this same line 
(same Adigo code).  We need not hang up.
  Evan Leibovitch:this call is not adigo ;-)
  Seth Greene:Ah, yes, Evan.  Thank you.  Let's just stay on this line.
  avri:'little niggling comments' ? nice description!
  CLO:ok thanks  bye  all  NOT  staying  on for drafting  call  BYE
  avri:oh, niggling comments, not little niggling comments.
  avri:niggle: cause slight but persistent annoyance, discomfort, or anxiety
  avri:Evan, it is nonetheless not a fee reduction!!!