[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG Meeting Notes 13 September 2011

[Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx>]

JAS WG Meeting notes
13 September 2011

First update about the reports Seth and Rob to collect and waited for comments 
and corrections from WG members. What are the next steps we should have the 
latest and final version soon.
Yes we are hours away from completion, largely formatting and editorial, need 
to add attendance, need Lynn Lipinksi for formatting and today discussing final 
report with anyone who is going to help with these last steps and finish it.  
The only change since last meeting is consulting with staff meeting with the 
way attendance is added to the reports.  We are going to add a list of all WG 
members with specific attendance for each meeting.
The co-chairs will make the final, we don't have much time.  Going tomorrow to 
send motion for GNSO council so the report should be submitted at that time.
CLO: We agreed to the appendix for documenting attendance already, happy to 
have an imbedded hyperlink to a wiki page spread sheet  for details on 
attendance to meetings  etc.,
I think we can go for discussion about the ...(?)
Summary of the public comments and we want to look at them and ask for your 
help in ensuring the responses are in keeping with the discussion of what 
transpired as well as what you can hear. The summary analysis text has been 
placed in the notes section.
I won't be able to place all of it in adobe so I placed it in the wiki as well.
It's already there so not changing the link to the wiki.
There are actually 4 so can we go over the basic summaries?  If you can just 
give some dialogue to that.
For the public comments I tried to group them by categories of topics so this 
is what you see. Comment and at the end in italic the source of the comment, 
the commenter.  The general comment you will see we agree, disagree, and why 
and then later on you'lll see more specific comments, i.e. eligibility for 
support. This is how we ordered the grid.  We can look at original comments and 
look at blocks of feedback and then look at support.  Those blocks are 
underlined and at the end of block say analysis of the wg is...
So the entire draft is on the wiki landing page and you'll see the block 
comments so can we agree to go through them block by block?
An hour and ½ is not enough time so let's not focus on the ones where people 
are agreeing with us.
Agreed.
[chat]
Evan Leibovitch: Truth be told, this is completely backwards..... adressing the 
comments to the interim document AFTER the final one is almost completely 
locked down.
avri: Evan, I disagree, we should be answering how we repsonded.  we should not 
be changing the components of the final report.
avri: we did discuss the comments at an eairier time.
Alan Greenberg: Avri, the issue is that if we had formally reviewed the 
comments prior to finalization, we might well have read something we had not 
thought of and changed the result. BUt it is sadly too late for that now.
Evan Leibovitch: oh well. water under bridge
avri: but we had read them and did act on them.
Karla Valente: JAS WG response: The JAS WG notes the support for the process 
and thanks the respondents.
Alan Greenberg: Then it is unfortunate that we did not document that 
discussion...
avri: that is what we need to do now.  document what we did and why we did it.
avri: the what we did is clear from the final draft.  the why is easy in the 
case we did what they wanted.  harder when we didn't - that requires recall.
avri: what we can't do is start recosidering everyhting, or even anything.

Can we agree that support be included in this round and that's what JAS WG has 
read the comments and thank the respondents?
In general yes my remembrance for the conversation is that the group is in 
sync.  There was a proposal for a different time.  And I did not have any 
remembrance. I think in light of it I think we should consider... yes longer 
application for developing economy.  I actually don't remember discussing it. I 
remember that we should be treating applicants once they enter into the 
procedural stage...
I thought we were doing the section with the underlined title headings and 
we're doing the next section.
We talked about timing a bunch and never came to any conclusion.  Given the 
short time and the dependent schedule there's nothing we can do about it.  We 
couldn't agree among ourselves if it should start immediately or at the 
beginning of the application process, we had some discussion and couldn't agree 
on that and pretty much left timing up to the staff.
Are you agreeing with CLO's?
Not sure, I'm agreeing it's not part of thank you and we love you, but 
disagreeing that we talked about timing and weren't able to agree and left it 
to staff to come up with.
[chat]
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I agree with Cheryl. Never heard a discussion about 
different time frames; Did I miss it?

I believe it's way out of scope and unlikely to happen, would've discarded it 
way way earlier.
Support Alan, it's way out of scope, it would drag everything out, in the end 
opinion is that it's out of scope and impractical.  That's the kind of response 
that would be possible here and keep us honest.
I wonder, it looks as though this statement has crept into the report as a 
comment, rather than being discussed from the WG itself, asking staff that no 
other comments made their way into the report.
Can you clarify?  I see it in the summary of comments not the document.
Clear about what this is a clustering of analysis or summary points, we are 
attempting to in short order to respond to that in text that can be added to 
final report to show community that we've considered their comments.  Karla's 
grouping that we can say thank you for supporting the JAS WG, I propose we say 
several comments that we received comments, and on longer application period  
this was (insert transcripts here) this  is an outlier and doesn't belong with 
the others.
We are required to review and comment on the comments, I don't think it needs 
to be included in the report.
Reason we're dealing with this is so it can be included in the report, others 
are horrified, if it doesn't then I'm delighted.
We're including these as part, we don't have to put it in the report but 
certainly have to point to it.
We can do it in a space on the web.
This isn't something that has to be in the report, part of the corporate 
information that needs to surround the report.  Consider that as working 
hypothesis.
I didn't realize people thought this was going into the report. Something 
separate that discusses how the comments were addressed.  Time pressures final 
report is being delivered before these things are published.  Final report 
doesn't need to point to to that, perhaps in the letter sent with the final 
report to the chartering organization.
This is a best effort, let's just continue.  Now we are at the part about 
overall process.  This is a little bit complicated.  There are 3 elements here. 
First is really well we got a gift but it's not big enough and we want to say 
so, the other one is a little bit different and says what we are saying, 3rd I 
don't know what to say about that.
I would suggest "so noted, thank you" is the best we can do with that. Let me 
hear what Alan and AVri say.
On the first I don't think we need to argue but we've said the discount 
shouldn't be...we are agreeing I think they are talking about...this is out of 
our scope do we need to agonize about it more?
First of all how grateful we are for the board gift we have seen it as a seed 
for the fund, them setting up a foundation, we agree it's needed and more is 
needed, create a foundation, get more money. Second  is part of the work 
whatever we call the committee who reviews applications and ....how foundation 
is going to raise funds.  We went to board and said thanks for the wonderful 
gift here, use it to grow more.
Just to be accurate it's not true that the budget is for...it's for one part.  
It's not to say there's enough money for this communication.
[chat]
Seth Greene: Carlton and Rafik, with your permission, Rob and I will leave the 
call now in order to continue polishing the Report -- to ensure getting it to 
the Co-Chairs asap today.  Thanks very much, and you will hear from us later 
today.  Thank you all for what has been a productive drafting effort.
Carlton Samuels: Very well,Seth.  Thanks to both Rob and you
Rafik: @Seth&Rob thank you very much :)
Karla Valente: JAS WG response: The JAS WG, in its Final Report, is proposing a 
parallel process.
Karla Valente: JAS WG response: The JAS WG thanks the respondents and is 
thankful for the Board for this seed money. JAS WG agrees that there should be 
more the 2 million and this is why JAS WG final recommendations incorporate the 
fees decrease proposal. Moreover, the Jas WG recommends a foundation where this 
seed money serves as a start and more funds are raised in the future. See final 
report for detailed proposal.
avri: yep that works for me Karla.
CLO: Yes the last (3rd) comment is out of scope for JAS-WG  IMO
Karla Valente: JAS WG response: The JAS WG thanks the respondents and is 
thankful for the ICANN Board for allocating this "seed" money. JAS WG agrees 
that there should be more than $2 million and this is why in its Final Report 
recommendations suggest fees to be decreased. Moreover, the JAS WG recommends a 
foundation where this seed money serves as a start and more funds are raised in 
the future. See final report for detailed proposal.
CLO: Ok  for the draft Karla has proposed
CLO: on audio only for a short while
Karla Valente: The campaign outreach comment is welcomed, but the JAS WG 
believes it is outside the WG's scope.
There was an ALAC-GAC comment about best practices, might I suggest we did 
mention we'd provide info and in general ICANN will help users throughout the 
process assistance, etc.  Would it be useful to refer to that proposal of the 
WG and leave it at that?  Could we embrace this comment as part of our 
recognition that the support applicants might need application help and so on 
as part of best practice might be one way to address this, would you agree?  
Part of it is how to include help in writing the application itself. We embrace 
this practice of making templates available to help guide this practice.
So now we are at applicant training. It's there in the chat.
Troubled saying we embrace templates. I support the comments but it's not for 
ICANN to make the templates otherwise they are answering the questions they 
created.
Come up with ways to help and these are some excellent suggestions and we hope 
that the authors will help come up with specific instruments to help.  Did we 
say anything about continuity instrument?
Only that the period should be shortened.
We can point that on the continuity instrument there have been other 
suggestions from the community at large, that the JAS supports but it's not a 
JAS only issue but a much broader.  In general I think the consensus was that 
this was a larger topic than us so we make an easy recommendation shorten for 
these guys.
Karla Valente: The best practices comment, the JAS WG recognized that there 
will be extensive help required and having templates, best practices and other 
guidelines are good suggestions. The overall concept supported, nonetheless, 
this type of help should come from expert community members and not ICANN.
Good start, I think a couple more words could be added, types of community aid, 
add something as community members encourage you to help with these materials 
as far as you can, generalize it, that is something that we are recommending, 
that the community come to the aid of the JAS qualified application with a non- 
financial mechanism.
Karla Valente: Best practices comment: the JAS WG recognized that there will be 
extensive help required and having templates, best practices and other 
guidelines are good suggestions. The overall concept supported, nonetheless, 
this type of help should come from expert community members and not ICANN. 
There are various suggestions made in the Final report to the type of community 
support that could be used. JAS WG encourages the community to come to the aid 
of JAS qualified applicants in the non-financial assistance mechanism.
Then we'll probably need to do a walk-through of answers at a later time. Karla 
doesn't need to wordsmith now.
Are there any more comments in this area? Can we move to the second community 
awareness developing economies, pulls together all the....it takes longer to 
make the community aware in those communities we wish to help.  That's how I'm 
reading it here.
I think we need to say we're aware of the issue but it's not in our scope to 
delay the overall program.  In terms of defining a final cost, we have done 
that exclusively with regard to the fees so take credit for that and go one.
We didn't finish communications/awareness in developing economies....
There's a stock answer that perhaps Karla can craft on any of these training, 
non-financial support, part of the JAS solution rests on the good graces of the 
community to help in outreach, in training, in whatever as part of the 
clearinghouse on non-financial assistance, we encourage YOU as a knowledgeable 
member of the community to put together proposals that can be done by the 
members of the community as forms of non-financial support...to basically take 
these answers and say don't just comment, come and help.
Minor modification proposal, pacific island ISOC ... what you said Avri is fine 
but I think PICISOC and island and small states would like to see a clear 
commitment and facilitation in their local areas.  It's work together as 
opposed to come and help.

[chat]
Karla Valente: Best practices comment: the JAS WG recognized that there will be 
extensive help required and having templates, best practices and other 
guidelines are good suggestions. The overall concept supported, nonetheless, 
this type of help should come from expert community members and not ICANN. 
There are various suggestions made in the Final report to the type of community 
support that could be used. JAS WG encourages the community to come to the aid 
of JAS qualified applicants in the non-financial assistance mechanism.
Rafik: the communication already started
Karla Valente: JAS WG response: The JAS agrees this is an issue; however, 
control over this issue is outside the JAS WG's scope. JAS WG encourages the 
community, with its knowledgeable members, to help with outreach and created 
local awareness as much as possible.

What Cheryl is saying is that we understand their needs and we fully accept 
community help to create...we can recognize the facilitation rule...
What Karla's put perhaps marrying those sentences together would work fine.  
Point is that needs to be a partnership interaction not just a one way help.
The whole clearinghouse notion is that it's a partnership.
Need to put it in the language.
Each one of these canned answers are customized but it's the same answer.  All 
the ways the community can help.  Bottom up and capability, blah blah blah.
The next two I'll need guidance on this.  Actually a ?horse  of the same color. 
Essentially to me one of the main reasons for developing this WG is to 
encourage and support equity of access.  One of the things the WG is fully 
cognizant of and the incentives for equity of access in like manner?
Our charter clearly says do all of this but do not delay the program.  To say 
doing it prior is clearly out of our scope, appreciate the sentiments, other 
than what we've already done encourage people to help and spread the word.
Extract and separate and focus on part that says WG should .... Kind of out of 
scope.  Maybe something that needs to be noted and put on next steps to do or 
not take it off the agenda type proposal.  Concerned it hasn't been chewed over 
properly.
Can you read the last sentence?
As written in the analysis presented, 29 July 2011 WG should consider financial 
assistance for those who are not able to seek redress through channels 
particularly if legal costs of stakeholders are prohibitive....  that was in 
reference to culturally unique symbols, cultural groups.
I see nothing allotting legal assistance...
Recommending that support be granted and Alan gave a response that covered it.
The SARP panel could decide to allot contingent funds to offset legal costs 
should there be challenges.  We not said what kind of financial support the 
SARP could allot. And contingent legal funds is something it could do.  We're 
not ruling it out.  They could do it.
I think we could accept Alan's as sufficient.
Karla Valente: JAS WG response: The JAS agrees this is an issue; however, 
control over this issue is outside the JAS WG's scope. JAS WG encourages the 
community, with its knowledgeable members, to help with outreach and created 
local awareness as much as possible. The JAS WG believes ICANN should provide 
support to local communities to assist with outreach activities. The Final 
Report is describing in more details the concept of a staff community 
partnership.
Tijani suggests addressing the final report before the call ends, Karla will 
try to get Seth and Rob to rejoin the call.
Embraces the concept of providing support that others ...might have financial 
implications.  WG recognizes the list is not exhaustive, the panel or 
foundation finds it fit can extend support. Would that be sufficient?
Paragraph 65 - for support candidate for...
Paragraph 66b, we put the link to GAC and ALAC recommendation good but we 
didn't do in paragraph 20 for 70,000 dollars we either have to put it in 20 or 
move it form 66, if we have to give the link.
We can put the link there too.
I don't think we need to put it here for the board, the recommendation, 
initially near consensus but you see what I mean at the end we say nothing.  I 
don't think it's a good think to put it in our report right here.
So remove that bullet?
We either need to decide the question or give a recommendation.
Do you have an edit?
We can think about it.
We're not giving a recommendation we are silent on it.
If you say it like that you are not silent you are admitting the question.
I think we can't be silent on it.  It was an exclusive recommendation from the 
GAC and we leaving it open to further delineation. We're making a rec, we're 
saying we're not rejecting it - we're not coming to closure on it, leaving the 
issue open.
Too important to be silent, we're not rejecting it we just couldn't come to 
closure.
Yes it's left open.
Best to acknowledge the comment and move on.
Agree not to removal or remaining silent.
Feel it's important to keep the placeholder and move on.

[chat]
CLO: I do Not support removal of the paragraph  OR to onremain silent on the 
issue raised by GAC
Evan Leibovitch: It should be reminded that the GAC was made jointly with one 
of the JAS sponsoring organizations. It's also the ALAC position now too.
Evan Leibovitch: "GAC _statement_
Evan Leibovitch: IE, it's a mistake to paint this as GAC vs JAS.
avri: if there was any change, i would recommend replacing the word recommend 
with advice in the last sentence.
Krista Papac: +1 alan
avri: as this indicates that they won't be making a recommendation to us at 
this point, but will be giving advice to the Board
avri: but i am not arguing for this, just throwing it into the confusion - 
albeit late - i am a slow thinker sometimes.

Webinar is Monday 19 September, we're going with slides being finalized this 
week intended to answer 5 or so questions.  Co-chairs will moderate; will 
depend on expert advice from Avri and Alan, who have graciously volunteered.
Who were volunteered, not even while on the phone, I believe it's conscripted.
Very focused questions, will take enough institutional memory about the output 
and what we have accomplished.
Some of you may know ...I share Olivier's comment that he's disappointed it's 
not being translated in Spanish and French. I share that.
I do see Olivier's comment and we share that.
Just noting it.
Thank you for noting it and our constituency is very touchy on that.
The plan now is the final edits to be made to the report.
Evan Leibovitch: Doing the webinar English only means that it's not necessarily 
targeted at the economies that could most benefit from what the WG is doing. 
This -- more than many other efforts -- is worth of i18n treatment