[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] RE: Avri, Alan : here is the Webinar power point for you review
Dear Alan, Thank you for your feedback. Please see answers below and adjusted slides attached. Are you comfortable with the sequence? Thank you, Karla Valente Director, gTLD Registry Programs Mobile: +1 310 936 4639 From: alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:50 PM To: Karla Valente; Avri Doria Cc: SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Avri, Alan : here is the Webinar power point for you review Not having seen anything, I have reviewed the presentation hand have a number of points below. So changes, some questions about what an item in the report means. I am comfortable doing either 1st or second half. So Avri can choose. Alan ====================== Comments and questions: 1. Suggest putting slide numbers on slides Done 2. On slide 3, what is meaning of blue/black/red? Blue is the overall program Black process related terms Red candidate related terms So we differentiate process, people and overall goal when we speak. We can have all in black if you prefer. 3. On slide 9, the lower left oval is not attached to Service to Public. Is this a subtle message? Formatting issues when I copied and pasted from another presentation. Adjusted 4. On slide 10: "An applicant for a gTLD string that is not a generic word intended to reference a specific commercial entity (commonly referred to within ICANN as a "dot-brand");" If that is what the report says, I think we got it wrong. That would rule out Apple (a generic word intended to reference the computer company), but would not rule out .greenberg, the TLD that I plan to apply for my for-profit consulting company (it is not a generic word). Would also let in .ibm, .sanyo.... This is what the reports says - copied and pasted: "An applicant for a gTLD string that is not a generic word intended to reference a specific commercial entity (commonly referred to within ICANN as a "dot-brand")" Perhaps in this slide just say "An applicant for a gTLD string that is intended to reference a specific commercial entity (commonly referred to within ICANN as a "dot-brand");" and worry about the report separately. Done 5. Slide 12/3: I thought we said that the fee reduction is not "Financial Support" with upper case F/S. And we should explicitly say somewhere that this reduction is not to be funded by the $2m+ (perhap we do later but I haven't got there yet). Was not meant as financial support in the context the report has, but Fee Considerations. I changed to Fee Considerations. Does it make more sense now? 6. On slide 19, do you have any idea what "Evidence of any previous project fund" means? Which project?? This is from the report. I think this is an implementation detail to be finalized. 7. On same slide: "Recommendations regarding the ability to form a sustainable operation". Rec from whom?? Perhaps means References from people? Also from the report. I think this is an implementation detail to be finalized. 8. Will slide 21 actually display properly?? It does on my computer and on Adobe as I tested today. I made few adjustments. Please see how it displays on your computer now. 9. Slide 22: Consideration by GNSO, ALAC and THEN Board. Added "then" 10. Same slide: "Publication of MR2 for Summary Analysis"?? "Perhaps Publication of MR2 Comment Summary Analysis"? Done + added few clarifications on languages availability. At 14/09/2011 04:38 PM, Karla Valente wrote: Dear Avri, Alan, Please see attached the first draft of the power point for the webinar. I kept it simple, but it still have many slides and we need to be mindful about the Q&A. In order to do reviews, I suggest the following process: 1. Avri and Alan decide on which part each will present 2. Avri sends to Alan suggested reordering of slides based on sequence agreed + changes to content 3. Alan sends Final to Karla Does this work for you? If yes, once this is done, I will ensure the ppt is ready and uploaded in the system for our dry-run and webinars. The presentation total time is 90 minutes. I have sent the proposal below and I did not hear any objections. Let me know if you are still in agreement. Proposed structure of presentation: 1 minute (Karla) - explain the webinar structure, remind Q&A at the end. Introduce Carlton and Rafik. Open to suggestions if you want someone else to do this. 1 minute (Carlton) - welcome, explain what the JAS WG is, how long has it been working, how is composed, its goal. 1 minute (Rafik) - explain the next steps (GNSO, ALAC consideration) + public comment + Dakar board consideration and special session. Introduce Avri and Alan. 20 minutes (Avri) 20 minutes (Alan) Remaining time: Q&A moderated by Rafik and/or Carlton. Note I will help to gather questions from the chat. Thank you, Karla Valente Director, gTLD Registry Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: + 1 310 301 3878 Mobile: +1 310 936 4639 Skype: kdlvalente Attachment:
JAS WG Webinar.pdf Attachment:
JAS WG Webinar.pptx
|