[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] RE: Avri, Alan : here is the Webinar power point for you review

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 15/09/2011 07:56 PM, Karla Valente wrote:
> Dear Alan,
>
> Thank you for your feedback. Please see answers 
> below and adjusted slides attached.
> Are you comfortable with the sequence?
I really didn't have time to focus on that. What 
is the deadline for final changes before Monday (if it is now, so be it...)
See further comments below.

Alan

> 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.
No that is fine.



> 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.
I will put it to the group.




> 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.
Looks ok.




> 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