Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Additional comments on PPT presentation for Webinar

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I was worried about including my own opinions while being the WG mouthpiece.  
But I suppose I can stick to just giving the WG opinion.  I do not think that I 
should get into arguing my own positions in this particular venue.

Indeed my view on this does seem similar to the RrSG view, though they do not 
say anything about waiting for the SEP to start with TAS payment.  Then again 
they do make the point about doing anything prior to the general announcement 
of strings is very similar to Expression of Intent (EOI), except that it is an 
EOI only for support applicants.    BTW, how do we handle the confidentiality 
of support applicant's strings?  Don't remember what we said in anything about 
that during the SEP process.  but if these strings are not kept confidential, 
then we can expect that there will be a speculator applying for each and every 
one of them.

While I have only read the RrSG's comments quickly once, I think they have good 
questions.  I think many are matters of explanation. Some are issue we hope get 
resolved in the implementation design.  Some fall on one side or the other of 
discussions we had in the group.  And some may have substantive issues.  I 
think they did a good job - in fact generally, I think the RrSG comments 
efforts are among the best in the GNSO, they always help me see another point 
of view on some issue or other.

avri

On 18 Sep 2011, at 14:09, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> On the timing, just say what it says, and add that personally, you felt ....  
>  I don't see anything wrong with saying this.
> 
> If my quick glance at it was correct, I think the RySG said the same thing.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 18/09/2011 01:06 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> In reading though the slides I have been volunteered for by Alan, i am 
>> generally fine with  his division,  I recommend the following changes:
>> 
>> slide 16 (17 when Alan's slide 13 is added) change 4th bullet to read:
>> 
>> The possible funding of proposals to create regional non-profit Registry 
>> Service Providers (RSP) to support multiple applicants for new gTLDs in 
>> developing economies
>> 
>> slide 17 (18) second major bullet
>> 
>> •ICANN should serve as a facilitator for this non-financial support by 
>> providing a clearinghouse function to assist Support-Approved Candidates and 
>> third-party donors in finding each other.
>> 
>> slide 18 (19)  first bullet, 2nd subbullet
>> 
>> - A specific service to the public interest
>> 
>> slide 19 (20) third bullet
>> 
>> Evidence of any previously funded projects showing degree of success in 
>> meeting goals of the project.
>> 
>> -  On 20-21  and the timing of the SEP I  think I was the single opponent of 
>> this timing.  I think it should continue through the end of the application 
>> period and perhaps beyond if staggered payment is accepted and should start 
>> with the beginning of the application period with the payment of the 5kusd 
>> TAS fee.  I am not trying to reopen a subject I was not successful on, but 
>> thinking I may not be the best person to argue why this is the right way to 
>> do things.  So perhaps this is better moved to Alan's pile.  I could take 
>> the first few slides and then transfer to Alan at slide 5.  though I am also 
>> fine with just moving then to after slide 12 (13).
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 18 Sep 2011, at 12:32, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> 
>> > 1. Slide 10, second bullet: Replace with "A governmental or para-statal 
>> > institution (BUT discussion with GAC continuing)"
>> >
>> > 2. Add a new bullet after the first bullet on slide 12: "The fee reduction 
>> > is to be separate from the financial support based on the Board allocated 
>> > $2m+;"
>> >
>> > 3. I suggest adding a new slide after the current slide 12.
>> >
>> > Title: Fee reduction and Cost Recovery
>> >
>> > Bullets:
>> > - GNSO Implementation Guideline B: "Application fees will be designed to 
>> > ensure that adequate resources exist to cover the total cost to administer 
>> > the new gTLD process. Application fees may differ for applicants."
>> >
>> > - Report suggests a number of ways that fee reduction can be funded 
>> > without the $2m+ and without impacting operational cost-recovery
>> >
>> > - Depending on exact number of total new gTLD Applicants and support 
>> > recipients, return to reserve of sunk costs may be reduced.
>> >
>> > 4. Current slide 18, second bullet: delete "is not a generic word and " as 
>> > was done with the same phrase on an earlier slide.
>> >
>> > LASTLY: On who does what, I suggest that I do slides 1-13 (current 1-12 
>> > plus the new 13 suggested above) and Avri does 14-24. Excluding the title, 
>> > agenda and further reading, that gives us roughly the same amount of work, 
>> > and will allow me to leave the 2nd session earlier bit earlier if needed.
>> >
>> > Do we plan to allow any questions during the presentation? I typically 
>> > like that, for simple clarifications but not long discussions, but I can 
>> > go either way.
>> >
>> > Alan
>> >
>> > 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?
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
> 
>