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

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri

Thanks for the clarification, as I was frantically checking my emails looking 
for a comment from the registrars and thought I was losing my mind!

Regards

Michele

On 18 Sep 2011, at 19:41, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> oops.  Correction.
> 
> The comments were from the RySG and not the RrSG.  My comments are also about 
> the RySG's comments.  
> 
> Indeed my view on this does seem similar to the RySG 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 RySG'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 RySG 
> comments efforts are among the best in the GNSO, they always help me see 
> another point of view on some issue or other.
> 
> 
> Not that I often don't learn things from the RrSG comments as well.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 18 Sep 2011, at 14:31, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845