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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>