[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Final Presentation for webinar - please see attached - 1 hour from now to make changes.
Dear Avri, Alan, Please see attached the revised presentation. If I understood correctly the latest exchange of e-mails, I am not to reorder the slides and Avri will present the slides 20-21 (now 21-22) after adding the slide requested by Alan. If this understanding is not correct, let me know until 6:00pm (Pacific) otherwise I will upload in Adobe the presentation as it. Thank you so much for your feedback. Kind regards, Karla Valente Director, gTLD Registry Programs Mobile: +1 310 936 4639 -----Original Message----- From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 11:53 AM To: Avri Doria; SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] correction was Re: [] Re: Additional comments on PPT presentation for Webinar Just for the record, I have no problem with mentioning (but not arguing for) your position, all the more so because it was echoed by the RySG. But that is your call. I agree with your thoughts on the RySG comments in general. Don't always agree with the content, but they have always done their homework and contribute thoughtfully. A model of others to follow. Will be interesting if they can continue this level of thoroughness when they grow in size. Alan At 18/09/2011 02:41 PM, 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >> > > > > > > Attachment:
JAS WG Webinar.pptx |