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