[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] RE: Final Presentation for webinar - please see attached - 1 hour from now to make changes.

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

No problem. I will upload this one.

Karla Valente
Director, gTLD Registry Programs
Mobile:  +1 310 936 4639


-----Original Message-----
From: alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 6:15 PM
To: Karla Valente; Avri Doria; SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Final Presentation for webinar - please see attached - 1 hour from 
now to make changes.

Karla and Avri, here is a revised version with the formatting on slides 12 and 
13 slightly changed. If the presentation is already uploaded, you can let it 
stand as it was. Alan

At 18/09/2011 07:46 PM, Karla Valente wrote:
>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
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>