Seth Greene: ALAC EXCOM CHAT: 28 APRIL 2011 -- SINGLE-SUBJECT CALL ON JAS WG
Seth Greene: Hello, everyone.
Seth Greene: JAS WG wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+Working+Group+(JAS-WG)
Seth Greene: JAS workspace (Google; Evan, etc.; permission needed): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I-IVkCztUoHMEwYYEtEOW6FM7itXjGXDT_DbcBY0A8Y/edit?hl=en_GB#
Seth Greene: ALAC EXCOM 28 April 2011 meeting pg/agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/alacexcomm/ALAC+ExCom+28.04.11+Teleconference
Seth Greene: Hi, Tijani.
Seth Greene: Hi, everyone.
Evan Leibovitch: ok, it works
CLO: Finally loaded *sogh*
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: bravo!
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: What agendas?
Evan Leibovitch: https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations
CLO: The issues we MUST have the WG produce are the ones that are in Charter AND meet the specific criteria questions we are meant to answer
CLO: questions raised by the board and resultant fron the Board GAC interactions...
CLO: That (the Bertrand input) *perhaps deals with SOME aspects of the WG 's activities under parts 1c and 1f to a lesser extent form the Charter
CLO: it is 1a and 1b that we MUST also address by the May 9th deadline to build such implementaion concepts upon IMO
CLO: What I hear from the details of this panel and fund form etc., is still implemetation rather than a sift and sort of who can be esstablished as qualifying for JAS pathway
CLO: and yes would benefit from wider ICANN Community inout such as is being proposed...
Evan Leibovitch: the charter calls for outside expertise (1a). None has been identified, let alone brought onboard
CLO: actually ion several calls that matter has been discussed and Avri lead that topic Evan
Evan Leibovitch: Avri is gone
Evan Leibovitch: The basic questions:
CLO: None of the reports from the WT's was propoerly captured fomr the reports they gave again and again and agin
Evan Leibovitch: 1) who qualifies?
Evan Leibovitch: 2) what does someone get once approved?
CLO: the drafting WT is clearly working on material but the WG is NOIT looking at their material produced in an organised or orchistrated way yet
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: would Karla be able to put some shape to the pages?
Evan Leibovitch: so here we are, on *this* call, arguing over the basics of the criteria.... revisiting issues that were agreed to in the Milestone Report. And you wonder why we're moving so slow.
CLO: what we need from the JAS WG at this stage IS the basics of the criteria as a consensus agreed "list" from the WG for ICANN to consider
Evan Leibovitch: And that's part 3 of the wiki
Evan Leibovitch: though the formula that combines them is yet to be determined
CLO: Yes Evan and the WG has not gone through that part and discussed / developed any concensus on what is listed in that part
CLO: the non finaciao supports have been discussed just as lots have not been complete;y captured discussed and agreed upon by the WG
Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I realise that time is passing by and we are overtime but we need a clear roadmap of AIs
Evan Leibovitch: I also want to be clear on something of which I had not been previously aware... that within the ExCom there is *Not* agreement that ICANN should reduce its fees for quaiified applicants?
Evan Leibovitch: I would also not that, even in comments to the DAG, the Board's unlikelihood of removing the DRSP has not changed our assertion that doing so is against the public good.
Evan Leibovitch: So I am uneasy about making our own recommendations based on what the Board is likely to do.
Evan Leibovitch: Second Milestone Report?
Evan Leibovitch: is there an action item to get back to Bretrand to indicate support for Singapore meeting, and to ask for his help in getting Board participation?
Evan Leibovitch: BTW. in the Skype chat used by the drafting team, the window title is "the fluffy bunnies of JAS"
