ALAC Executive Committee Teleconference: Extraordinary single-subject meeting regarding JAS WG
Date: Thursday 28 April 2011
Time: 13:00 - 14:00 UTC . For the time in various timezones click here
Meeting Number: AL.EXCO/CC.0411/3
How can I participate in this meeting?
Who is on the dial out list for this meeting?
Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/alacexcomaprjul2011/
Participants: Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Evan Leibovitch
Apologies/ Absent: Carlton Samuels
Staff: Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White
Summary Minutes: ALAC ExCom 28.04.11 Summary Minutes
Action Items: ALAC ExCom 28.04.11 Action Items
Chat: ALAC ExCom 28.04.11 Chat
Recording: English
Interpretation: none
Transcript: ALAC ExCom 28.04.11 Transcript
ALAC ExCom agenda:
Extraordinary meeting regarding JAS WG
1. Introduction (Olivier) - 1 min
2. Recap of current JAS status (5 min) - (Carlton or Evan)
- overall report structure
- drafting
3. Update from inside the JAS drafting team
4. Update / Synchronization on discussions with third parties (Tijani, Evan, Olivier)
5. Options to consider / non-exhaustive list
Option 1: precise criteria - automatic funding
- define precise criteria for all possible cases of applicants
- point scoring system
- if an applicant satisfies the criteria, they get automatically funded (or receive a fee decrease)
Advantage:
- fair for all applicants
- no competition between applicants
- applicant support is a right for all applicants who satisfy the criteria
Inconvenient:
- gameable
- no predictability of how much funding is expected
- criteria might be too restrictive thus ending up with only very few applicants
Option 2: external fund with guidelines set by JAS
- external foundation is set-up by ICANN (possible location: Belgium or Switzerland)
- a percentage of each year's proceeds is paid into this fund (5% 10%?)
- panel made-up of members of SO/ACs will decide from the guidelines set by the JAS whether an applicant is suitable for funding
Advantage:
- predictable sum to be paid out by ICANN for applicant support
- can be combined as both seed & match funding
- fund is semi-independent from ICANN
- panel could look at special cases for funding (languages; very small communities; real benefit from gTLD etc.)
Inconvenient:
- might introduce a competition between applicants (but this could be mitigated if the size of the fund is way larger than the total sum of expected applications)
- could feel like charity
- criteria for multi-stakeholder panel selection would need to be established. Panel workload on volunteers
6. Next Steps - Roadmap (10 minutes)
Timing of report, working backwards.
Any other proposals?
