...
Transcript: ALAC ExCom 28.04.11 Transcript
...
ALAC ExCom agenda:
...
Extraordinary meeting regarding JAS WG
Standing Agenda Items
1.
...
Introduction (Olivier)
...
- 1 min
2.
...
a. Proposed ALAC Statement to the ICANN Board on the RAA Negotiations
b. Latest Draft of the Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs
c. At-Large Working Group on Future Challenges
3. At-Large Community Wiki and Creation of At-Large Knowledge Base - (Olivier; Guest: Roman Pelikh) - 15 mins
a. Aims and objectives of an of At-Large knowledge management system and technical requirements
b. Remaining Confluence/Social Text issues
c. AC Room Automatic Chat Translation - status
4. Initial Plans for At-Large Meetings in Singapore (Olivier) - 10 mins
a. Whois Review Team
b. GAC
c. BC
...
Recap of current JAS status (5 min) - (Carlton or Evan)
- overall report structure
- drafting
3. Update / Synchronization on discussions with third parties (Tijani, Evan, Olivier)
4. 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
5. Next Steps - Roadmap (10 minutes)
Timing of report, working backwards.
Any other proposals?