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?