<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Some comments/questions for our call
- To: Gisella Gruber-White <Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx>, "SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Some comments/questions for our call
- From: Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
All,
Greetings. Despite our lack of chatter on the list of late, I know that
everyone remains interested in coming forward with as complete a final product
as we can, and with that in mind I have gone back over my notes from the last
couple of months and have tried to address some unresolved questions we will
want to touch on in our final version. This is designed to help clarify/add
detail to what we have so far and could be added to existing documentation. It
is pretty easy to get wrapped around the axle here, as there's a lot of
complexity but I hope some of this is useful.
Cheers, Andrew
Working Team 1
Overall, the piece for WT1 appears fairly complete with a couple of edits for
clarity perhaps. There are a few outstanding questions that come to my mind:
1. Q: How much can cost finally be reduced in total? A: This I assume
will depend on which parts of the cost proposal are accepted.
2. Q: Would applicants be offered different levels of cost reduction
depending on need/appropriateness? A: This will depend on a number of factors,
starting with the amount of potential resource is available. Still, in the
first round, it might be wiser to keep this even for all applicants to simplify
the process (i.e. simply dividing up the total amount of aid available evenly).
In future rounds and based on our resource endowment the “New Applicant Support
Panel” (NASP, see below) could determine if groups required different levels of
support, and how much was appropriate for each.
3. Q: In the case of “bundled pricing”, how much of a discount would be
offered to encourage build-out of underserved scripts and for what exactly? A:
This is still an open question that would include elements of both WT1 and WT2.
It would seem that we could offer – as with any product – packages to encourage
bundling as the burden on ICANN evaluators should be significantly reduced. An
idea: divide the IDN world into categories with some (Arabic, Chinese, etc.)
considered Tier One, i.e. likely to be built out, and other, smaller scripts
(Amharic, Tamil, etc.) considered Tier Two. A “bundle” would include some of
these Tier Two scripts. In this case there is no “right answer”, so WT1, what
do you propose?
Working Team 2
WT2 had a lot of the broader questions, and as such we have some good answers
but also a number of mechanical/process issues still to be resolved. I have
tried to summarize the questions outstanding below but there are no doubt many
more. I think there’s general consensus subject to answering our sub questions
below:
1. Q: Who should receive support? A: In this first round we have agreed
that we should try to work with groups that fulfill the basic criteria of being
applicants that:
a. Need support due to financial limitations
b. Aren’t brands/groups that should be self-supporting companies
c. Aren’t purely Government/parastatal applicants (though applicants with
some Government support might be eligible)
We also recommended focusing on ethnic/linguistic communities as a starting
point, and expressed the desire to give some preference to
geographically/historically underserved regions like Africa (though support in
this first round would not be limited only to ethnic/linguistic groups or any
particular region.) The WG also agreed that support should be open to
applicants of any legal form – i.e. NGO, for profit, some hybrid. The WG also
rejected a size limitation on communities/groups that apply, subject to the
focus on sustainability. Two underlying criteria – need and the applicant’s
ability to help get underrepresented voices on the web – are essential.
2. Some sub questions:
a. Q: What constitutes an ethnic/linguistic community? A: We don’t have
a
firm definition as yet, but recommend starting with ICANN’s own definition and
moving forward from that point. With an eye toward sustainability, we should
look for organizations that have some history/track record (i.e. weren’t formed
just for the purpose of the application), some non-government financial
resources and some standing within their community.
b. Q: What if there are two applicants asking to represent a particular
community? A: The NASP would decide based on the combination of factors,
including technical, financial, standing and other issues.
3. Q: Who determines who gets support and how might they operate? A:
Based on our discussions there will need to be some sort of New Applicant
Support Panel (NASP) to evaluate requests and oversee this process.
a. Composition of the panel and its funding are still TBD, as is the
exact
form of the panel. Idea: The NASP should include ICANN Staff and potentially
Board Members, but also outside experts to bring in additional perspectives and
avoid any conflict of interest.
b. There was some support for a kind of grading/ranking process that would
enable applicants to know ex ante if their applications were “on the right
track” to be approved and provide guidance to the NASP in making decisions.
Criteria outlined above and in earlier documentation could form part of the
criteria.
c. Goals: NASP would meet periodically and would have responsibility for
determining:
i. Which applicants
merit support
ii. How much support each
is to be offered, and what kind of support is offered
d. Once support is being offered the NASP will serve a
review/accountability function to determine
i. Whether the support
is being helpful
ii. Whether applicants
continue to merit support (in cases where the support is offered over a period
of time, applicants receiving ongoing support will need to show that they are
still viable/capable of pursuing their mission and still need support)
4. Q: How will this be funded? A: Still TBD, but in the short term
funding will likely need to come from a variety of sources including:
a. ICANN budget – especially as we finalize the procedures and practices
of NASP
b. Foundations and other external sources
c. Contributions from members of the ICANN community – either in kind or
in cash
d. User contributions/fees?
The question of funding can be approached two ways: how much funding is
necessary (based on demand) and how much funding is available. Once the
policies are clarified, we may want to pilot this effort to help gauge both.
5. Q: How will the different kinds of funding be administered? A: The
process envisions different stages based on my notes:
a. General support – for awareness raising, outreach (funded/administered
by ICANN)
b. Request for Application Support – to help applicants make their
applications, reviewed by NASP and shared with the public (per our desire for
transparency)
c. Application support – the actual offering of support, monitored by
NASP
to see if support is being helpful, if applicants continue to be viable
d. Evaluation -- essential if we want the program to be sustainable
e. Ongoing support – to help applicants become/stay viable. Will the
process include this? There has been discussion of it but this seems to be on
the edge of our mandate.
Andrew A. Mack
Principal
AMGlobal Consulting
+1-202-256-1077
amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx
www.amglobal.com
________________________________
From: Gisella Gruber-White <Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu, July 29, 2010 7:51:48 AM
Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] REMINDER / Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant
Support (JAS WG) call / 03 August 2010 @ 1300 UTC
REMINDER / Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG) call / 03
August 2010 @ 1300 UTC
Dear All,
The nextJoint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG)teleconference is
scheduled onTuesday 03 August 2010 at 1300 UTC for 60 minutes.
06:00 PDT, 09:00 EDT, 10:00 Buenos Aires, 14:00 London, 15:00 CEST, 23:00
Sydney
For other places see:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html
ADOBE CONNECT:
http://icann.adobeconnect.com/jas/
Dial-in details are below.
If you require a dial-out, please let me know. I have the following people on
the list :
* Alex Gakuru
* Cheryl Langdon-Orr
* Rafik Dammak
* Tijani Ben Jemaa
* Carlos Aguirre
* Tony Harris
* Baudoin Schombe
Thank you
Kind regards
Gisella
____________________________________________________________________________
Participant passcode: JAS
For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call.
____________________________________________________________________________
Dial in numbers:
Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free
Number
ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519
AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259
BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795
BRAZIL 0800-7610651
CHILE 1230-020-2863
CHINA* 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670
10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474
CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177
DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324
ESTONIA 800-011-1093
FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610
FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610
FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496
FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496
FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496
GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247
GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312
HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856
HUNGARY 06-800-12755
INDIA 000-800-852-1268
INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982
IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368
ISRAEL 1-80-9216162
ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383
JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439
JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439
LATVIA 8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364
MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065
MEXICO 001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378
NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722
NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157
PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065
PERU 0800-53713
PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716
POLAND 00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL 8008-14052
RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011
SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25
SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352
SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053
SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032
TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797
THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056
UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029
URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421
USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726
VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702
*Access to your conference call will be either of the numbers listed, dependent
on the participants' local telecom provider.
Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a
mobile
telephone.
____________________________________________________________________________
The mailing list address <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
The mailing list public archives can be viewed at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/soac-newgtldapsup-wg
The Wiki Pages, to which you have also been added, are found at:
https://st.icann.org/so-ac-new-gtld-wg/
Working Group Guidelines:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05feb09-en.pdf
____________________________________________________________________________
Gisella Gruber-White
On behalf of GNSO Secretariat
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: gisella.gruber-white@xxxxxxxxx
Tel: +44 7545 334 360
Skype ID: gisella.gw
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|