RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Some comments/questions for our call

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Good morning Andrew and all,

 

First of all, I would like to apologize for this long silence do to some
unexpected things that happened those last few weeks, and that prevent me
from being active on this list (and on all the other lists).

 

Thank you very much Andrew for your effort and your time; you did a great
work. Here are my comments (in bleu): 

 

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:

 

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.

 

I think we are asked to submit recommendations that the Board can accept,
modify or reject. So we need to give our recommendations regardless the
reaction of the board (or any other entity).

 

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.

 

If the question was “Would applicants be offered different levels of aid….”,
I would agree that it will depend on the amount of available resources, but
the cost reduction doesn’t depend on them.

 

      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.

 

Agree

 

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?

 

I don’t understand the question: “bundled pricing”? “built-out of
underserved scripts”?

 

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:

 

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 are
essential :

*         need 

*         applicant’s ability to help get underrepresented voices on the web


 

Some sub questions:

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.  

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. 

 

All agreed except for the last sub question, which is not a specific for our
target applicants. 

The DAG explains well how to do in such situation

 

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.  

 

You mean experts from the community???

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.  

 

Again, thank you Andrew

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director 

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  _____  

De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Andrew Mack
Envoyé : lundi 2 août 2010 17:03
À : Gisella Gruber-White; SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Some comments/questions for our call

 

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

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: 

Need support due to financial limitations

Aren’t brands/groups that should be self-supporting companies

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.  

 

Some sub questions:

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.  

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. 

 

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.  

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.  

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.  

Goals: NASP would meet periodically and would have responsibility for
determining:

Which applicants merit support

How much support each is to be offered, and what kind of support is offered

Once support is being offered the NASP will serve a review/accountability
function to determine

Whether the support is being helpful

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)

 

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:

ICANN budget – especially as we finalize the procedures and practices of
NASP

Foundations and other external sources

Contributions from members of the ICANN community – either in kind or in
cash

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.

 

Q: How will the different kinds of funding be administered?  A: The process
envisions different stages based on my notes:  

General support – for awareness raising, outreach (funded/administered by
ICANN)

Request for Application Support – to help applicants make their
applications, reviewed by NASP and shared with the public (per our desire
for transparency)

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

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  

 <mailto:amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx  

 <http://www.amglobal.com/> 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


Dear All, 

The next Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG)
teleconference is scheduled on Tuesday 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-05fe
b09-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



Ce message entrant est certifié sans virus connu.
Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr
Version: 9.0.851 / Base de données virale: 271.1.1/3044 - Date: 08/01/10
19:40:00