Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] My comments on the draft final report

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tijani,

I agree with your comment on WT1, point 1. "A few" and "inclusive" are 
difficult to reconcile, and, as the Board has made a policy choice 
with budget consequences, frustrating that policy choice is out of 
scope. We (SOAC) don't need to find justification or offsets.
I also agree with your comment on WT1, point 4. By way of background, 
a vendor and ICANN's former COO met at the Cairo meeting and discussed 
reduction of the fee from the then-current $75k figure to the current 
$25k figure. This re-assessment of the rational for cost, an ICANN 
recurring staffing charge, was made almost two years prior to the 
Nairobi Board meeting which produced Resolution #20.
For the same reason given in #1, above, we do not need to justify or 
find offsets for recommending a late 2008 / early 2009 cost estimate 
be re-evaluated, or eliminated for qualified registry operators.
I also agree with your comment on WT1, point 5.

This next item treats a subject you did not mention, but in the flow 
of the document as-is, it comes next in sequence of reading.
On the additional script suggestion contained in the "for reference 
only" portion (public comments related to WT1), both the rational for 
treating each script as a separate application, and the separate 
request made to National Governments seeking IDN applications under 
the ccTLD IDN FastTrack program for $26.7k/script, both of these 
policy choices were made prior to Nairobi.
I know from personal participation, that the "second script (or even 
variant) is a second application" policy arose in the context of 
applications unlikely to be qualified, by existing highly capitalized 
registry operators and registrars. Similarly, the ccTLD fee arose in 
the context of applications by National Governments.
Neither of these assumptions really applies to the applications likely 
to be qualified for assistance.
Where the purpose is the promotion of literacy, charging for scripts 
itself seems an idea worth re-examination.
I agree with your comment on WT2, #1 (elided) point before "a". The 
phrases "non-controversial" and "inclusive" are difficult to reconcile.
I also agree with your comment on WT2, points "a" and "b". We don't 
really know there will be a second or subsequent rounds and we can't 
put critical policy deliverables in the conditional, or conjectural 
future. Therefore "condition 1 in round 1" and "condition 2 in round 
2" ... should not be the implementation recommended.

I also agree with your comment on WT2, point "c". The qualifier "some" 
before preference is not helpful (it raises the question of what 
qualified applicants could get unqualified support. Because of the 
awkwardness of English, I'll restate. If there are applicants who are 
offered "some preference" (limited), then are there applicants who are 
offered "preference" (unlimited)?
I agree with adding entrepreneurs, for reasons stated in prior mail on 
the prior preference to North American entrepreneurs, in both the 
registry and registrar lines of business, and for the inclusive goal 
stated in Resolution #20.
I also agree with your comment on WT2, #1 (elided), points "d" and "e".



I don't agree with your (and Richard's) comments on WT2, #2, point "c".

As a preface, Resolution #20 offered a explanatory characterization, 
"those from developing countries".  This makes the rural poor in North 
America and Europe unlikely candidates for assistance, assuming 
applications may be offered for "Appalachia" or "Native American 
Indians" or "European Roms". It also makes unlikely assistance for 
applications for "Yiddish speakers", most of whom are located in North 
America and Europe. They may make a case for need, but the Board chose 
to reiterate the references to need not in the OEDC states.
However, there is a very high correlation between "developing 
countries" (a term undefined in the UN System) and those countries 
which were the intended beneficiaries of United Nations General 
Assembly Resolution 1514, (14 December 1960), as well as those which 
had gained independence between 1914 and 1960. In these countries, 
created as European Colonies, linguistic, ethnic, and national 
identities do not correspond to jurisdictional boundaries.
More than North American and European states, and markets, and the 
non-state communities of both regions, in the "developing countries", 
communities, whether defined by script or language or culture are less 
well served by the state and its associated properties. The properties 
of script and language are within the ability, and also the 
responsibility, of the ICANN Board to affect.
With that preface, I agree in part with you and Richard -- the task of 
assisting needy applications does not necessarily extend to assisting 
applications in Chinese, not because the PRC is "developed", it isn't, 
but because the market for IDNs in China has existed since November 
2001, and doesn't need ICANN's "help".
Where I disagree is qualified (based upon need) applications that use 
both the Latin and Arabic scripts, in Africa and West Asia, or two or 
more Indic scripts, with or without Latin, or Cyrillic and Latin, or 
Khmer and Latin, or ...
Knowing Richard I suspect he will find something in this he too agrees 
with, that in some cases it would be unfair to stop at a single string.
In the #3 (also elided) section "Other recommendations", I agree with 
you on the issue of self-financing participation. It is the Board's 
responsibility to decide how much support to offer, not ours to limit 
the Board to a 50% token reduction, particularly where we suspect that 
the real cost to ICANN of oversight of qualified applications will be 
significantly less than the cost to ICANN of oversight of applications 
made by parties with histories of robust explorations of the limits of 
registry, or registrar, contracts and consensus policies.
I know you didn't ask for my views in particular, and I hope you are 
not offended by my reading your comments on the draft final report and 
offering my own, in agreement, and disagreement, with yours.
Eric