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

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

Eric,

 

Not at all. I do appreciate your comments and hope that every one do the
same. It will make us save time and advance. I will read them carefully
(your English is complicated for me, sorry, I have to read them again) and
get back to you.

 

Thank you Eric 

 

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

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

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

 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Envoyé : mardi 17 août 2010 20:12
À : Tijani BEN JEMAA
Cc : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] My comments on the draft final report

 

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