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

[Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Not going to go through line by line, but I think there are some good ideas 
being mentioned by Tijani, Eric and Richard.  A couple of suggestions:

To Tijani's point re: applicants I want to be clear again, we're not suggesting 
that support be limited strictly to language/ethnic communities, only that we 
should consider starting with them given need and perceived value for the 
broader internet community.  How they organize -- as a for profit or non-profit 
or something else is up to them.

In terms of offering some preference (vs. total preference I suppose) which I 
think was Eric's question, that was my effort to say that this would be a 
factor 
-- as opposed to the only factor -- to be considered.  I accept all 
responsibility for the lack of clarity.  English is my first language which 
only 
means I've disrespecting it longest.

In terms of WT2-c (re bundling), I don't agree with Richard and Tijani, as I 
believe that some sort of bundled pricing may turn out to be a simple way to 
help get more scripts representing more underserved communities in the root.  I 
agree with what Evan said on the last call, this approach may not end up being 
used so much in the near term as we still have to consider how a bundled 
approach might work, but I see no reason to kick it out as an option.  After 
all, we're talking about providing a number of different kinds of support and 
this could be a low cost addition to our toolbox.  I am happy to work on 
drafting additional language on this, but also agree with that this does not 
need to be fully built out fully before we go forward with other 
recommendations.  Just would like to see it included as a possibility.

On Richard's points re: clarity in criteria, obviously we will need more 
detail.  That said, I am assuming we will need to develop some sort of grading 
system assuming we have more potential applicants than resources.  In that case 
I am assuming that items like need, origin, language, and other issues perhaps 
should all be factored in and given some weighting, but that the final decision 
will include multiple factors.  Designing the details of that system is well 
beyond the time that we have.

Last, I spoke (emailed) briefly with Elaine and I think we both agreed that 
there is some real overlap of the "setup" part of the document that we agreed 
to 
write.  What would the group think of having one statement of problem as the 
"problem" statements really seem overlapping?

Cheers, Andrew

 
Andrew A. Mack 
Principal
AMGlobal Consulting

+1-202-256-1077  
amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx  
www.amglobal.com




________________________________
From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>
To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, August 18, 2010 9:26:43 AM
Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] My comments on the draft final report

 
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 ofInternet 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