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

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

All

I had to turn my cmputer to the tech team yesterday before I could send you the 
updated document and upload to the wiki.

Karla

________________________________
From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
<owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Richard Tindal' <richardtindal@xxxxxx>; soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
<soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Aug 19 01:07:57 2010
Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] My comments on the draft final report
Thank you Richard for your comments.

I will answer each of your interrogations, but before that, I would like to 
make it clear that I didn’t write the original text, and that’s why the “and” 
and “or” are not clear. I appreciate that you draw my attention to the 
ambiguity it may introduce.

a.       Yes, the applicants should have designated their application as a 
“Community” one (Q19)
b.       No question
c.       Yes, you are right. I have changed the wording in my draft but forgot 
to do it in my final e-mail. Here is the paragraph after correction:

“Overall, the Working Team recommended giving preference to applicants 
geographically located in Emerging Markets/Developing countries. Preference 
must also be given to applications in languages whose presence on the web is 
limited. Even entrepreneurs in those too tight markets for a reasonable profit 
making industry should be eligible.”

d.       No question
e.       No question

How those criteria should be combined?
The main and common criteria is the need. So the applicant meeting the 
following combination of criteria will be eligible:
            d and a
            d and b
            d and c

For more clarity, I would prefer to modify the paragraph in the following 
manner:

The main criteria for eligibility should be the need; an applicant from one of 
the following categories wouldn’t be selected for support if he/she is not in 
need of such support.


 1.  Community based applications such as cultural, linguistic and ethnic. 
These potential applicants have the benefits of being relatively well defined 
as groups. Facilitating community on the web is one of ICANN’s core values.


 1.  NGOs, civil society and not for-profit organizations.


 1.  Applicants geographically located in Emerging Markets/Developing countries.


 1.  Applications in languages whose presence on the web is limited.


 1.  Entrepreneurs in those too tight markets for a reasonable profit making 
industry.



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

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 Richard Tindal
Envoyé : mardi 17 août 2010 21:22
À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] My comments on the draft final report

As I read the revised 'Who Should Receive Support?' section this is my 
understanding of who we are recommending for support:

            a.   Community applicants  (I interpret this as applicants who 
designate themselves as 'community' at Q19 of their TLD application - is that 
right?)

            b.   NGOs, civil society and non-profit organizations

            c.   Applicants in emerging markets/ developing economies and those 
whose TLD strings are in languages with limited web presence  {the 'and' in 
that sentence is a little ambiguous to me.  I'm interpreting it to mean that 
being in an emerging                      market/ developing economy is 
sufficient to meet this criteria and it is not necessary to also have proposed 
a string in an underserved language.  if that's the case the 'and' should 
probably be an 'or applicants'}      This section also recommends               
                  entrepreneurs  from countries with small/ limited economies 
(I assume when we say 'entrepreneur' we mean for-profit - is that correct?)

            d.   Economic need

            e.   Spells out applicants who shouldn't get support


I dont think it's clear to the average reader whether a. through d. are  'and'  
or  'or'  criteria.   It seems clear that d. is a must have for all applicants, 
but it's less clear whether or not a., b. and c. are stand-alone criteria.  I 
assume they are, but that would mean a needy entrepreneur from a small/limited 
economy would be eligible for support, or a needy non-profit from anywhere 
would be eligible for support.  Is that what we intend?

I think it would be useful to clarify the and versus or nature of the criteria 
in bold above.

RT


On Aug 17, 2010, at 12:53 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:


Dear all,

I have read attentively the draft final report with the tables Avri added, and 
submit you my point of view about it (attached) since we are approaching the 
final line of submitting our recommendations to the Board.

In the attached file, the red colour is applied to words I propose to remove, 
and the bleu one to the words to add. The explanatory comments are in green.

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

<Comments on Draft Final Report JAS WG v2.1 (3).doc>