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

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

Dear all,

 

Here is my proposal for the “who should receive support” paragraph. Please
note that I didn’t catch the modifications made during today call, and this
proposal can include text that had been modified. 

 

…….potential applicants which would be non-controversial to support. 

Based on these criteria, and per the review of the comments, the Working
Group recommends that 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.

 

a.      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. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A series of groups are not recommended for support based on our work,
specifically:

 

*        Applicants that don’t need the support/have ample financing 

 

*        Applicants that are brands/groups that should be self-supporting
companies (except those from countries where markets are not wide enough for
a reasonable profit making industry).

 

*        Applicants that are geographic names (such as .Paris and others) 

 

*        Purely Government/parastatal applicants (though applicants with
some Government support might be eligible) 

 

*        Applicants whose business model doesn’t demonstrate sustainability 

 

 

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

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 : Karla Valente [mailto:karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx] 
Envoyé : jeudi 19 août 2010 12:35
À : tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx; richardtindal@xxxxxx;
soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] My comments on the draft final report

 

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.

 

f.      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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

j.      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>