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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I think that gives better clarity, thanks.

So, a final question (to all) on this --   It seems we're not differentiating 
between a. through e.   The way it reads they all have the same 'weighting'.    
For example, a needy Community applicant has the same weighting' as a needy 
non-profit.   

Is that our intent, or are these broad policy guidelines that will be turned 
into more detailed implementation rules by some future group?

RT


On Aug 19, 2010, at 1:07 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> NGOs, civil society and not for-profit organizations.
>  
> Applicants geographically located in Emerging Markets/Developing countries.
>  
> Applications in languages whose presence on the web is limited.
>  
> 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>
>