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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

All,

Havent seen any response to my question below.

Do we intend that factors a. through e.  in Tijani's recent summary (below)  
would have equal weighting?

>> 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.
>>  


Regards

RT




On Aug 19, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 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>
>>  
>