Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] current Draft Final report (Aug 19) - to continue review

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for sending this in.

In reading I have some trouble parsing it.  E.g.  It reads to me as if only 
those set of people would be restricted for need, while anyone else would be ok 
despite need.  I know that this is not your intent.  This could obviously be 
fixed but including some mention that those were the target applicants for aid.

What I don't understand, and I listened to the tape last night, is what you 
want to achieve in this wording that is not covered in the wording that was 
worked out during the meeting.

thanks

a.



On 24 Aug 2010, at 06:40, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

> Karla and all,
>  
> This is my proposal for the paragraph “Who should receive support”:
>  
> 1. Who should receive support?
>  
> Key to making a support program work is the choice of initial support 
> recipients. With this in mind it is agreed that the initial focus should be 
> on finding a relatively limited identifiable set of potential applicants that 
> would be not controversial of support.
>   
> Based on these criteria, and per review of the comments, the WG recommends 
> that the main criteria for eligibility should be the need; an applicant from 
> one of the following categories (that the WG recommends) 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
>  
> 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 : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Karla Valente
> Envoyé : mardi 24 août 2010 02:21
> À : Avri Doria; evan@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] current Draft Final report (Aug 19) - to 
> continue review
> Importance : Haute
>  
> Dear Avri, Evan:
>  
> Please note the following updates were done on the Wiki 
> (https://st.icann.org/so-ac-new-gtld-wg/index.cgi?so_ac_new_gtld_applicant_support_working_group)
>  and will be available on Adobe:
>  
> 1.      Uploaded the most recent Draft Final Report, which is version 2.6, 
> last update done based on August 19 Conference call. You will find two 
> documents, one redlined and another clean version to be easier to read. They 
> are both attached on this e-mail (word and pdf) for your convenience.
> NOTE: We stopped our updates on page 10 (see green highlight)
> If I missed or misinterpreted any update, please let me know!
> 2.      Please note yesterday, August 23, was the deadline for the additional 
> 5 languages. We did NOT receive any additional comment. For reference, 
> see:http://forum.icann.org/lists/joint-wg-snapshot/.
>  
> NOTE:
> I already started working on:
> a.      cleaning up the Final Report, formatting…. I will send the 
> reformatted version to the WG at the end of the week, after this week’s 
> content updates.
> b.      the Addenda referenced on the Final Report Annex C, which includes 
> the public comment Summary & Analysis. I believe we still need to go over the 
> summary and analysis with the WG since I have captured only the WG summary of 
> discussions, but we did not draft/reviewed the final disposition. The goal is 
> to have the summary analysis published not only with the Final report as an 
> addendum, but also as a separate document as we do with all public comments 
> related to the new gTLD program.
>  
> Thank you,
>  
> Karla
>  
>