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

[carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tijani and all: 

Your proposal sounds good for me , and I think is clear and very respectfull of 
the debate into de WG.

cheers.
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -

*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423



http://ar.ageiadensi.org 




From: tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx
To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
CC: karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] current Draft Final report (Aug 19) - to 
continue review
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:40:37 +0100



















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