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

[Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello to you all,

The version that you just gave is acceptable and I support it. It obviously
took me enough time to understand.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN


2010/8/24 Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>

>  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.
>
>
>
>    1. 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.
>
>
>
>    1. NGOs, civil society and not for-profit organizations.
>
>
>
>    1. Applicants geographically located in Emerging Markets/Developing
>    countries.
>
>
>
>    1. Applications in languages whose presence on the web is limited.
>
>
>
>    1. 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
>
> *M*editerranean *F*ederation of* I*nternet *A*ssociations
>
> *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
>
>
>
>
>