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

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support Tijani's proposal.

Tony Harris
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tijani BEN JEMAA 
  To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
  Cc: 'Karla Valente' 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 7:40 AM
  Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] current Draft Final report (Aug 19) - to 
continue review


  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. 
   

    2.. NGOs, civil society and not for-profit organizations. 
   

    3.. Applicants geographically located in Emerging Markets/Developing 
countries. 
   

    4.. Applications in languages whose presence on the web is limited. 
   

    5.. 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