Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Prioritization

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

To add a nuance to Rafik's comment on 'entrepreneurs in those too tight markets'

The logical implication of the existing language is that not only is the 
entrepreneur from the tight market but that also the proposed TLD is focused on 
that market.

If we retain this type of applicant as worthy of support  (and I understand 
Rafik is proposing that we don't)  I think we should clarify that the TLD, 
also,  is focused on the 'too tight market".     If we don't make that 
clarification the recommendation wont make logical sense.

RT



On Sep 6, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> I think that if people don't agree anyway, they can submit a minority report 
> to express their disagreement.
> 
> I am in favor of prioritization of some categories as we need to be more 
> inclusive toward them as they will be marginalized in competitive pool. we 
> shouldn't discriminate somehow to help them? there is always prioritization 
> in any kind of selection even within ICANN itself like for fellowship program 
> where GAC or ccTLD applicants have more chance to get fellowship than someone 
> from GNSO even if all of them come from developing regions. 
> 
> I am also in favor of dropping the category of ""Entrepreneurs in those too 
> tight markets for a reasonable profit making industry", my understanding is 
> that an entrepreneur is working to make profit if the market don't allow 
> that, is we are planning to help him "artificially to survive". I encourage 
> more an entrepreneur from developing region who is planning to sell enough 
> domain names to have sustainable business independently to the market size.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rafik
> 
> PS the board resolution don't limit assistance to only applicants from 
> developing regions
> "Whereas numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern 
> about the cost of applying for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs 
> might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from 
> developing countries.
> Resolved (2010.03.12.46), the Board recognizes the importance of an inclusive 
> New gTLD Program.
> 
> Resolved (2010.03.12.47), the Board requests stakeholders to work through 
> their SOs and ACs, and form a Working Group to develop a sustainable approach 
> to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and 
> operating new gTLDs ."
> 
> 
> 2010/9/6 Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As I suggested, Working Groups are not supposed to be about voting.  They are 
> about the attempt to find levels of consensus, the fuller the better.
> 
> I am personally against votes in working groups, because as we have seen 
> after such a vote, or even a poll, people do not agree about what the vote 
> means.  Also there are no specific number that mark  near consensus versus 
> strong support.  In other groups that have used polls, we have then gotten 
> into long discussions about what to do with the polls.
> 
> I believe that as other people participate in this conversations, we can 
> better determine the level of support each statement has.  For example as 
> other people chime in support of the various positions we can tell the level 
> of support.  And the chairs, separately or together, estimate the level of 
> support and we see how many disagree with these statement, we can get closer 
> to an accurate statement on the level of support.
> 
> My perception in this case is that we had a previous WG position for 
> limitation.  The WG then discussed your issues and moved from the position 
> documented in the snapshot to one of Prioritization.   At this point you are 
> the main person arguing against Prioritization.  So yes, at this point, I 
> think we either have near consensus or at the least strong support for 
> Prioritization and one voice and perhaps some support for no limitations 
> other than financial basis.
> 
> I suggest that people continue discussing it and that more people weigh in 
> with their points of view.  That will let the group know and inform the 
> determination of the level of support better.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> On 6 Sep 2010, at 14:48, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Avri,
> >
> > Is the « strong support for prioritization » what we had last call? I 
> > suggest that a vote be organized to make everyone express his/her self.
> >
> > I send you hereafter a complete language to explain why I took this 
> > position, with a text proposal for the paragraph 3.2.1 “who should receive 
> > support”.
> >
> > ---------
> >
> > Our Working Group was created according to the Board Resolution 20. Its 
> > mission comes also from this resolution. Let’s see what it says: (see 
> > attached resolution 20)
> >
> > We can notice that for the supported applicants:
> >
> >       • It emphasizes (twice) on inclusiveness of the new gTLD program as 
> > an objective of ICANN
> >       • It also emphasizes (again twice) on the need as a criterion for 
> > support (applicants requiring assistance).
> >       • It specifies needy applicants from developing countries, but not 
> > any category of application.
> >
> > With this in mind, I had a long and deep reflection about the issue of 
> > prioritization of ethnic and linguistic category of applicants, and tried 
> > to put examples to see how things may go. I found that prioritizing any 
> > category will de facto exclude the others because as you all said, and as 
> > we put it explicitly in our report, the number of supported applicants will 
> > be too small, and thus, only applicants from the prioritized category will 
> > get assistance.
> >
> > Despite my willing to find consensus, and to make things advancing, I still 
> > don’t understand the benefit of giving a category the priority. We need to 
> > put the criteria and let applicants compete. I don’t feel it’s fair to 
> > prioritize a specific category because:
> >
> >       • It makes our action exclusive, not in line with the inclusiveness 
> > objective of resolution 20
> >       • It is a subjective and arbitrary decision.
> >
> > I do accept to prioritize the relatively well defined and identifiable 
> > groups that would be not controversial to support, but not a specific 
> > category.
> >
> > I propose the attached language for “3.2.1 Who should receive support” 
> > (line: 174 – 200)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria
> > Envoyé : dimanche 5 septembre 2010 18:20
> > À : SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Prioritization
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for this note.
> >
> > If we can't reach a full consensus on the point of prioritization, we may 
> > take he opportunity to list both option with the reasons for them.
> >
> > At this point I think there is:
> > 1. Consensus against limitation
> > 2. strong support for prioritization and
> > 3.  some support against any prioritization.
> >
> > (Please let the list know if I am wrong)
> >
> > I suggest that unless things change, this is the way it be written up.  And 
> > I suggest that Tijani and others who are against any sort of prioritization 
> > craft a note (the note below may be the start of that note). I recommend 
> > the same for those who favor prioritization.
> >
> > I also recommend that the discussion of the levels of support and reason 
> > for them be included in line in the report and not hidden away in an 
> > back-matter.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Sep 2010, at 13:06, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I had a long and deep reflection about the issue of prioritization of 
> > > ethnic and linguistic category of applicants, and tried to put examples 
> > > to see how things may go. I found that prioritizing any category will de 
> > > facto exclude the others because as you all said, and as we put it 
> > > explicitly in our report, the number of supported applicants will be too 
> > > small, and thus, only applicants from the prioritized category will get 
> > > assistance.
> > >
> > > Despite my willing to find consensus, and to make things advancing, I 
> > > still don’t understand the benefit of giving a category the priority. We 
> > > need to put the criteria and let applicants compete. I don’t feel it’s 
> > > fair to prioritize a specific category; it’s a subjective (arbitrary) 
> > > decision to do so.
> > >
> > > I do accept to prioritize the relatively well defined and identifiable 
> > > groups that would be not controversial to support, but not a specific 
> > > category.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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 : samedi 4 septembre 2010 03:40
> > > À : SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] redlined Summary Analysis - JAS WG
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > Please see attached the redlined Summary Analysis we worked on today.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Karla
> >
> >
> > <Resolution 20.doc><Who should receive support.doc>
> 
> 
>