Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Prioritization

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tijani's observations, and would
refrain from category prioritization. 

Tony Harris
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tijani BEN JEMAA 
  To: 'Avri Doria' ; 'SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx' 
  Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 9:48 AM
  Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Prioritization


  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:

    a.. It emphasizes (twice) on inclusiveness of the new gTLD program as an 
objective of ICANN 
    b.. It also emphasizes (again twice) on the need as a criterion for support 
(applicants requiring assistance). 
    c.. 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:

    a.. It makes our action exclusive, not in line with the inclusiveness 
objective of resolution 20 
    b.. 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