Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] writing exercise.

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thank you very much for the detailed edit.  And for catching my many nits.

I have responded to each of the comments.  I have attached an updated version 
of the excerpt for tomorrow's conversation (which regrettably I will miss)


On 13 Sep 2010, at 17:59, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> nits:
> @97, change "main" to "sole" (or we should figure out what the non-main 
> criteria are, or

as bracketed text for further discussion [main, sole]

> @98, change "a need" to "the needs" (note the plural, see @97, above)

ok

> @102, add "or other need" before "has" (again the plural/@97 issue)

as bracketed text for further discussion [or other need]

> 
> @108, change "in" to "for"

ok
 

> @109, add "to" before "serve"

ok

> 
> non-nit:
> @113-115, a reading of "portfolio managers who's brands are active in narrow 
> markets are eligible" follows from the parenthetical exception. Personally I 
> don't think there is any reason to have private namespaces, nor to 
> additionally award brands with resources intended for the public.

have bracketed the phrase for further discussion

> 
> 
> nit:
> @122, capitalize "this"

ok

> 
> non-nits:
> @129,130 the beneficiary of both governmental and this WG recommended support 
> is limited to Community applicants. See the prioritization discussion.

i have bracketed community


> 
> @132-135 the association is revenues above support. I suggest revenues above 
> cost (profit) is a better choice, and to support the own growth of the 
> recipient, a multiple greater than 1.0 be used to determine a basis for 
> payment into the revolving fund.

have changed money to revenues 
and bracketed [the level support received through this process, costs]'

> 
> nit:
> @137 capitalize "guide book"

ok

> 
> non-nit:
> @149 the apparent issue is _a_ (singular) minority language. This is both 
> covered in the (now unlabled) (a)-(e) list of non-prioritized beneficiaries 
> of the program, and the better sense of the issue is not _a_ (singular) 
> language, but cases where an applicant can not, without harm to the 
> community, exclude language(s) due to ICANN fees.

added a bracket option for more

> 
> @153-166 please see the if-then text I sent earlier today, which recites the 
> proposal I've offered previously.

ok.

i have rewritten the section as having two options A, B

I have also rewritten yours a little to make it match the curent workding in 
the document, I hope I did not take too many liberties.

Option B

If and applicant meets the criteria as defined in section 3.4  and needs 
resources for

two or more strings, then for the purposes of application fee calculation, the 
two or more strings shall be considered as a [single resource, application].

The Working Group advises applicants that there is, at present, no mechanism to 
completely and transparently deliver single administrative costs over two or 
more namespaces through CNAME, DNAME, or other means, and that service delivery 
to multiple namespaces is likely to have higher administrative costs than 
service delivery to a single namespace.

The Working Group advises that the intent of the Working Group is not to 
replace or create an alternative to any policy generally available for "variant 
characters" within a single script.

(co-chair note:  I am not sure that either of these proposals has sufficient 
support to be included in this note to the Board.  I have the concern that 
including them may cause the rest of the proposal to suffer.  the group needs 
to decide on whether to take the risk or not.)


> 
> non-nit:
> @153 the limitation to IDNs overlooks all language communities which have 
> accommodated to the imposition of Latin Script, and use Latin Script to 
> encode non-Latin languages.

yes it does.  i thought he group was pretty specific on intending this benefit 
for increasing IDN in the DNS.

> 
> non-nit:
> @154-156 the proposal is not specific to applicants meeting the needs 
> criteria (or any other as yet unnamed criteria) for aid, and is general in 
> nature. No Thanks!

I have indicated that while there is some support for this, it is not yet a 
recommendation

> 
> non-nit:
> @154-156 the proposal is limited to "a second IDN", which is insufficient to 
> meet the needs of plural language communities, e.g., a wacking big hung of 
> South Asia.

bracketed [ a second IDN gTLD ], further IDN gTLD]
 
Though I had included a comment on that issue.

> 
> nit:
> @155, delete the "." before "or"

ok

> @160, delete the trailing "."

ok
> 
> I'm sure I missed some nits and non-nits (which are in the eye of the 
> beholder).

those that i was not sure were nits, i inserted as bracketed for discussion at 
tomorrow's meeting.

> 
> Eric

Attachment: Excerpt Final Report JAS WG v2.10.100913-1.docx
Description: Microsoft Office