[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG - list of Open Issues

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all:

Please see below a list of open issues captured based on our last meeting. 
Please let me know if anything is missing or incorrect.
There are some names associated with the topics. Those individuals were suppose 
to provide language for the group discussions and eventually final report.

Thank you,

Karla

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


1.       Is regional basis a criteria for receiving aids?



2.       Clarifications on proposed development director role. Is this a staff 
hire? Is this a full time resource?



3.       Clarifications on proposed development funds - what are the basis for 
the 10 M?


4.       Issue of bundling and the scope of our work. There is no unanimity. 
Should keep bundling in the final report - even if we note that there's some 
disagreement over the details or utility -let the Board determine if it was or 
wasn't in scope.  Should we consider Richard's proposal: "the bundling discount 
should not apply to corporate applicants who clearly have sufficient funds to 
pay the regular application fee" - Alan with help from Andrew


On the ''bundling'' discussion, based on our desire to come forward with a 
consensus formula that both promotes more access in underserved languages and 
yet also avoids some of the possible unintended consequences/gaming 
opportunities noted by Eric, Richard and others, Richard and I worked up the 
following formulation: That in place of ''bundled'' support for IDN build out 
the WG would recommend a simplified ''direct'' package of cost reductions to 
incentivize IDN build out in underserved scripts for all applicants, whether 
national or international, NGO or private, on the following basis:For scripts 
with 1-10 million native users, a 60% discount from the typical price of a new 
gTLD. For scripts with 10-50 million native users, a 40% discount. For scripts 
with 50-100 million native users, a 20% discount. No discount is recommended 
for scripts with more than 100 million users, as they are considered large 
enough to constitute a strong market in the near term and thus support would be 
better focused on script groups t


5.       Work on 3.3.10 (from ADDENDA - Summary/Analysis of Public Comment)  
underserved scripts - Andrew with help from Rafik, Richard


6.       Work on 3.3.11 (from ADDENDA - Summary/Analysis of Public Comment)   
indentified as needing rewording, but last e-mail exchanges agree no further 
language will be proposed?   Alan with help from Richard, Andrew. Andrew will 
produce language so we can close the issue.


7.       Work on 3.3.9 (from ADDENDA - Summary/Analysis of Public Comment)   
add wording regarding policy and impact on current TLDs not aligned with 
self-funding policy goal.


8.       Tijani comment on Excerpt (lines 58- 61): the funds should be 
distributed with special consideration for the applications coming from the 
developing countries as explicitly mentioned in the resolution 20. Indeed, if 
we would specify a certain priority, we should do it to the applicants from 
developing countries, not to any other community.



9.       Tijani comment on Excerpt (lines 67-69): is it fare that one single 
applicant get support from several parties while others couldn't apply because 
of their need?
        On Line 68: is it in our mission to recommend aids for all applicants, 
out of the ones meeting the criteria of eligibility?


10.   Tijani comment on Excerpt (lines 109-110): Entrepreneurs coming from and 
serving a developing market .......

>From Notes - I am not clear about this:

Sentence bracket 245-246 - One possible changes  The Recom. to prioritize 
ethnic, linguistic [and cultural] groups is valid for the current round  ... in 
possible future rounds.

Drop 261, 262

We are gratified to read of N's & B (several providers) commitment to assist in 
this process and encourage ...
272 add substantive comments

391-396  reword for prioritization.

475 - 488   out of scope.

522 - not out of scope?  what is scope of recommendation?  we can endorse the 
idea for all applicants but it is not in our mission.

we recommend a shorter period. - more discvussion.