Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Updated 2.15.3 - for Tuesday 12 Oct 10 mtg. Re: [] Revision 2.15 -

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for sending this. 

 I won't cut it into the doc at list late hour, but I suggest we discuss it on 
the agenda tomorrow.
Hope you both will be on the call.

Thanks again.

a.



On 12 Oct 2010, at 00:19, Andrew Mack wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> Sorry for the lateness of our submission, but Eric and I have been talking at 
> length trying to find some sort of way to come up with one final position 
> that satisfies everyone.  Currently we are working off of the following 
> language:
> ---------------------------
> 
> The Working Group recommends support for price reductions to encourage the 
> build out of IDNs in small or underserved languages with the exact amount and 
> timing of the support to be determined.  One way this might be accomplished 
> is through bundling of applications, and the WG recognizes the precedents for 
> this in the cases of 
>     o multiple strings for China, to solve the SC/TC equivalence problem
>     o multiple strings for Saudi Arabia, to solve Arabic Script variant 
> character problem
>     o multiple strings for Greece, to solve the Greek Tonos problem
> 
> On the question of who should be eligible for this assistance, there were two 
> opinions within the Group:
> 
> a) that each applicant must be a party associated with or resident in the 
> language community -- an organization, NGO or local company from the 
> script-language community 
> 
> or
> 
> b) that applicants from inside or outside the community seeking to offer 
> service in an underserved script-language are eligible for support
> 
> All WG members agreed that this support should encourage the advancement of 
> the language community while also encouraging competition to the greatest 
> extent possible.
>  -----------------
>  
> The first idea above a) is focused on avoiding "capture" by possible 
> applicants that might not represent the interests of the script-language 
> community.  The second idea b) is focused on helping create demand, 
> especially in the near term, as a way of combating the digital divide.
> 
> Generally we agree that a) may be too narrow, and that there is value in 
> having incentives for groups other than those organically springing from the 
> community -- especially for communities that are not currently "ICANN aware". 
>  At the same time, we agree that there is some risk that b) may be too broad 
> as there could be a strong first mover advantage that might make it hard for 
> local community applicants to get in later once they become "ICANN aware".  
> 
> We were trying to find a mechanism that would specifically target the 
> capture/monopoly problem but didn't come up with anything better than the 
> idea of a two-tiered subsidy (e.g. x% price reduction for an external 
> applicant, 3x% for an internal applicant) which may not be an adequate 
> solution.  So what does the group think?
> 
> None of this would limit needy candidates as outlined in a-e of the existing 
> document, and in all of this we are assuming that the already protected 
> community name and its primary cognates would be available only to the 
> community.
> 
> Eric, please correct me if I didn't convey any of this 100%, but I think this 
> captures it generally and think we are close.
> 
> Cheers, Andrew
> 
> Andrew A. Mack
> Principal
> AMGlobal Consulting
> 
> +1-202-256-1077 
> amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> www.amglobal.com
> 
> 
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 12:15:47 PM
> Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Updated 2.15.3 - for Tuesday 12 Oct 10 mtg. 
> Re: [] Revision 2.15 -
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In addition to the changes discussed below, I also added some more text on 
> the FAQ (then again you probably all knew I would if no one else did - i do 
> have a bad habit of trying to fill in a void).  Please check those answers to 
> see if they make sense.
> 
> I have not received any of the updated language I was expecting from others.
> 
> I have included a copy with edits as well as a clean one.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 9 Oct 2010, at 12:16, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Dear Tijani.
> > 
> > Thank you for your detailed edit of the draft.
> > 
> > I have processed you edits and they will show up in the version I release 
> > at the end of the weekend - all changes will be marked by change indicators.
> > 
> > I accepted many, if not most, of the wording recommendations, though in 
> > some cases have changed the wording a little
> > 
> > I have decided to not, at this time, make the following changes.
> > 
> > - In one case I put our wording in as a option to be decided by the group, 
> > although of course all edits get vetted by the group.
> > 
> > The WG recommends a number of different kinds of support [that should, to] 
> > be made available for potential applicants, which falls into the following 
> > five categories:
> > 
> > While in most case I have accepted you change of 'recommendations" to 
> > 'identified type of aid to be provided', I think it important to remember 
> > that this group can only make recommendations.  So In this introductory 
> > paragraph, I think we should acknowledge that all we can do as a WG is make 
> > recommendation to the Chartering Organizations.
> > 
> > - I have not made sections 2.2 to 2.6 subordinate to section 2.1.  This may 
> > come down to a matter of taste.  My decision rests on the following reasons:
> > 
> >  1. 2.1 is introductory and can therefore stand alone.
> >  2. It is a tradeoff in order to avoid growing chains of numbers.  I find 
> > that readers start to get confused when the number get too long.  So 
> > whenever possible I will opt for stand alone sections as opposed to 
> > subordinate sections.  I try to avoid, except in technical documents, 
> > getting to a fourth level of header.
> >  3. A desire to keep the numbering mostly the same as we have been working 
> > with to not confuse things unless there is a prevailing reason to change 
> > the structure of the document.
> > 
> > I did however accept your suggestion to create third level headings in 
> > section 2.6 Other Types of Aid.
> > 
> > - I have retained moving section 2.2.1 (1.1.1    Support for build-out in 
> > underserved languages and IDNs for new gTLDs) since it is a price reduction 
> > recommendation and not a technical recommendation.  Of course I now wonder 
> > wither the shared risk recommendation itself is in the correct section.  Is 
> > it really a technical help suggestion. Ot should it be moved to the 
> > logistical section or to other types of aid?
> > 
> > I have cut some of your comments (the stuff in green) into the latest draft 
> > as comments, so that your issues are not lost and can be discussed by the 
> > group at large.
> > 
> > Thanks again for your continued efforts to improve the document.
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > 
> > On 9 Oct 2010, at 08:52, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Avri,
> >> 
> >> Attached is the last version you sent with my comments/corrections.
> >> 
> >> I put:
> >> ·        in red things to be removed
> >> ·        In blue things to be added.
> >> ·        In green my comments
> >> 
> >> As a general remark, the level of consensus should be highlighted, and put 
> >> either at the very beginning of the paragraph or at its end for uniformity
> >> 
> >> If you don’t understand the raison of the proposed correction, or if you 
> >> don’t agree on something, please tell me. We can discuss it by e-mail 
> >> exchange.
> >> 
> >> I worked from ”The Recommendations” till the first frequently asked 
> >> question only.
> >> 
> >> Hope it will help  
> >> 
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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 : vendredi 8 octobre 2010 17:44
> >> À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Revison 2.15
> >> 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> I think I have captured the discussion form today's meeting.
> >> 
> >> I also:
> >> 
> >> - reviewed in terms of sub-numbering
> >> 
> >> - moved the section on underserved language to being a subordinate part of 
> >> the pricing proposals.
> >> 
> >> - converted most bullet to letter-numbered lists
> >> 
> >> - added the footnote on shared risk pools, though i would not take bets on 
> >> it being an adequate definition.
> >> 
> >> a.
> >> 
> >> <Draft Final Report JAS WG v2 15.2_Tijani.doc>
> > 
> > 
> 
>