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

[Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

 I've had a good read through of the current document and have posted  
some minor edits below. I also want to add a few lines.
Understanding the disappointment with the Board not adopting most of  
our recommendations, I strongly feel we should in our report  
acknowledge and highlight to a greater extent the positive elements of  
resolution 2.2: outreach, and support clearinghouse  of resolution 2.2  
from Trondheim:
"Support to applicants will generally include outreach and education  
to encourage participation across all regions"
"Staff will publish a list of organizations that request assistance  
and organizations that state an interest in assisting with additional   
program development, for example pro-bono consulting advice, pro-bono  
in-kind support, or financial assistance so that those needing  
assistance and those willing to provide assistance can identify each  
other and work together"
Perhaps something as simple as an acknowledgement sentence in section 3:
"The Working Group acknowledges and appreciates the Board's Trondheim  
resolution 2.2 assent of the working group's recommendations for  
coordinating providers and recipients, and increased awareness and  
outreach efforts to needy applicants.  However we feel that with  
further work more support methods could be approved for implementation."
Finally, please add the posting of the blog in the time line on June  
14, “Call for Input: Support for New gTLD Applicants” (http://blog.icann.org/2010/06/call-for-input-support-for-new-gtld-applicants/ 
) ; and as an Addenda in the report.
----------------
EDITS:

Line 70 fix:
This Final Report incorporates the feedback received from the public  
ad other
LIne 114 fix: (should be recommendations)

In addition to recommendation that should be taken by ICANN to enable  
applicants
Line 472: (should be constraints)

to the time constrains, and the interest in getting GNSO Council, ALAC  
and Board’s
line 499 (should be fundraising, add a period after "agencies")
a)    Begin the work of fund raising and establishing links to  
possible donor agencies.
line 502: (should be waived)
full origin and to determine what percentage of that fee could be  
waved for
line 567 (capitalize The)

applicants who meet the requirements of the program.  the guideline  
allows for

Line 577
insert "be"
to be met.  In those cases of community gTLDs where a community is  
either


Best Regards,

Elaine

On Oct 12, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote:


> Hi,
>
> At todays' meeting I updated 2.15.3 to 2.16.
>
> I have not accepted all te changes from 2.15.3 yet, since we did not  
> review them.  The only change made to 2.16 is the additon of section  
> 2.63. on undeserved languages.
> Hope I got the language close.
>
> a.
> <Draft Final Report JAS WG v2.16-clean.doc><Draft Final Report JAS  
> WG v2.16.doc>
> On 11 Oct 2010, at 12:15, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> > 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>
> >
> > <Draft Final Report JAS WG v2.15-3-clean.doc><Draft Final Report  
> > JAS WG v2.15-3.doc>
Elaine Pruis
VP Client Services
elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+1 509 899 3161