RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the phone call.

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri

 

Evan told as at the beginning of last call (before recording starts) that he
has a good piece of news: We have to finish this report this week. I asked
him if he is sure it was a good news. Now, I’m sure it’s a very bad one.

 

I read the version 19 that you sent recently. Here are my comments:

 


2.4 Modifications to the Financial Continued Operation Instrument Obligation


While registrant protection is critical and critical registry functions must
be sustained for an extended period of time in the event of registry
failure, the WG considered the financial Continued Operation Instrument
obligation as document in AGv4 to be a great barrier for applicants that
meet the criteria established by the WG. There was Consensus for a
recommendation that the continuity period for the financial instrument be
reduced.

a)     There was No Consensus on whether that the period for the financial
Continued Operation Instrument be reduced from 

a.      3 years to 6 months, this duration still being twice the duration
that is currently defined in the ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan of 15
June 2008.[U1] <>  

b.      or, that financial Continued Operation Instrument period be
shortened from 3 years to 1 year.

I’m really sorry Avri, but you are writing what had never been the case. The
language based on the WG discussions during the calls was the following
(Draft Final Report JAS WG V2.17-2 (2)):

b)     There was Consensus that the period for the financial Continued
Operation Instrument be reduced from 3 years to 6 months, this duration
still being twice the duration that is currently defined in the ICANN gTLD
Registry Failover Plan of 15 June 2008.

c)      There was a Minority view that financial Continued Operation
Instrument period for the financial instrument be shortened from 3 years to
1 year.

The question put in the survey was about reducing the period from 3 years to
1 year. How can you say that there was no consensus on the first option
(from 3 years to 6 months)? Is it because Alan told you that the survey
wasn’t accurate because you didn’t tell what was the other option? If it’s
the case, why didn’t you do the same for the other items? If we will
consider the survey result, we should do for all the text. If not, we have
to ignore it for all the text. The decision whether to consider the survey
result or not is the whole WG decision.

I propose the following language:

 

There was Consensus for a recommendation that the continuity period for the
financial instrument be reduced from 3 years to 6 months; this duration
still being twice the duration that is currently defined in the ICANN gTLD
Registry Failover Plan of 15 June 2008.

 


2.8 Applicants Entitled To Receive Support


 

Note: The definition of financial need and the method for determining the
financial need of an application has not been established by the WG and is
proposed as a work item in the next steps section (section ‎3) of this
document. Progress on this work item depends upon support from the
chartering organizations for the recommendations made in this report and the
addition of experts on establishing financial need to the group.

 

Key to making a support program work is the choice of initial support
recipients. With this in mind it is agreed that the initial focus should be
on finding a relatively limited identifiable set of potential applicants
that would be not controversial to support.    

The main criterion for eligibility should be need. An applicant would not be
selected for support unless the need criterion is met. Full Consensus

>From the support applicants who meet the need criterion, WG recommends that
the following categories of applicant receive support (not in priority
order);

a)     Community based applications such as cultural, linguistic and ethnic.
These potential applicants have the benefits of being relatively well
defined as groups. Facilitating community on the web is one of ICANN’s core
values; Full Consensus

b)     Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), civil society and
not-for-profit organizations; Full Consensus

c)     Applicants located in emerging markets/developing countries; Full
Consensus

d)     Applications in languages whose presence on the web is limited; Full
Consensus

e)     There was a Minority view that entrepreneurs, who otherwise meet
other criteria in this section, in those markets where market constraints
make normal business operations more difficult should be eligible for
support. There was a Strong Suport but significant oppostions in the group
that for profit enterprises should not be included in the categories
receiving aid.

Again, here, there was only one member in the WG (during the calls) who was
opposed to any support for entrepreneurs from developing countries who meets
the need criterion. Even if the question in the survey didn’t say that it’s
for needy applicants from developing countries, I accept the survey result
and don’t ask to modify the text.


2.9  Applicants NOT Entitled To Receive Support


Not recommended for support, even if they can demonstrate financial need,
are the following types of application: 

a)     Consensus  in the group that Brand gTLDS should not be included among
those entitled to receive support as they should be self-supporting
companies and thus should not be eligible for need based support. 

*        There was a Minority view that an exception could be made for those
from countries where market constraints make normal business operations more
difficult and who are proposing a name in an IDN script not currently
supported; 

Same comment

 

Thank you

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

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

------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____  

 [U1] <> Needs to reach an agreement on how this should be reflected on this
report.