Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] New JAS WG members - welcome!

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Except that with the exception of indicating various condition like community 
and idn in our report, we never presumed to judge whether a string was worthy 
or not.

The only way of judging the worth of a string would be to have the Board judge 
it as being worthy.  And somehow, I just don't see that happening.  I think the 
conditions that were laid down in the previous part work done by thew WG were 
adequate:

> Full Consensus: The main criterion for eligibility should be need. An 
> applicant would not be selected for support unless the need criterion is met.
> Once applicants meet the initial need criterion, the WG recommends that the 
> following categories of applicant receive support (not in priority order):
>  Full Consensus: 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 Values15;
>  Full Consensus: Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), civil society and 
> not-for-profit organizations;
>  Full Consensus: Applicants located in emerging markets/nations;
>  Full Consensus: Applications in languages whose presence on the web is 
> limited;
>  Strong Support but significant opposition: Local entrepreneurs, who 
> otherwise meet other criteria in this section, in those markets where market 
> constraints make normal business operations more difficult.

Of course, we can reopen this issue and come up with a way for determining 
which strings are worthy and which aren't.  Personally I think that is not the 
way to go.

a.

On 27 Mar 2011, at 18:55, Alex Gakuru wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Mike Silber <silber.mike@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
> So I am proposing a 3-fold test:
> 
> 1 the applicant's need
> 2 the string
> 3 the purpose of registration.
> 
> Makes a lot of sense! The archives would support my claim that we had 
> somewhat discussed all the three, but we never succinctly summarized the 
> eligibility as briefly.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Alex