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

[Mike Silber <silber.mike@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri

I think we have to offer some guidance.

If we want to allow needy applicants to apply for generic / commercial
strings unrelated to a community in need, then we should be overt in
saying that. Right now it is possible through the WG's silence.

Mike

On Monday, March 28, 2011, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>