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

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

I think Avri is right:

 

1.       The milestone report should be updated according to the comments 
received (including the GAC ones) only.

2.       The string evaluation is problematic, and we need to set criteria on 
which we have to find consensus

3.       The string evaluation is not in the charter under which we are working 
now.

 

Today, we have specific mission with very tight time frame. I hope that Avri 
issue the first draft of the compilation we spoke about in SFO so that the WG 
members discuss language for consensus.

 

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

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 : lundi 28 mars 2011 05:13
À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] New JAS WG members - welcome!

 

 

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