[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS second milestone report minor typos and comments

[Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear JAS WG,

I know this email is tardy, but better late than never!

The second milestone report was uploaded at
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+comments+on+JAS+WG%27s+Second+Milestone+Report#.
I have gone through the document and would like the following minor edits to
be included for clarity and grammatical correctness:

1. Sebastien had stated in the chat of Friday's call that in Part 1
Paragraph 4 Line 3 where it says "GAC in late 2010" should be changed to
" GAC at the end of February 2011"

2. Part 3.3 points 4 and 5 were part of the MR but should they be included
even if they are part of the AG?
Sponsors or partners who are bankrupt or under bankruptcy protection
Sponsors or partners who are *ubject* of litigation or criminal
investigation [*please fix as subject*]

3. Under 3.1.1 would be given more weight if the native indian community
example in America was stated, not just European [Eric perhaps you may help
with this]

4. Part 3.3.2 not .brand [include *or corporation*]?

5. Should we clarify last paragraph of Part 3.1.2 with the bundling point
for support of both scripts, should we say that we wish to reduce cost one
or both strings?

6. Should the GAC's failure to contribute to our work be stated in stronger
terms?

7. Part 4.1.3 should we clarify if the auction process relates to an auction
for other string or from the application ?

8. Part 4.2 some cleaning up with caps and typos and currently there are no
regulations for vertical integration, so should the last bullet be removed?

9. Is deferred requirement on DNSSEC more costly than initial setup?

SEE IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security,
VOL.8 No.9, September 2008 Manuscript received September 5, 2008.
Manuscript revised September 20, 2008. A  Deployment Model of DNSSEC:
Defining Problems and Solution
http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/200809/20080939.pdf

Excerpt at pg 277 point 4.:
Since, if the
DNSsec is partially deployed, its efficiency will decrease because of non
secured zones which will be always subjected to the faults of DNS; unless
finding automatic deployment mechanisms of DNSsec, who would make all the
zones and the delegations of the tree signed in rapidly.
However, up to now the solutions are slow and meanwhile our name servers are
victims of all sort of attacks.
Therefore groups and companies, which are victims of these attacks continue
to lose important amount of money for some of them and technological
innovations for others.
This deployment should not be progressive, if we want DNSsec to be
efficient.

10. Eric stated in his email Part 4.3.3 is duplicated

11. part 5 bullet one simplify wording of "Capital Contribution" to "Single
Payment"

12. Part 5 point 2 and point 3 change "IE" to "Initial Evaluation"

13. Part 5 point 7 change "we" to "the Evaluator"

14. Part 5 Note section, change "our" to "the JAS Process Support"

If there is any comment or objection to the above please state at your
earliest, otherwise I hope the above would be incorporated into the document
before submission.

Thank you

Cintra