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

[Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Everyone,

Eric was able to answer in chat the following, which I will share for the
group's benefit/clarification-

2. Agree remove points 4 and 5, the AG is assumed. It is ICANN's job to keep
the mafia from applying or whatever is the terrorist of the month

3. native peoples in the Americas are covered by the ilo 169 art 1
reference. it is the gold standard for us and also indigenous peoples in
India and Finland and ...

4. Agree add ".corp", since we're not interested in .ovi or .nokia as
assistance recipients

5. the "script" and "idn" language is still there, not replaced (yet) by
"minority language"
[Cintra noted that some of the group stating it should only be for the
minority language that a cost reduction is applied]
-well, that isn't unreasonable. in india hindi and a couple of other
languages have big user bases, but some of the 22 official languages in 11
scripts would meet the "minority" test, in india, and therefore be eligible
as minority languages
- for a community with a conquest language (english or spanish or ...) and a
surviving language (both using the same or different scripts) the conquest
language would be discounted if it is the only string applied for. The issue
is what about the second string, the string that is in the surviving
indigenous language, which is a minority within the minority community.
- i think the cleanest solution is to change the first para to read "there
is full consensus for support for applications for under served languages"
- NO CONSENSUS on the bundling point or how it should be applied (whether to
one string or both)
8. Agree to remove the vertical integration reference.

9. deferring dnssec does not create cost, and early cost is more painful
than later cost anyway. Who ever wrote that article is wrong its not just
signing the zone, which is easy, it is getting the registrars to sign, and
that is hard, and the ab initio argument is really just dnssec evangelicals
attempting to create a rational for something absurd -- the value of signing
an empty zone no one yet cares much about (no registrants, no risk)

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Cintra Sooknanan <
cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>