RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Tuesday call agenda

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

Good morning,

 

Here are some comments (in green) on the questions raised by Stephane and Wolf:

 

Stéphane

 

Page 6 says that one criteria for eligibility is "Service in an under‐served 
language, the presence of which on the Internet has been limited". This is 
further explained in 3.1.2. But I don't understand what the metrics for these 
criteria are? What makes a language under-served and how can we measure if its 
presence on the Internet is limited?

 

Stéphane is right: our mission is to design mechanisms to encourage the build 
out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in small or underserved languages 
(Item j of the charter), not to redefine and detail the underserved languages.

 

Page 9, section 3.3 goes back to my earlier question about where and from whom 
the group has been getting input. Here it says that the group had agreed on one 
set of recommendations (govs not entitled to support) but are now working to 
change those after the GAC has asked them to. Do you, as co-chairs, feel 
comfortable with this?

 

This should be explained as the update of the original milestone report 
according to the comments received (including the GAC’s ones).

 

Page 12, section 4.2 Do you not feel the deferment of DNSSEC is not in keeping 
with ICANN's mission of ensuring a stable and secure Internet? As DNSSEC is 
such a clear security feature, would it not be better to seek (financial) 
support for applicants that find the cost of implementing it too high, rather 
than suggesting they need not implement it upon start-up (with the risk that it 
may then be years before they actually do implement it)?

 

For countries (areas) where the infrastructure doesn’t support DNSSEC, it would 
be difficult to implement it by the applicant 

 

Wolf

 

3. Qualification of applicants: I've some doubt's an applicant's self 
declaration might be sufficient. At least appropriate references should be 
provided.

 


We can modify the sentence to read: “Applicants will be expected give a 
self-declaration, with due proofing documents when applicable, that they are 
eligible to receive support under these criteria.


 

3.1.2 under-served language: similar to Stéphane, what are the criteria to 
define these communities (number of members...)

 

Already commented

 

3.2 Financial need: How is the contribution of 45,000 $ calculated? Is this 
just 25% of the regular application fee?

 

It was my question when I saw it. This section wasn’t discussed or even read 
during a call. It was one of the few elements of the document that are part of 
our mission and that we should address with the maximum of attention.

 

4.1 Financial support/relief: should this be on top of 3.2?

 

4.1 dealt with the kinds of support, while 3.2 dealt with the criteria for 
support

 

4.4 Development fund: I've concern that this should be under the direction of 
applicants meeting the support criteria only. At least representatives of the 
"ICANN community" as well from the ICANN executive management should be part of 
the directive body.

 

This needs further discussion.

 

4.5 The function of an "External funding agency" is not clear to me.

 

Such as World Bank or any other funding agencies that would like to fund some 
applicant out of 

 

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

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

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

 

  _____  

De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Rafik Dammak
Envoyé : samedi 14 mai 2011 09:34
À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Tuesday call agenda

 

Hello everyone,

 

we are suggesting  for Tuesday agenda:

- roll call and SOI&DOI

- update from ALAC&GNSO 

- discussion on response to comments from at-large and gnso council. (main item)

- AOB

 

I already sent them to the list and we may receive some in meantime.

I think that we need to compile and answering to them in formatted document to 
be sent in prior to gnso council calll (for gnso questions), please try to send 
your opinions about them in ML so we can start working in drafting response  to 
agree on during the next call.

 

please send your feedback about the agenda and if you want to suggest new item.

 

Regards,

 

Rafik