[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Questions from Wold-Ulrich?

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Rafik:

Are these the questions from Wolf-Ulrich you mentioned in your earlier e-mail 
today? If these are the questions, is the WG going to address them via e-mail? 
By when do we need to answer them?

Thanks,

Karla Valente
Director, gTLD Registry Programs
Mobile:  +1 310 936 4639

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:24 PM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

sorry for delay, as I replied in adobeconnect chat during the council call, we 
are going to send you WG responses on your questions.

Best,

Rafik

2011/5/20 <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Rafik,

Eric B,-W. has once sent me an answer to Q. 3.2.
As all questions from Stéphane as well as the RySG have been answered - can I 
also expect answer to my other questions?


Thanks and kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich




________________________________
Von: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2011 13:59
An: 'Stéphane Van Gelder'; Rafik Dammak; Carlton Samuels
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO
Betreff: AW: [council] Re: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG
All,

I'd like to add some more to Stéphane´s questions (according to the report 
structure):

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

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

3.1.3 emerging markets - poor regions: in the note to 3.1.5 reference should be 
made to the existing (and to the potential lack of) technical infrastructure

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

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

4.1.3 Refund from auction proceeds: does this mean "auction profit"?

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.

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

I hope for clarification and fruitful discussion on the topics.


Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich

________________________________
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] Im 
Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Mai 2011 12:35
An: Rafik Dammak; Carlton Samuels
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO
Betreff: [council] Re: Second Milestone Report of the JAS CWG
Hi Rafik, Carlton,

Having read the JAS WG report, I want to congratulate you and the group on the 
impressive amount of work that has been achieved.

I have several questions which I thought I'd put to the list so that they might 
benefit any discussion we might have on this during our next Council meeting. 
These are to help my personal understanding of the report and what the group is 
recommending.

On page 3, it says that the group is responding to requests from its charters 
and the Board and the GAC. Should we understand by this statement that the 
group has been taking input directly from the Board and the GAC, on top of its 
chartering organisations?

On page 4 it says "This WG is comprised of members who support these aims and 
are committed to lowering the barriers to full participation in the gTLD 
program by a truly global and inclusive community." As co-chairs, do you feel 
the group's membership was representative of a sufficiently diverse set of 
views, opinions and approaches?

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?

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?

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)?

On the same section, what does the group mean by "relaxed VI rules" in the 
light of the latest Board resolution on VI?

Thanks for any help or any answers you can provide and once again, I would like 
to thank you for the hard work you have both put in to this group.

Stéphane



Le 8 mai 2011 à 01:51, Rafik Dammak a écrit :


Hello  ,

I am sending the link to the second milestone report for the JAS WG to our 
respective chartering organizations: GNSO and ALAC for consideration and 
endorsement in order to  show the progress done there acknowledging that we 
need to do more.
https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations

@Stephane I am going to submit a motion in due time to be voted in  the next 
GNSO council confcall and we are going to make update for GNSO council.
Thank you,

Best Regards,

Rafik