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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Karla,

yes these are the questions, I think Eric replied to one of them already.
it is better to address them by email, I think that is better than waiting
for next confcall which should be focused on planning new actions.
for time, asap :)

Best,

Rafik

2011/5/20 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>
>
> 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 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]
> *Im Auftrag von *Stéphane Van Gelder
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 10. Mai 2011 12:35
> *An:* Rafik Dammak; Carlton Samuels
>
> *Cc:* 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>