ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[soac-newgtldapsup-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG Consensus Indicators - Request for Action

  • To: Ntfy-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx, SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG Consensus Indicators - Request for Action
  • From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:41:10 -0500

Dear Colleagues:
This notice serves as a call for *final comments/additions/**
explorations/refinements/**propositions* on the outstanding issues pertinent
to producing a final report of this work.  The inelastic timeline compels us
to take firm indications of consensus on outstanding issues so that the
drafters of the Final Report can begin the scribing of our Final Report.

We are expecting our drafting team to begin their work this coming week;
week of July 18.

As previously advised, the transcripts of the calls, the recordings and wiki
contents shall be referent sources for the 'wordsmithing'; the wiki is
expected to be the lead source.

Here is the location for transcripts and recordings:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jul

The wiki workspace is here:
https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/SO-AC+New+gTLD+Applicant+Support+Working+Group+%28JAS-WG%29

>From my review of the transcripts and listening again to the recording and
apropos the matter of IDNs, might I ask this last time for feedback on these
matters:

1) Members are agreed that an 'IDN'ed' application is putatively included in
the class of applications as deserving of support and may be needs-assessed
as qualified. Members have not agreed that such an applicant would have a
higher priority for support or to be accepted on reduced criteria.   Are
these matters to be included in a 'no consensus' list of initiatives?

2) Members accept that some deserving communities - within the meaning of
the JAS WG charter - are best served by multiple scripts.  The question then
is whether this group would wish to encourage multiple needs-accessed
applications from a single applicant and that they be processed as
'conjoint' applications?  And if so, what mechanism would be recommended to
provide practical endorsement of this possibility?


Please make your arguments to the list and add your comments to the
appropriate places on the wiki workspace.

Kind regards,
Carlton Samuels.


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy