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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <eric.brunner.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues,

The requirements for the needs-qualified applicant for which two or more
strings substantially better serve the proposed, or proposing service
community or communities (or would be substantially harmed by a associating
the services, or community or communities with only a single string).

There was agreement among the members of the small ALAC and GAC drafting
team that the GAC target of $47k per is a workable solution to most of the
plural script use cases we could think of, with the exception of South Asian
scripts, for which either special case pleading to the Board could be
offered, or incremental partial plural applications would suffice resulting
in the full plurality after the January-April 2012 window, again with
possible special case pleading to the Board for continuous intra-round
increments, or in within the windows of subsequent rounds.

The issue has been addressed by the ALAC members of JAS who participated in
the small ALAC-GAC meeting(s) in Singapore. If there are GNSO members of
JAS, or individual members of JAS who have alternate proposals to resolve an
issue for which there was agreement in Singapore, or who are unclear on the
above, please let me, or Avri, or Evan, or Cintra know.

Eric

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Hi Elaine:
> Sorry for the confusion, was trying to be economical with words so let me
> try again.
>
> Start with accepting the fact that a community of interest might be best
> served by two scripts. So we have two (2) applications from the same -
> single - applicant. The questions are 1) whether an eligible applicant who
> has proposed two separate applications could attract support for both
> applications, i.e. both fall within the policy goal and assessed as 'needy'
> 2) Given objective, whether you could jointly - not singly, one after the
> other - assess both applications.
>
> Yes, processed by needs evaluators.  And yes, finally processed together by
> ICANN.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Carlton
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Would you rephrase this please, I don't know what exactly you are asking:
>>
>> "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?  "
>>
>> What is" needs -accessed?"
>>
>> How do you mean "processed"?  Processed by the needs evaluators? Processed
>> by ICANN (where there is no system in place to process multiple scripts from
>> regular applicants)?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Elaine
>>
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>