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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Elaine:
Noted with thanks.

Carlton

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


On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Elaine Pruis
<elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> HI Carlton,
>
> Here is my proposed language for the in-kind services section, you'll
> recognize the bullet list from MR2. The language following the bullet list
> is new.
>
> Part 4 - What benefits do qualified applicants receive?
>
> Two of the Working Group's objectives are:
> • Objective 3: To identify what kinds of support (e.g. technical
> assistance, organizational assistance, financial assistance, fee reduction)
> and support timelines (e.g. support for the application period only,
> continuous support) are appropriate for new gTLD applicants fulfilling
> identified criteria.
>  • Objective 4: To identify potential providers of the identified kinds of
> support as well as appropriate mechanisms to enable support provisioning.
>
> The following types of support have been identified as necessary:
>  • Application writing assistance
> • Registry services-outsourced or assistance with local operations
> • DNS services
>  • For registries located in areas where IPv6 connectivity is limited or
> unavailable, ICANN will facilitate support from IPv6 providers to provide
> IPv6 gateways into the registry IPv4 services.
>  • Infrastructure-IPV6 compatible hardware/networks
> • Education-DNSSEC implementation
> • Legal & documentation – providing support to cover legal costs or
> processing documents
>  • Translation – The Applicant Guidebook is only published in English- a
> disadvantage to many in the non-English speaking world
> • Training – in areas like building a sustainability plan, marketing, and
> operations
>  • Facilitating contacts with granting agencies and foundations
> • Assistance through the application process
>
> This list is non-comprehensive, there may be other areas where needy
> applicants require support.
> The main proposal from the working group for managing in-kind services has
> been accepted by the ICANN Board at Trondheim in 2010,  Resolution, 2.2,
> which allocated financial resources and directed staff to develop a list
> that would match needy applicants with self-identifying providers:
>
> "Support to applicants will generally include outreach and education to
> encourage participation across all regions," and,
> "Staff will publish a list of organizations that request assistance and
> organizations that state an interest in assisting with additional program
> development, for example pro-bono consulting advice, pro-bono in-kind
> support, or financial assistance so that those needing assistance and those
> willing to provide assistance can identify each other and work together"
>
> The working group recommends that the list serve multiple functions beyond
> identification of providers and needy applicants.  It would also be an
> information resource to applicants; for example, communicating the location
> of shared information, such as the proposed ITU wiki providing template
> application responses.
>
> The working group recommends that ICANN staff notify service providers of
> the list directly and ask them to consider providing any of the support
> functions for disadvantaged applicants for free, or on a cost recovery
> basis, or for reduced rates.  The working group concurs that ICANN
> would publish this list without recommendation or prejudice, on a dedicated
> web-page.  It was also agreed that there would be no vetting or
> certification of providers; each applicant should operate under "buyer
> beware" and perform due diligence before accepting an offer from a provider.
>
> The working group agreed that in-kind contributors should publicize the
> terms and conditions that go with their offer for support.  For example,
> providing a description of licensing for services; (Is the registry software
> proprietary or open source? Can it be run locally or must it be run in-house
> by the provider?), and the terms the applicant must accept, (Will the
> applicant be tied to the provider for 10 years?  Is the service free the
> first year and then at cost the second year?).  The terms and conditions
> would be posted on the list as well as the provider contact information.
>
> One concerned raised was that needy applicants from developing regions
> could become beholden to Northern, developed region providers, as these are
> most likely to offer assistance.  This would counter the desire to build-out
> new gTLDs in under-served regions.  A suggested remedy is that the ccTLD
> operators in these under-served regions would be notified by ICANN of the
> opportunity to assist, and, if interested, self-identify as providers that
> are willing to allocate resources, to assist the needy applicant.
>
> Finally, the working group recognizes that ICANN staff will
> facilitate connecting needy applicants with providers, but cannot commit to
> finding providers for every necessary requirement.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>
> 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*
> =============================
>
>
> Elaine Pruis
> VP Client Services
> elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> +1 509 899 3161
>
>