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

[Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric, Carlton and WG,

Here are my two cents...

1) To what I took from Carlton's first email, I think we've agreed that we
do want to support JAS-appropriate IDN applicants -- though this class of
potential applicant, while deserving, wouldn't take precedence per se over
non-IDN JAS-appropriate applicants.

2) We've also established that there are many instances where communities --
or potentially those that wish to serve them -- would in order to truly
accomplish their goals need to have the ability to offer more than one
script to fully do so.  (Eric's examples of Native North American groups,
diverse Indian scripts, users of Arabic and English or French scripts have
all been discussed).

3) I recognize and applaud the work of the group that held discussions with
ALAC in Singapore, but still am concerned that even at $47k we are in effect
over-taxing the multi-script applicant, since the marginal cost of adding
the additional IDN is likely to be less than $47k. I also still wonder if it
is not possible to encourage both lower cost and greater build-out in
multi-script communities by packaging these applications together.  The
Indian examples I think are significant and wonder if the precedent we set
with the proposed special request of to the Board arrangement will work in
the end.

I know there are many WG members that are concerned about gaming, and I get
that and think we should work on it directly as with any other part of our
recommendations where we want to avoid gaming.  Still, so far the most
compelling argument against putting forward combined applications is the one
I heard in Singapore -- that the GNSO won't buy it.  Perhaps that's true,
but as with our other recommendations (such as price reductions), we really
don't know.

Whatever we decide in the end as a group, I do feel that our language should
reflect the preference for letting the applicants speak for themselves and
request the kind of application they want.

Look forward to discussing this and the other issues tomorrow,
Andrew

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <
eric.brunner.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
*
                                                       *

***Andrew A. Mack
**Principal
*AMGlobal Consulting

+1-202-642-6429  amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx
2001 Massachusetts Avenue, NW  First Floor
Washington, DC 20036
www.amglobal.com