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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Eric,


> 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.

For clarification,the group of JAS members didn't participate in that
ALAC-GAC meeting In behalf of the JAS WG, the outcome can be send as
statement for the public comment addressed to the JAS WG and then will
be discussed by the WG like any comments received and its suggestions
need to have the consensus of the WG members. But if you want feedback
of members about the statement sthen it is another matter and doesn't
engage the WG.

Best,

Rafik

>
> 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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Rafik Dammak
Twitter: @rafik
Linkedin: http://tn.linkedin.com/in/rafikdammak