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

[<tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Carlton,

 

As for your questions, I do agree with Avri’s point about bundling. I think
that this program is dedicated to the applicants that need assistance in
applying for and operating a gTLD (resolution 20). So, it should apply to a
single application (string) per needy applicant.

Even if I support that ICANN consider reduced fees for multiple strings
application in different languages (I signed the petition Andrew and his
friends circulated), I do think that it must be out of this program.

An application for an IDN string may be eligible if the financial need
criteria are satisfied.

 

On the other hand, if we read carefully the section 3.2 of the second
milestone report, we will find that to demonstrate his financial need, we
ask the applicant to submit to the program administrators materials
detailing:

•                    The various constraints which negatively affect the
Applicant's ability to acquire and implement a gTLD without assistance under
this program 

•                    The background on economic, technical, administrative,
legal, and/or socio-cultural factors within their environment which are
causing these constraints

•                    any applicable constraints on management, human
resources, IT infrastructure and the Applicant's technical capabilities

This means that we are asking the applicant to provide materials (undefined)
to the program administrators to show his constraints in economic,
technical, administrative, legal, management, human resources,
infrastructure and socio-cultural fields.

Try to think of the practical implementation of this recommendation:

•                    Since the materials to be provided are not defined, the
administrators will be required to assess those materials, and it will
depend on their evaluation (subjective).

•                    The technical, administrative, legal, management, human
resources, infrastructure, etc. can’t be elements of the need demonstration,
since one may be rich and have no of those elements. All of those elements
can be bought if money is available. 

•                    At the end, we don’t have any objective element that
prove the need

I propose that the WG focus on this very important part of the report and
find objective criteria that demonstrate financial need of the applicant so
that it will not depend on persons’ subjective evaluation. I fully
understand that the criteria that I proposed may not be the good one, and
I’m open to accept any other objective criteria that make the benefit of
this program goes really to the needy applicant.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations

Phone : + 216 70 825 231

Mobile : + 216 98 330 114

Fax     : + 216 70 825 231

----------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria
Envoyé : mardi 19 juillet 2011 04:22
À : SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS WG Consensus Indicators - Request for
Action

 

 

Hi,

 

remain unconvinced by arguments in favor of and remain strongly against
adding any notion of bundling for IDN languages to the recommendations.

 

I just want to refer to one point:  the GNSO approval. Andrew compared this
to price reductions.  He is correct, we do not know which of the
recommendations that the GNSO will accept.  I do want to point out a
fundamental difference in the two issues.  While the GNSO approved price
differentials, it was quite specific in prohibiting the bundling of
applications.  I think this difference is significant given the Board's
appropriate attitude of sticking within the bounds set by the GNSO
recommendations in its decisions regarding the new gTLD program. 

 

I also do not think it is reasonable given the amount of in charter work we
still have to do, to spend time working on support for bundling as a
solution for the in-charter objective of support for IDN applications.

 

a.

 

On 18 Jul 2011, at 22:58, Andrew Mack wrote:

 

> 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 <
<mailto:eric.brunner.williams@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <
<mailto:carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <
<mailto:elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <
<mailto:carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx> 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   <mailto:amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx   

> 2001 Massachusetts Avenue, NW  First Floor Washington, DC 20036 

>  <http://www.amglobal.com> www.amglobal.com

> 

> 

 

 

 

-----

Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message.

Analyse effectuée par AVG -  <http://www.avg.fr> www.avg.fr

Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3773 - Date: 18/07/2011