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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Tijani:

I will bring this in to the Agenda 5 mins from the end.  Hope you're on to
speak about it!

Carlton

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


On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:16 AM, <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 <
> 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****
>
> > ****
>
> > ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> -----****
>
> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message.****
>
> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr****
>
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3773 - Date: 18/07/2011*
> ***
>