RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Consistency - and Clarification - of Terminology for Final Report

[Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Evan,

Thank you for your feedback. We will work on the draft final report to ensure 
better consistency.

Does anyone else would like to comment before we start making changes? We would 
like to have changes made by next Tuesday’s meeting.

Kind regards,

Karla Valente
Director, gTLD Registry Programs
Mobile:  +1 310 936 4639

From: evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 1:19 AM
To: Carlton Samuels
Cc: SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Ntfy-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Glen 
de Saint Géry; Karla Valente; Gisella Gruber-White
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Consistency - and Clarification - of 
Terminology for Final Report


The following questions are for your advice and consent:

•  Name of the program being proposed. Is it Support Development Program 
Evaluation Process?
Two word two long. Support Evaluation Process works just as well.



•  Name of the foundation that is to hold the $2M or other donation

•  Name for the applicant asking for support. Do we still want to call it 
applicant? Is this confusing with the New gTLD Program? We could consider 
alternatives, such as, New gTLD program Support Candidates or something to that 
effect.

How about "support-requested applicant" for those in the queue and 
"support-qualified applicant" for those who meet the objective criteria?



•  In-kind services – have we agreed on this term for any non-financial support 
offered?

I have objected to the term "in kind" in the past because it assumes that a 
monetary equivalence matters to this process, and it doesn't.
Without the need for monetary valuation, such a term is confusing at best and 
meaningless at worst. If "non financial support" is a usable term, it's 
sufficiently direct and descriptive -- stick with that. "Contributed services" 
also works.


•  Developing economies – we still use, countries, nations, etc….

There can be poor societies within rich countries. It is the JAS group's 
determination whether to limit applicants to lesser developed countries, or to 
broaden it to allow for demonstrably poor communities in developed countries. 
Some instances of Aboriginal groups certainly meet this definition.

A clear discussion of this question hasn't really happened that I'm aware.


We will have a 5-minute period allotted on the call tomorrow for your final 
advice and consent.

I can't make the call.

I personally do not consent to the use of the term "in-kind" and disagree 
strongly with its use.

I would prefer that a proper discussion take place over the suitability of poor 
applicant communities in rich countries for the JAS program. We have, in most 
cases, been using "developing economies" because the question was never fully 
resolved.

- Evan